Phony Moderates, Real Power

Beware wolves dressed in moderates’ clothing.

Especially the “fresh thinking” as gussied up by the group calling itself “Third Way,” which tries to put a genteel, highbrow facade on its advocacy for increasing austerity and financial insecurity for the majority of Americans.

Digging beneath the sunny platitudes about promoting growth, you will find that the organization is chock full of high finance types and their political servants, so it’s no surprise that they’re more interested in rethinking what they like to belittle as entitlements and boosting too big-to fail banks than they are in raising questions about the financial system.

And they’re not laying down these proposals just to hear themselves talk.

These people have real power to set the terms of the debate and strongly influence decision-makers.

The most obvious example is President Obama’s new chief of staff, Bill Daley, the former top official of J.P. Morgan who sits on Third Way’s board.

He’s just the latest in a string of  bad appointments the president has made to oversee the nation's economy, from Tim Geithner and Larry Summers to Gene Sperling, the Goldman-Sachs alum who fought for financial deregulation in the Clinton White House, who was recently appointed to replace Summers on the Council of Economic Advisers. Then there's Jeffrey Immelt, GE’s CEO the outsourcing, plant-shutting ace who Obama put in charge of reducing the unemployment rate.

For his part, Daley seems to have earned his job as the president’s chief adviser by fighting against financial reform, especially from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The mainstream media has worked hard to foster the idea of centrism, with Third Way as a prime proponent of “moderate ideas.”

But there’s nothing moderate about the continuing unhealthy influence of corporate America over our political process, fostering policies that are turning us into something more like a Third World country polarized between haves and have nots than the land of opportunity for all.

There’s nothing moderate about the fear-driven wealth and power grab, otherwise known as the federal bailout, that entrenched the wealth built for a select few in the years of the bubble economy, while it increased economic insecurity for the rest of us. As Neil Barofsky, TARP’s inspector-general, pointed out in his most recent report, it also entrenched the political and financial clout of “too big to fail” financial institutions.

There’s nothing moderate about the austerity agenda of shared sacrifice which consists of cuts to Social Security, Medicare and education.

There’s nothing moderate about the attack on the economic system that was built in the wake of the Great Depression and World War II, which combined the power of the free market with a system of regulation and safety nets. That attack, with its intellectual underpinnings in the work of the economist Milton Friedman, was launched in the 1980s and has been carried forward by politicians of both parties.

Meanwhile, two of the most impassioned politicians standing up to that attack, from opposite ends of the spectrum, would probably be characterized by the mainstream media as extremist: Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent socialist from Vermont, and Rep. Ron Paul, the libertarian from  Texas. Those two men, who would probably find much to disagree on, worked together to pass a bill to audit the highly secretive activities of the Federal Reserve during the bailout.

You may or may not agree with Sanders or Paul either, but they aren’t afraid to challenge a status quo which props up the powerful while undermining the powerless.

You can scour Third Way’s materials and you won’t find anything that challenges the risky practices of financial institutions that wrecked our economy. You won’t find anything that challenges the power equation that props up the status quo. Behind its rhetoric of moderation, Third Way knows which side it’s on.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Financial Reform Legislation / President Barack Obama - 02/08/2011

D.C. Disconnect: Revolving Door Edition

When it comes to shaping the Obama administration’s economic policies, only those with tight connections to the nation’s too big to fail banks need apply.

The latest example is the new director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jacob Lew.

He spent most of his career working in government and academia, with one significant exception – a stint as chief operating officer of Citibank’s Alternative Investments Division, which manages about $7 billion in investments in developing countries. Lew was one of those banking executives whose huge post-bailout bonus enraged the public.

In Washington, the issue barely surfaced in Lew’s confirmation hearings. Lew suggested he was too busy running Citibank to notice that the place was drowning in toxic collateralized debt obligations that nobody even understood.

Meanwhile, the guy Lew replaced, Peter Orzag, is headed for a high-paying banking post of his own – at Citibank.

Lew and Orzag were among the large, bipartisan banking-friendly crowd who apparently failed to comprehend or question what was going on around and beneath them in the years immediately preceding the financial crisis.

During that time, one of the places where Orzag and Lew would gather was the Hamilton Project, a high-powered D.C.-based think tank within the Brookings Institute where Democratic Party politicians and bankers could get together to drink in the wisdom of the project’s founder, Robert Rubin, the treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton, a major proponent of banking deregulation, mentor to current top Obama financial advisers Tim Geithner and Larry Summers – and then, the president of Citibank.

