Muppets v. Goldman

It’s been a rough couple of months for the Muppets. First Fox News anchor Eric Bolling denounces their new movie as dangerous left-wing propaganda because it portrays a villainous oil company executive.

Then Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith quits his job and discloses in a scathing hatchet job of the firm’s culture that his fellow bailed-out bankers refer to their clients in a derogatory way as Muppets.

And what do they mean by that?

Hmmm. Maybe they think Muppets are puppets that are manipulated by their handlers. Maybe Goldman Sachs bankers imagine us to be lifeless sacks of cloth and yarn without spirit and voice, but we’re not.

And no self-respecting Muppet would put up with the shenanigans of Goldman Sachs (though I suppose their corporate owners, the Walt Disney Co., might).

The Muppets have always had a strong populist streak – they articulate sharp critiques of the Greed-is-Good Wall Street culture that Goldman appears proud to embody.

Check out the song “Money,” co-written by comedian Stan Freberg and Ruby Raskin. Performed by Dr. Teeth, it ridicules the rampant desire for more, more, more money at the expense of everything and everyone else.

At the end of the song, Dr. Teeth yanks a slot-machine handle on the side of his piano – which pays off.

If you have any doubt about whether the Muppets would side with the 1 percent or the 99 percent, check out their version of a “A Christmas Carol.”

In his farewell exposé—beyond his Muppet revelation— Smith merely confirms what we’ve already known: Goldman Sachs and the other powerful too-big-fail institutions believe they can get away with screwing their clients by protecting themselves with high-level political clout, bought with political contributions and cemented with interlocking relationships between the government and the firms.

As Robert Scheer points out, it was just a day before Smith unloaded on Goldman that a former top aide to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, Jake Siewert, became the managing director and global head of Goldman’s corporate communications. Siewert is just the latest of a long line of public officials to cash in at the big banks.

How perfect that a high-level member of the Obama administration, which has chosen to align itself with the interests of the big banks time and time again, will now be the one to design Goldman’s defense against the bad publicity stemming from Smith’s oped.

Scheer, along with Matt Taibbi—another astute reporter/commentator on the financial collapse and its aftermath—are full of praise for Smith’s stepping out so publicly.

For myself, I wish that Smith had been willing to step up and connect Goldman’s policies to the financial collapse, not to mention the role Goldman has continued to play in rigging our political system to escape the consequences of its devastating greed and fraud.

That may be too much to ask of somebody on his first day out of the protective Goldman bubble. Make no mistake, it’s not just clients the firm has manipulated for its own gain.

Goldman and the other to-big-to-fail banks have turned us all into puppets, holding over our heads the specter of fear, and pulling the strings to secure a hefty back-door bailout for themselves.

As for the Muppets, I’m sure they’ll weather their current troubles with aplomb. Hopefully their creators are busy at work on a scheme for revenge.

I’ve never seen a Muppet either shut up or stand still while someone ties her hands behind her back. It’s the rest of us I’m worried about.

Goldman-Sachs / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 03/17/2012

The Supreme Court Shot the Sheriff

"Corporations are people." Two years ago, that's what five justices of the United States Supreme Court gaveled into our Constitution, ruling in the now-infamous Citizens United case that spending money is a form of "freedom of speech" and that when corporations put up money to elect people, they are just exercising their First Amendment rights.

Two months ago, the Montana Supreme Court said wait a minute. It upheld a state law, enacted by Montana voters through the initiative process in 1912, that bars corporations from trying to influence elections. The justices of the Montana Supreme Court argued that the Montana law is different than the federal law that the US Supreme Court threw out, relying on what they described as an especially disturbing history of corporate corruption in Montana government.

When it comes to constitutional law, you can't get closer to the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral than this, as I recently explained.

That's a better analogy than you think.

The campaign finance laws, designed over decades to slow down the accretion of political power by special interests, were like a lazy sheriff in a western gold rush town - barely able to keep up with the legal and illegal maneuverings of outlaw corporateers, while average citizens became increasingly like bystanders in their own democracy.

Then the Supreme Court rode into town and shot the sheriff.

Now we are back to the Wild West, with corporate gunslingers targeting anyone - officials and civilians – who are in the way of their profits and prerogatives. Corporate money, often disguised and hidden behind a fortress of deception, has charged through the Republican presidential primaries, not to mention an untold number of state elections throughout the country. The full fury of this greed-driven onslaught will become apparent in the fall, as Wall Street and the .01 percenters weigh in not just to defeat President Obama (who has not cooperated enough) but any number of other candidates on ballots nationwide, not to mention initiatives put on the ballot by real, live citizens detouring corrupt legislators by taking matters into their own hands.

