Don’t Dump the Government, Sue It!

When our government institutions fail us through incompetence or corruption – the financial collapse being Exhibit A – what is the solution? That’s the question I posed a few weeks ago.

The Tea Partyers increasingly seem to advocate getting rid of government altogether, or at least the federal government. They (and the health insurance industry) are getting a lot of mileage these days by arguing that the Wall Street debacle shows government cannot be trusted to regulate health care. It’s not a crazy argument, but their solution is.

When government fails, the answer is not to get rid of government, but to force it to work better. How?

To start, citizens should be given “standing to sue” the federal government. It might surprise you to learn that the courts have often rejected the right of citizens to go to court to enforce state and federal laws. When I worked for Congress Watch, the D.C.-based lobbying group founded by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, back in the late 1970s, one of our top goals was to make sure that when Congress passed a law, no matter the subject, it gave Americans the right to sue if a federal agency failed to enforce that law, conducted itself in an arbitrary manner, spent taxpayer money improperly, or if the law was unconstitutional. We were often unsuccessful, defeated by lobbyists for big business who hoped to later subvert the agencies with impunity. Nader has written frequently about this tool of democracy, and it’s also covered in an excellent biography of the Nader consumer organizations by David Bollier that is now available online.

Can you imagine how much economic damage could have been  avoided if citizens had been able to sue the federal agencies that unilaterally stopped regulating the Money Industry over the last decade?

A lot of Americans don’t like litigation – because they have never seen how it can work to protect their interests as consumers or taxpayers. But suing the government is a crucial, even life-saving right that is part of the law in some states, including California. For example, my colleagues at Consumer Watchdog and I sued the California Department of Managed Health Care when it suddenly started permitting HMOs to evade state laws and deny autistic children medically-necessary treatments. The agency’s misconduct began after intense behind-the-scenes lobbying by the heath insurance companies. The trial will be held this fall in a Los Angeles Superior Court and based on a recent preliminary ruling by the judge, we are looking forward to forcing this renegade agency to follow the law.

No doubt the prospect of litigation against the government raises fears of wasted taxpayer resources. But court rules allow judges to block truly frivolous cases. And I believe the costs would be more than offset by the benefits to Americans.

Standing to sue is one of many proposals for systemic reform that you don’t hear much about, because they aren’t sexy. They involve changes to the internal mechanisms of government. But if they were adopted, government would operate far more effectively and with much greater accountability to the public.

Harvey Column - 03/23/2010

AIG Founder Asks “Terrorists” for Help

One of the particularly infuriating aspects of the financial crisis is the unapologetic hypocrisy of the Wall Street titans.

These devotees of free markets didn’t hesitate to grab the taxpayer life preservers blithely tossed to them by the U.S. Treasury when they were about to go under. Taxpayers never got a “thank you,” much less “I’m sorry,” from these geniuses who nearly destroyed our economy.

But one among them has set himself apart. I refer to Maurice Greenberg, the founder of American International Group, or AIG. In its prime, AIG was possibly the largest insurance company on the planet, selling everything from life insurance to environmental liability coverage for big corporations.

Greenberg was used to the royal treatment accorded the billionaires at the top of the Money Industry. He pulled in $20 million in 2004 from AIG and an off-the-books executive slush fund the company setup for its top execs.

Like many of his peers at that level, Greenberg was a major player in American politics. AIG and Greenberg’s charities donated tens of millions of dollars to grease the wheels in Washington and keep his company free of regulation.

But unlike many of his insurance brethren, who had figured out that they were usually better off keeping their thoughts to themselves, Greenberg never hesitated to pronounce his views, especially when he thought it was good for business. So Greenberg put himself and his behemoth insurance company at the forefront of “tort reform” – an insurance industry inspired propaganda effort to blame trial lawyers and personal injury lawsuits (“torts”) for higher insurance premiums.

“Tort reform” conveniently diverted public attention from the fact that insurance companies were raising rates in order to offset investment losses in the stock market  - often while friendly state insurance regulators looked the other way. There was another benefit, too. The “solution” advocated by the insurance companies was to restrict the rights of Americans to have their day in court. This usually involved capping damages or attorneys fees, both of which enabled insurance companies to pay out less in claims, and keep more money for themselves. Too many willing state legislatures fell for this trick, though California voters ultimately got it right and capped the insurance industry’s premiums.