The Hamilton Project has been described as a “bastion of the fiscally moderate wing of the Democratic Party.” But it would be more precisely described as the home of the increasingly influential too big to fail bank wing of the Democratic Party.

And who showed up to welcome the launch of the project in 2006?

None other than then-Sen. Barack Obama, who told the assembled crowd, “I would love just to sit here with these folks and listen because you have on this panel and in this room some of the most innovative, thoughtful policymakers, people who have both ideas but also ways of implementing them into action. Our country owes a great debt to a number of people who are in this room because they helped put us on a pathway of prosperity that we are still enjoying, despite the best efforts of some.” (Watch it here.)

This door swinging jovially back and forth between Wall Street and Washington is so common that it registers as a non-event, and makes a mockery of the Kabuki theater of the supposed hostility between Obama and the financial titans.

Ira Stoll at The Future of Capitalism reminds us, in case we forgot, of other members of the Obama economic team who cashed in on Wall Street before it melted down and they joined the administration, like top economic adviser Laurence Summers and $5.2 million a year, one day a week job at the D.E. Shaw hedge fund, and former chief of staff and Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel, who got paid $16.2 million for working for a year and a half at the investment banking firm Wasserstein Perella.

As for Orzag, his departure for Citibank created a faint stir in the mainstream media, where Ezra Klein of the Washington Post notes that Orzag doesn’t appear to be in it for the money, since he’s “fairly wealthy” already, and “his lifetime of public service positions does not suggest a man particularly motivated by income.”

But at the Atlantic’s blog, James Fallow viewed Orzag’s move as an example of Washington’s structural corruption. His comments strike me as stating what is blindingly obvious to anyone who lives and works outside the opaque world of Washington. “The idea that someone would help plan, advocate, and carry out an economic policy that played such a crucial role in the survival of a financial institution – and then, less than two years after his administration took office, would take a job that (a) exemplifies the growing disparities the administration says it's trying to correct and (b) unavoidably will call on knowledge and contacts Orszag developed while in recent public service – this says something bad about what is taken for granted in American public life.

For Baseline Scenario’s James Kwak, it’s also more than a straightforward conflict of interest. Why does a young, highly educated energetic member of the elite, who presumably doesn’t need a Wall Street paycheck, want to work at Citibank?

“Orszag wanting to work at a megabank — instead of starting a new company, or joining a foundation, or joining an NGO, or becoming an executive at a struggling manufacturing company that makes things, or even being a consultant to countries with sovereign debt problems — is the same as an engineer from a top school going to Goldman instead of a real company. It’s not his fault, but it’s a symptom of something that’s bad for our country.”

Around the Web / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 12/22/2010

Fear Factor, Financial Crisis Edition

The administration has been touting what a good deal the Troubled Asset Relief program turned out to be for taxpayers – most of the $700 billion has been repaid; the banks after all, did not collapse, and it only ended up costing us around $50 billion after repayments.

“TARP undoubtedly helped to stem the financial panic in the fall of 2008 and contributed to the stabilization of the financial system,” Tim Geithner, the treasury secretary, said in a statement today.

But now we’ve got a whole new threat to the financial system, according to the bankers. They contend that if the public ever finds out the facts surrounding the rest of the bailout, it will cause them “irreparable harm.”

This is the part of the bailout the administration doesn’t talk about, with costs that dwarf the piddling billions spent on the TARP program. These are the trillions in secret loans the Federal Reserve provided financial institutions.

If it wasn’t for a dogged reporter at Bloomberg News, it would all still remain a big secret.

But the reporter, Mark Pittman, convinced his employer that the public had a right to know who the Fed was loaning the taxpayer’s money to, and under what terms. Bloomberg filed suit in November 2008.

The Fed and the banks fought the lawsuit for nearly two years. But in August a federal appeals court rejected the Fed and the banker’s arguments. Fed president Ben Bernanke announced in late September that the agency would finally make the information public by December 1.

Anybody care to bet on the chances that the big banks will fold when the information comes out? Any bets on revelations that will graphically show just how cozy both Bush and Obama administrations were with the big banks?

The banks’ response to the lawsuit reminds me of the atmosphere of fear and crisis the previous administration and the banks created, with the major media’s assistance, at the time of the original bailout. No time for questions, no time for debate. Hand over the blank check now or the whole economic system will blow up, they screamed.

Pittman died last year at 52. He remains one of the few heroes that emerged from the financial collapse, who raised tough questions in the months and years leading to the meltdown and was not intimidated by the banks’ fear mongering, continuing to demand answers.