You can already sense defeat among government officials trying to figure out what defenses, if any, are left against the corporate hordes - the CEOs in their sky-high boardrooms quietly counting dollars and deciding which politicians have earned their financial support (or can be bought); the lobbyists with unlimited expense accounts to wine, dine and drive the quid pro quo; the vast underground of consulting firms and PR flacks that follow corporate orders.

No one could have imagined that Montana, with a population barely larger than a big city, would rise to challenge the United States Supreme Court. The Montana court ruling is an inspiring attempt to evade the deathly embrace of Citizens United and, at the same time, inescapably a courageous challenge to the ideologues now re-writing the nation's laws. It can be found here (PDF).

"Western Tradition Partnership" – the shadowy entity that was caught violating Montana's anti-corrupt practices act – immediately challenged the Montana decision, and last Friday, United States Supreme Court Justice William Kennedy (chief author of the Citizens United decision) issued an order blocking the Montana court ruling from taking effect until the court decides what to do with the appeal.

At least two of the Supreme Court justices who disagreed with their colleagues in Citizens United are hoping the Court will reconsider that ruling. In Friday's order, Justices Ginsberg and Breyer stated:

Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this Court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. ___ (2010), make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” .... [The appeal] will give the Court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.

Observers of the Court think that's a lost cause. Renowned constitutional scholar Erwin Chemerinsky believes that the U.S. Supreme Court will reverse the Montana Supreme Court by the same five to four majority in Citizens United. Still, Citizens United's impact on America's democracy has already been catastrophic, and support for proposals like ours to amend the Constitution has spread across the United States and transcends partisan labels. At the same time, Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito are under fire for their close ties to conservative pro-business organizations, further undermining confidence in the impartiality of the nation's highest court. I would not underestimate the power of public opinion to affect the outcome of this showdown – if not now, then in the not too distant future of our country.

 

 

Citizens United / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 02/21/2012

“There Oughta Be A Law” – Want to Play?

I wrote last week that until we change the Constitution to permanently kick corporate money out of politics, we can forget about Congress protecting us from cell phone company contracts that strip consumers of their right to go to court.

I got a lot of interesting email on that post, because most people who read “Where’s Our Money” and other blogs think there “oughta be a law” of some kind. But no matter what you believe in or where you stand on the ideological spectrum, anybody who is trying to make America a better place for human beings is going to have a hard time overcoming the corrupting effect of corporate money on public officials and the democratic process.

Think I’m wrong? Here’s my challenge:

Name a policy issue that involves our power as voters, consumers, workers, taxpayers or even shareholders and I will show you how corporate money has derailed any serious progress on the matter.

If you don’t want to post it publicly, just ask that your comment remain private, or send me an email.

The same day I mused on our new status as second-class citizens courtesy of the US Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, President Obama’s re-election campaign endorsed a constitutional amendment to reverse that ruling. "The President favors action—by constitutional amendment, if necessary—to place reasonable limits on all such spending," the Obama campaign said. This came in the context of a another controversial move: the President had decided to encourage supporters to donate to one of the Super PACs supporting him. “Super PACs” are the shadowy groups that the Supreme Court freed of restraints on political spending in Citizens United. Tens of millions of dollars, most of it from unidentified corporations and wealthy donors, have poured into the Republican primaries. But that’s just a fraction of what Super PACs are expected to spend to unelect Barack Obama in November.

In a stark example of biting the hand that has fed it, Wall Street has made it clear that it is offended even by the timid financial reforms mustered by the Obama Administration over the last few years. Now that the taxpayers have resuscitated the Money Industry, it wants to go all the way back to the insane deregulatory policies that pushed the nation into a depression in 2008.

There was a lot of critical commentary about the announcement, not just by hypocrite Republicans like John Beohner, but also by commentators on the left who feel Obama betrayed his commitment to campaign finance reform.

I for one can’t see how any candidate from either party can afford not to play by the deregulated rules of legalized bribery blessed by the Supreme Court. Like Obama’s campaign manager said, “unilateral disarmament” in the face of a massive attack of big money makes no sense. Our electoral system now assures the survival only of the financially fattest.