Back in 2004, when George Bush and the Corporate Republican Establishment were firmly in control of Washington, “tort reform” was high on their list of priorities. In fact, they expanded their attack, targeting the class action lawsuits that consumers often bring against corporations. Greenberg was a particularly vociferous cheerleader for the push to limit the ability of injured or ripped-off consumers to undertake a class action.

Referring to legislation that would restrict consumers’ ability to bring a class action lawsuit, Reuters reported in 2004 that "Greenberg likened the battle over reforming class action litigation to the White House's 'war on terror.’” Reuters quoted Greenberg as saying, “It's almost like fighting the war on terrorists….I call the plaintiff's bar terrorists."

That was 2004. A year later, Greenberg himself was in a world of legal trouble (PDF). He was ousted in 2005 after an investigation by New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer found that AIG had engineered a series of sham transactions intended to make AIG’s financial picture look better. In 2006, AIG paid $1.6 billion to settle a variety of charges.

Then came the financial collapse. AIG was at the forefront of the form of Wall Street gambling known as “credit default swaps,” under which AIG would sell insurance on packages of subprime mortgages known as “derivatives.” Though long gone, Greenberg remained AIG’s biggest shareholder, so he lost billions when AIG’s credit default swaps went into default and the Bush Administration took over the company in exchange for a taxpayer bailout that now totals $182 billion.

Ever since then, Greenberg’s been insisting on justice… for himself.

Demanding an investigation of the government’s decision to seize AIG, Greenberg suggested “class-action lawsuits that put people under oath in depositions and discovery.”

A fervent deregulator, Greenberg now blames the federal government for failing to regulate his industry. “I don’t recall any regulator coming to look at the [insurance] holding companies, and if they did, it was a very superficial job,” according to a report on a speech Greenberg gave last year.

In a speech in February, Greenberg had this to say about improving America’s judicial system: “We go around the world preaching about the importance of the rule of law…. We better take a look at America and make sure we have the rule of law here first.”

AIG / Harvey Column - 03/15/2010

Finding Opportunity Among Democrats' Troubles

It’s the bankers, stupid!

President Obama, fresh from a stinging defeat in Massachusetts, came out swinging Thursday against the banks, promising a return to the spirit of Glass-Steagall.

The rhetoric was strong but the details were a little vague. It sounds like he’s suggesting limiting the size of banks as well as their ability to gamble with taxpayer backing. You can be sure the finance lobby will fight to block whatever new initiative the president offers.

Obama’s rhetoric is a year late but does provide opportunity nonetheless. The key thing is that Obama and the Democrats’ problems put real financial reform back on the table.

The debate over breaking up the banks has been fraught with fear-mongering and propaganda: supporters of the big banks argue business won’t have the resources to make big deals. Even smart people say dumb things in the debate, as Dean Baker points out. Broken-up banks will still be huge by any standard, just not quite so capable of taking the entire economy with them when they crash.

The obstacles to reform remain the same as they have been:

1.) a financial industry with unlimited resources for the fight

2.) politicians squeamish to take on their contributors in that industry, and only too willing to let bankers squiggle out of regulation in the legislative fine print

But Obama and other Democratic leaders have felt the sharp prick of the pitchforks in their rear ends.

They know that the public is aware of their clueless response to the financial crisis, shoveling billions to the titans of finance while failing to stem rising unemployment and foreclosures.

One step Obama didn’t take this morning was to scrap his entire financial team, the engineers of his too-comfy relationship to Wall Street and timid response to the crisis that has afflicted Main Street.

Except for 80-year-old Paul Volcker, the former Fed chief who has been born again as a reformer, they should all be fired.

On Thursday, Obama insisted he wasn’t afraid of a fight with the bankers. Certainly none of his team except Volcker have shown any inclination for doing or saying anything that would upset the bankers, let alone a brawl.

The current Fed chief, Ben Bernanke, is also feeling the chill from Massachusetts. Roll Call  is reporting that his confirmation for another term may be in peril, while The Hill reports that Senate Majority Harry Reid has “serious concerns” about how Bernanke, who has strong backing from Obama, plans to deal with the economy.

Now is the time to hold the president to his word. By all means contact Obama and applaud his tough speech Thursday. Contact your congressperson and senator and remind them that you’re paying attention to the reform battle and aren’t about to be fooled. Check out my open letters to Sens. Boxer and Feinstein for my bottom line on real reform.

We  need to tell the president and Congress that we won’t settle for phony reform that lacks transparency or a piddling tax on banks that represents just a fraction of their revenues. We need to tell them that we won’t settle for legislation alone – we need an antitrust crackdown to break the power of the big banks.