Meanwhile, at some point, the bureaucrats will get around to the audit of the Federal Reserve’s activity since 2007. Congress passed that audit with broad bipartisan support in the face of fierce opposition from the administration, as part of financial reform. No doubt we will hear another round of predictions of disastrous consequences as the results of that audit are readied for release. It’s supposed to be conducted by the General Accounting Office.

From the beginning of the crisis to today, fear has been the most potent weapon used by the bankers and the bureaucrats to get their way, along with the complexity of the system the banks are always ready to clobber the public with. The spirit of reporter Mark Pittman remains one of the strongest antidotes we’ve got.

Around the Web / Federal Reserve / Martin Column - 10/06/2010

Letting Go Of Principals

After more than a year of ineffective attempts to stem the foreclosure crisis, the Obama administration this week may be edging toward acknowledging reality.

This sick housing market isn’t going to heal itself, and won’t get better with the band-aids they’ve applied so far. The stakes are high not just for the homeowners: without some stability in housing, the rest of the economy can’t heal either.

The administration announced today that it would begin to encourage banks to write down the principal when modifying borrower’s underwater mortgages. Bank of America also said this week it would tiptoe into principal reduction.

Time, and follow-through will tell whether the administration intends the principal write-downs as another band-aid or something more substantial. Time will also tell whether the administration will fight for write-downs or wilt in the face of the inevitable backlash. It’s also important to note that all of the administration’s foreclosure initiatives rely on the voluntary cooperation of lenders, with modest incentives paid by the government.

There is every reason for healthy skepticism of the administration and the banks’ ability to tackle the problem. As John Taylor, president of the National Reinvestment Coalition testified before a congressional panel this week: “We rush to give banks tax breaks, but we dawdle to help homeowners who through no fault of their own lost their jobs because of the economic crisis or bought defective loans that caused the economic crisis.”

Foreclosures / Martin Column - 03/26/2010

Obama's 'Hostage' Crisis

Tonight’s state of the union speech will be the least important of President Barack Obama's political career. No doubt it will be a dazzling performance, as the president pivots from pugilistic to professorial, from left to right. We know the president comes through with the rhetoric in the clutch. But the true test of his presidency is no longer what he says he will do or how he says it.

The test is whether Obama and his team wage a credible and effective fight for financial reform and economy recovery for Main Street, with the same vigor and urgency they threw into the Wall Street bailout. That will take more than a speech or even a series of speeches. It will take a real self-critical assessment of the president's strategy up til now and a tough, savvy and sustained political battle plan in the face of significant obstacles.

Both have been lacking in the president's approach so far. That’s the real pivot he needs to make now, and it has only partly to do with oratorical skills.

Obama’s credibility is suffering because he and his team keep suggesting that they have overseen a recovery that most people aren’t enjoying. They helped engineer a bailout that they say was absolutely necessary that helped the financial sector but left out the rest of us. Obama and his team don’t have credibility because they’re working Capitol Hill as hard as they can, not to create jobs for millions of out of work Americans, but to save the job of one of the few Americans who could have helped forestall both the financial crisis and the Wall Street –friendly bailout but didn’t, Ben Bernanke, head of the Federal Reserve.

Sen. Tom Harkin summed up what many people are feeling in reacting to comments from Tim Geithner, Obama’s treasury secretary who had warned that the stock market would tumble if Bernanke were not confirmed.

Geithner was just acting as a messenger boy for Wall Street, Harkin suggested. “How long will our economic policy be held hostage to Wall Street who threaten us that there’ll be total collapse if we don’t do everything they want?  Wall Street wants Bernanke,” Harkin said. “They’re sending all these signals there’ll be this total collapse if he’s not approved. You know, I’m tired of being held hostage by Wall Street.”

Wall Street doesn’t like key planks of the president’s financial reform plan, like the Consumer Financial Protection Agency and his recently announced plan to separate some of the largest bank’s risky business from its more traditional functions. The Senate’s banking committee chair, Christopher Dodd has signaled he’s ready to surrender on the consumer protection agency. Will the president announce tonight how he and his team plan to win that fight when congressional leaders are giving up? Or will the president treat the consumer protection agency and bank size as just details that should be left up to Congress, as he did in the battle over crucial aspects of health care reform?

A different kind of hostage crisis helped bring down a previous Democratic president. All Jimmy Carter had to grapple with were a bunch of Iranian revolutionaries holding 53 Americans in an embassy in Tehran. President Obama’s challenge is much tougher – 250 million people and our entire political process held hostage by some of the world’s wealthiest corporations and individuals. Carter’s hands were tied. Are Obama’s?

Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/27/2010

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