But will Obama really fight for the 28th Amendment? It’s one thing to endorse the concept and quite another to press for a change in the Constitution that would strip the corporate establishment of its power to elect candidates and dictate laws. The President has the bully pulpit and phenomenal power, but like the rest of us, he can't hope to pass any laws if corporations maintain a hammerlock over the legislative branch. No one knows better than he how the powerful insurance lobby turned health care reform into a corporate boondoggle. If President Obama thinks there oughta be a law, any meaningful law, in his second term, he's going to have confront Citizens United.

 

Citizens United / Congress / Harvey Column / Supreme Court / Uncategorized - 02/13/2012

The Truth About the AG Mortgage Settlement...."Coming Soon"

The "settlement agreement" between state attorneys-general, the Obama Administration and five large banks over unlawful home foreclosures was front-page news everywhere this morning. Only one problem: you can't get a copy of the agreement itself.  All we have is a few hand picked details promising "relief" to defrauded borrowers, and pledges by the banks that they'll obey the law from now on.

Check out the special web site, which proudly trumpets the "landmark settlement," the "historic"agreement and the "landmark relief," but offers only a factsheet entitled "Servicing Standards Highlights" that purports to summarize the deal, and a bunch of phone numbers for the banks and the AGs.

Everything else is "coming soon."

This is an outrage, and frankly, the news media and all the rest of the pundits out there ought to have demanded the full and complete document before heralding the settlement as a major event. To my astonishment, most of the reports I read today failed to note that the actual settlement agreement has not been released to the public.

Ever heard of the lawyer's favorite maxim, "the devil's in the details"? The banks here were accused of failing to comply with legal technicalities like proving that they actually held the mortgage to the homes they foreclosed on.  When it comes to themselves, the bankers know those details matter: You can be sure that their lawyers have negotiated and reviewed every single comma. Shouldn't American taxpayers and homeowners, who have borne the terrible brunt of these banks' gross irresponsibility and greed for the last three years, had a chance to review the proposal before our elected officials signed on the dotted line?

I've seen this kind of stunt many times before - for example,  a settlement of a lawsuit that was described by the parties in a press release as returning $500 million in overcharges to insurance customers. Months later, the settlement agreement itself is quietly filed with the court, and surprise! You had to fill out a ten page claim form to get your money, and the insurance company got to keep whatever's left. (As a lawyer for one of the policyholders, I joined with Consumer Watchdog in an objection to the settlement.)

It is no little irony that many people lost their homes because they didn't read the fine print of the loans, or couldn't understand what it meant. But when it comes to the settlement of the fiasco, no one can read it even if they want to. We have nothing in print, fine or otherwise, beyond the press materials.

Remember you heard it first here: there'll be lots of surprises when we finally get to look at the details of this deal.

 

 

Foreclosure / Foreclosures / Harvey Column - 02/10/2012

Betrayals and Bailouts

In the latest betrayal from Freddie Mac, the same clever devils who helped bring us the financial collapse three years ago, there is unfortunately no surprise.

The high rollers who run the company, whose mission is supposed to be to support homeowners, apparently still think it’s a good idea to use our homes as a casino.

That’s the conclusion reached in an investigative report by NPR/Pro Publica, which found that Freddie Mac had placed billion-dollar investment bets that paid off when borrowers couldn’t refinance from high-interest mortgages into more affordable loans.

According to the NPR/Pro Publica report, Freddie Mac increased “these bets dramatically in late 2010, the same time that the company was making it harder for homeowners to get out of such high-interest mortgages.”

In effect, Freddie Mac combined high interest mortgages into packages of securities and sold some to speculators, but it kept the ones that would result in the biggest profits so long as the homeowner never refinanced. Freddie Mac stands to lose if its customers refinance and taske advantage of lower rates.

Freddie Mac was betting against homeowners even though taxpayers had bailed out it and its larger sister, Fannie Mae and the government placed the under a conservatorship after the housing bubble burst in 2008 and it faced mounting mortgage losses.

Though Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are known as government-sponsored entities, they in fact have been private, profit-making entities for four decades.

Congress created Fannie and Freddie as private companies with a public mission ­– supporting homeownership, by insuring the mortgages issued by commercial lenders. But the companies had government officials sitting on their boards, and got breaks on taxes and recordkeeping requirements.

During the real estate bubble, the two firms adopted all the bad behavior of other big financial institutions – and worse. Authorities found that at Fannie Mae, senior executives cooked the books between 1998 and 2004, making it look like they hit profit targets in order to justify $115 million in bonuses. Three top executives eventually reached a $31.4 million settlement [with govt or private private pre-bailout] – without admitting guilt.