If you need ammunition for your phone calls and emails, here’s a study that shows how the financial industry has managed to thwart meaningful reform so far: it spent $344 million lobbying Congress – just in the first three quarters of 2009!

Meanwhile, Goldman-Sachs announced record profits last year, while it doled a mere $16.2 billion for bonuses.

Time will tell whether Obama is capable of delivering the fight he promised to back up his newfound populist punch. But let’s not give the president, or Congress, any excuse to back off or get distracted. Only relentless jabs from you and others will keep them from getting cozy again with their financial industry cronies.

The question right now is not whether Obama is up for the fight. The question is: can we turn our anger and frustration into a political force?

Glass-Steagel / Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama - 01/21/2010

A Trifecta of Failure

The near calamity on Christmas Day capped a year - a decade - when the ability of our government to protect its people was tested and, when it counted most, failed.

As Maureen Dowd at the New York Times put it: “If we can’t catch a Nigerian with a powerful explosive powder in his oddly feminine-looking underpants and a syringe full of acid, a man whose own father had alerted the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria, a traveler whose ticket was paid for in cash and who didn’t check bags, whose visa renewal had been denied by the British, who had studied Arabic in Al Qaeda sanctuary Yemen, whose name was on a counterterrorism watch list, who can we catch?”

To that, I add: “If our elected representatives can’t overcome the Money Industry’s lobbyists and legislate a ban on speculation in derivatives, enact a cap on credit card interest rates and regulate the rating agencies after these evil-doers trashed our economy and after Congress saved them from bankruptcy by giving them trillions of taxpayer dollars, what can they do?”

Then there is health care reform, a seven decades-long fight for fairness and financial security that has ended up in an unprecedented gift to the very companies that are responsible for our ridiculously expensive and cruel system. “Congress is effectively making private insurers unnecessary, yet continuing to insist that we can’t do without them,” the New Yorker points out.

From any viewpoint, liberal or conservative, our government’s record over the last ten years is dismaying and alarming. First came 9/11, when the religious ideologues attacked our nation and we turned out to be defenseless against a bunch of amateurs even though the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies and the White House knew a catastrophic assault was in the works. It is an outrage that despite hundreds of trillions of taxpayer dollars spent on defense and weaponry, there were only a handful of fighter jets available to protect our homeland that day, and they were too late. Next came the free market ideologues who brought us the Mini-Depression of 2009 (We’re supposed to pretend it was a recession and that it's over but it wasn’t and it ain’t). There were plenty of warnings about the inevitable collapse of the Speculation Economy, but Congress, the White House and federal regulators all looked the other way.

What has been accomplished by the government’s efforts to protect us against foes foreign and domestic? After an almost unfathomably large expenditure of public resources by the government, not to mention considerable pain and suffering for the public, we seem to be right back to square one.

Which is of course why so many Americans have given up on health care reform.

The stakes are great for the Republic: once Americans lose confidence in government, Democracy itself is in danger. Restoring their trust will be the preeminent challenge of the next decade, which starts today.

Harvey Column - 12/31/2009

Attention Unhappy AIG Employees: Good Riddance

Looks like the top lawyer and other fat cats at AIG, whose salaries are now paid by American taxpayers, are maneuvering to be able to escape limits on their pay. Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that a Ms. Anastasia Kelly, the General Counsel of AIG, and four other insurance executives gave notice last week that they were “prepared” to leave by the end of the year if their pay is cut by Kenneth Feinberg, the government “pay czar” who sets compensation levels for companies that got bailout money. AIG got $182 billion in taxpayer dollars. AIG’s top employees want to bust the $500,000 pay cap set by Feinberg.

Harvey Column / Outrage - 12/07/2009

A different kind of bailout

What a striking contrast between the urgency and dramatic action the government mobilized to meet Wall Street’s financial crisis last year and the continuing hand-wringing, half-measures and wishful thinking that have greeted the dire continuing financial crisis on Main Street.

Martin Column / TARP - 10/14/2009

Never-Ending Bailout is Not a Partisan Issue

It would be hard to find two congressmen more politically opposite than Brad Sherman and Jeb Hensarling.

Sherman is solid Democrat from the San Fernando Valley in southern California. Hensarling is a red-meat Texas conservative protege of former senator Phil Gramm.

Sherman and Hensarling may not agree about anything else.

But the two men have been outspoken in one shared view: that the bailout known as the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP has lacked accountability or transparency from day one.

Martin Column / TARP - 10/14/2009