Executives at the Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae spent millions on campaign contributions and lobbying, courting both Democrats and Republicans (including presidential contender Newt Gingrich) in a successful campaign to ward off more stringent regulation and tighter reins on their bookkeeping, all the while taking on greater amounts of risk, establishing close ties with one of the worst offenders in spreading toxic loans, Countrywide Bank. Meanwhile executives at the two firms were paid lavishly, even after the bailout.

Republicans love to blame the GSEs for the financial collapse, labeling them do-gooder agencies who went wrong in pursuing too aggressively an agenda of providing housing to low-income people.

In his excellent autopsy of the financial collapse, “The Great American Stick-up,” Robert Scheer finds merit in much of the conservative critique. He labels the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac “highly culpable” for causing the financial crisis – but not for the reasons Republicans say. While the GSEs used the rhetoric of helping people, their efforts to boost low-income and middle-class wasn’t their primary mission, or the reason for their downfall.

Fannie and Freddie didn’t go under because they were trying too hard to help people; it was because they were doing everything they could to super-charge their profits, just like the Wall Street firms.

Scheer quotes the testimony of a one-time regulator, Armando Falcon, who faced stiff opposition from Republicans as well as Democrats when he tried to rein in Fannie and Freddie. Falcon testified in April 2010 before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which investigated the causes of the meltdown. “The firms would not pursue any activity…unless there was a profit to be made,” Falcon said. “Fannie and Freddie invested in subprime and Alt A mortgages in order to increase profits and regain market share. Any impact on meeting affordable housing goals was a by-product of the activity.”

 

 

 

 

Executive Pay / Foreclosure / Martin Column - 02/07/2012

The Bank Occupy Couldn't Live Without

Bank of America seems determined to keep providing fuel to keep the Occupy movement going strong.

You probably recall the bank’s plan to soak its customers by charging them to use their debit cards, which was withdrawn after a torrent of bad press.

Clearly, all is not happy in Bank of Americaland, where the stock has dropped about 50 percent from 2010 levels. Despite being propped up by millions in taxpayer help as well as by Warren Buffet, the bank remains in so much trouble that in September, the bank announced plans to lay off 40,000 employees, mainly in its consumer division.

Who needs those consumers anyway?

It’s not just the bank’s lowly employees that are losing their jobs. A couple of top executives are leaving too, but the bank made sure to cushion the pain of their leaving with millions of dollars in severance and benefits.

The bank was also forced to cut back one of its most prized activities last year, spending a paltry $2.2 million on lobbying last year, down from nearly $5 million before the financial collapse.

You may not have heard about the bank’s latest effort to keep the protestors busy. They’ve decided to put the squeeze on another bunch of customers, this time small-businesses.

Several small-business owners told the Los Angeles Times is now forcing them to pay their balances in full, instead of on a monthly basis, as they used to. This change, the business owners say, could wipe them out.

Meanwhile, a firm that helps small businesses get loans calls Bank of America’s level of small-business lending “a disgrace for the largest bank in the country”.

Ami Kassar, CEO and founder of MultiFunding, says Bank of America ranks 6,128 out of 6,800 based on its small-business lending.

Three years after the financial collapse, Wall Street is still a dysfunctional mess, providing little help for Main Street. Meanwhile, our political leaders, for the most part, show no inclination to correct the mistakes that have gotten us here.

 

 

Bank of America (BoA) / Martin Column - 01/05/2012

Mr. President, Keep Your Promise

President Obama got generally high marks earlier this month for “getting it” after he struck a populist tone in his speech at Osawatomie, the Kansas town where he evoked the progressive spirit of former president Teddy Roosevelt.

But if he really wants to do something about the economic pain Americans continue to suffer, the president could start by keeping a campaign promise he made – to lead a fight to reform bankruptcy laws to allow judges to modify mortgage loans in their courts.

Under heavy pressure from bankers, the Senate defeated such a proposal in 2009, while the president and his administration remained silent on the sidelines.

At the time, Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin said bitterly, referring to Congress, the big banks “frankly own the place.”

The administration’s refusal to address the foreclosure crisis remains one of the sorriest aspects of its consistent underestimation of the depth of the economic crisis.

Earlier this month, the non-profit investigative journalism outfit Pro Publica filled in the details on how the administration pooped out on the president’s campaign promise. It turns out that many on the president’s bank-friendly economic team were never enthusiastic about cram-down.

The idea behind judicial cram-downs is to treat mortgage debt the same as other debts which bankruptcy judges are permitted to reduce as part of a bankruptcy.

The impact would be to encourage bankers to reduce principal on mortgages before they ever got to bankruptcy court. Judicial cram-down would be far more effective than the Obama administration’s previous failed programs intended to address the foreclosure crisis, which offered banks insufficient incentives to voluntarily modify loans with inadequate government oversight.

Part of the reason the president can’t hammer the Republicans for their lack of any plan to address foreclosures is that he hasn’t come up with a decent plan of his own – and that he didn’t fight hard enough for a solution like cram-down, which lost by six votes in the Senate, including 12 members of the president’s own party.

In addition, 11 Republicans who represent states among the hardest hit by the foreclosure crisis also voted against cram-down.

Couldn’t a tougher, savvier, more committed fight by the president come up with the seven or so votes needed to win this fight?

As the  president takes on the big banks. he may take encouragement from these words from the predecessor he evoked so successfully at Osawatomie:

“The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”

 

Foreclosure / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 12/28/2011

News Flash: Giving Banks Billions Won't Create Jobs

Last year, President Obama signed into law the $30 billion Small Business Lending Fund as a way to stimulate job creation.

"It's going to speed relief to small businesses across the country right away," Obama said at the time.

It was supposed to help create 500,000 jobs.

Well, not so much.

Not only has the program been a dismal failure, with few banks applying to participate, but it turned into another giant taxpayer handout to bankers.

Only $4 billion was handed over to banks under the lending scheme. The bankers didn’t use it to boost small businesses, and it turned out they weren’t even required to. Instead the bankers used more than $2 billion to pay off their bailout debt to the Troubled Asset  Relief Program, according to a story in the October 12 Wall Street Journal (no link).

“It was basically a bailout for a 100-plus banks,” Giovanni Coratolo, vice-president of small-business policy at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told the Journal.

None of this should come as a surprise. Bankers said at the time that the problem was not that they didn’t have enough money to lend, but that demand for loans was weak because of the continuing bad economy.

“Until you start to see the economy improve and job growth you won’t see lots of loan demand,” Thomas Dorr, chief financial officer of Bank of Birmingham in Michigan, which received $4.6 million from the program, told Bloomberg. “You can’t force banks to lend.”

The lending program was either just another veiled handout to the banks or another lame attempt at trickle-down stimulus. Either way it contributes to the strong impression that our political leaders aren’t actually working on solutions, they’re getting in our way.

Congress / D.C. Disconnect / Martin Column / President Barack Obama / TARP - 10/13/2011

Rise of the Machines

In the Terminator movies, a massive computer network created by the U.S. military known as Skynet suddenly becomes sentient and launches a catastrophic attack on humankind that reduces the planet to rubble. Most of the action in the films takes place before that holocaust, as desperate humans travel back in time hoping to prevent Skynet from being invented in the first place. Technology in that bleak future was no gleaming iPad. It was a mortal enemy.

Unfortunately, there's no unwinding the myriad events of the 1980s and 90s that led to the Wall Street financial implosion in 2008. What's left now is the economic rubble left by the collapse of a massive speculation machine built by Wall Street firms with the connivance of elected officials and regulators.

The high priests and priestesses of the Money Industry were those who could program the computers to predict the market and trade at light speed.  Algorithms were the bible code of Wall Street. Billions were made by these middlemen as finance went viral, growing to a third of the U.S. economy, drawing the best and the brightest into the processing of paper and the manipulation of stocks, commodities, insurance contracts, and later packages of bundles of financial assets including mortgages, and then insurance contracts on those derivatives, as they are known.

Finally even the high priests and priestesses – never mind the regulators – no longer understood that the machinery was not doing, nor what any of the newly invented virtual assets were worth. Trading moved from the noisy floors of exchanges where traders frenetically bought and sold to super-fast processors operating silently on proprietary networks.

In retrospect, May 10, 2010 may come to be remembered as the day we had inkling that the machines were taking over. Suddenly stocks started falling in value and no one could figure out why. Within a matter of minutes on that afternoon, the Dow dropped 700 points. Then it miraculously recovered. No one really knows for sure, but most observers suspect that the so called "flash crash" was the result of high speed computers programmed to automatically react to unspecified market indicators. Today's New York Times reports that the regulators are fearful of more computer-driven crashes - and so are investors.

Another date to remember is June 1, 2009. That day, Air France flight 447, a highly computerized fly by wire Airbus A330 airplane, fell 35,000 feet into the Atlantic Ocean off South America. All 228 on board died.

The cause remained a mystery until the black box flight recorder was recovered from the deeps earlier this year. Investigators determined that the pilots did exactly the opposite of what they were trained to do, and based on faulty information from the airplane's computer system literally flew the plane into the water.

Science fiction has become fact:  we are gradually, almost invisibly, forfeiting our judgment and our human attributes to technologies we do not fully understand and as yet do not fully control. This surrender pervades the culture: Corporations are persons for purposes of permitting them to exercise and ultimately swamp our First Amendment rights, the US Supreme Court has decreed. Restoring the primacy of human beings in the political process is imperative.

Like the Constitution, technology should serve us, not the other way around. An astounding outpouring of grief and affection for Steve Jobs this week has been followed by well-deserved odes to his creativity and acumen.  Jobs democratized computers, putting them in the hands of the masses. The operative distinction is that apple products gave consumers more control over their assets – music, video, photos. Every one of Jobs' creations came with an on-off switch. One wonders what the man had to say about technology run amok, used to gild the lives of a few at the expense of many more.

Citizens United / Financial Crisis / Harvey Column - 10/10/2011

The Neanderthals and the Cave-Man

With 63% of Americans envisioning an apocalyptic future in which wages drop, homes devalue, costs soar and government becomes irrelevant, a new film considers what happens when the angry masses take to the streets. I’m talking about “Before the Planet of the Apes,” James Franco’s latest flick.

I found myself sympathizing with the beleaguered apes, genetically engineered to want more of the American dream but suppressed and betrayed by the corporate fat cats, until finally an outraged ape mob busts loose and seizes the streets of San Francisco. If the intent was to conjure a metaphor, it failed right there: so far, the middle class in this country remains a silent, if not somnolescent, majority.

On the other hand, the nation is deep into a depressing era of Paleolithic Politics.

Neanderthals still walk the earth, as proven by Texas Governor Rick Perry – so retrograde in his views, so far removed from the consensus view of what America stands for, that the comparison might actually be an insult to the Neanderthals. According to a review of his “thinking” in the New York Times, Perry believes that old people should work till they die or live in abject poverty: he considers Social Security a disease and a fraud. Global warming? Fiction…. (just like that crazy theory that a big asteroid killed off his buddies, the Dinosaurs, and led to the Ice Age). Gays? Don’t get the Texas tough guy started.  Presumably they’d be in for the same treatment Perry alluded to when, speaking of Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, he said, “we would treat him pretty ugly down in Texas.”

Who will shine the fierce light of five thousand years of knowledge, humanity and grace upon such as he?

Not, unfortunately, the Cave Man. As Drew Westen explained in the single most perceptive assessment of our President I have read, Obama doesn’t grasp “bully dynamics — in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness and just punch harder the next time.” There seems to be no line in the sand that Obama will not at once retreat from, whether it is being forced to wait an extra day to address Congress, or any of a dozen key campaign pledges that inspired so many millions to vote for him. Last week, he caved on protections against ozone pollution developed by his own administration that were meant to safeguard our kids’ health. Before that, he caved to  lobbyists and approved a $7 billion intercontinental tar sand pipeline – a bailout for the energy industry that is guaranteed to become a taxpayer boondoggle. Remember when Mr. Obama said he would only support a budget bill that eliminated gratuitous tax cuts for the super-wealthy? Or allow consumers to select a non-profit health care plan rather than force people to buy a private plan from insurance companies at an unregulated price? Law professor Elizabeth Warren, one of the few people in this country capable of protecting consumers against greed-driven banks and credit card companies, was the obvious choice to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau – it was her idea to create it – until Wall Street vetoed her appointment by Obama.

Asked to respond to Perry’s intemperate comments, the President issued this gentle rejoinder: “You know, Mr. Perry just got in the presidential race and I think that everybody who runs for president probably takes them a little bit of time before they start realizing that this isn't like running for governor or running for senator or running for Congress, and you've got to be a little more careful about what you say. But I'll cut him some slack. He's only been at it a few days now.”

When he ran for President, Obama promised to bring a bipartisan spirit to D.C. This is one pledge he certainly kept. But the Republican opposition in Congress wanted none of it; their goal is to deny Obama any claim of success on any issue. They are after the Presidency in 2012.

This isn't some college debate. This is a fight over the future of our country. Obama is in it. He needs to fight back.

Congress / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 09/07/2011