union - Represent Consumers

Left, right and left out

On so many issues related to the state of our economic recovery, current notions of liberal and conservative don’t seem to apply.

For example, should we allow a real free market to work in our financial system?

Should we crack down hard on those Wall Street bankers who broke the law?

Should companies that want to foreclose on property have to follow the law?

If you’re in favor of real financial free market, tough law enforcement and following the law, are you conservative or liberal, left or right?

What you are is in the majority, and the most important political designation in the U.S. in 2012 – left out.

Your views are reflected only rarely in the political debate at all and never in the presidential debate. Sure, President Obama has repeatedly promised to get tough on Wall Street, most recently in the state of the union in January, but based on the results, those promises have little credibility. President Obama preaches for an activist role for government with the occasional populist flourish, but that impulse wilts if Republicans or campaign funders show the least resistance.

His opponent, Mitt Romney, considers any crackdown on Wall Street an affront to the beloved job creators to whom we should all be bowing down – even if they don’t actually use their wealth to create any decent jobs.

What we get instead of a real debate on how to get an economy that works for ordinary folks is a faux argument over the role of venture capitalist tycoons, between the candidate who used to be one and our president, who has relied on them a key source of campaign funding as much as Romney has.

What we get is the fiscal cliff drama about whether or not to shut down the government.

What we get is each side offering scary versions of what the other will do.

What we get are Mitt Romney’s assurances that if we just get the regulators out of the way, the wealthy job creators will get to work, regardless of whether anybody can afford to buy their products.

What we get is the president’s half-measures and handwringing. But it’s all political theater that doesn’t replace real jobs, real plans to revive housing and keep people in their homes and real accountability for bankers. It doesn’t replace a real debate about the role of big money in overshadowing those issues in our elections. Right now, both sides have left those out of their campaigns.

Politics is a team activity and our natural tendency is to root for our guy, downplay his flaws, and point out how much worse the other guy would be. But this election should not just be rooting for our team and beating the other guy. It should not be about rooting for our guy we’re so hyped up about how scary the other guy is.

It should be about who is willing to confront the big money, not bend to it.

It should be about who can really get people back to work, keep us in our homes, guide an economic recovery that’s not just for the wealthiest.

We should demand that we’re more than just a rooting section for our team, that our bread and butter concerns are not left out.

Urgent Challenges, Modest Responses

The good thing about President Obama’s state of the union speech is that he acknowledged the public’s anger over the financial crisis.

The bad thing is that he appears to reject it. “Look,” he said. “I’m not interested in punishing banks.”

As expected, the president put the rhetorical focus on jobs and the economy in his state of the union. But the actual proposals, a combination of tax cuts and subsidies were relatively modest. But the combination of his proposed freeze on most discretionary spending and continuing Republican opposition make the possibility of dramatic improvement in jobs and the economy unlikely. The speech didn’t contain the kind of dramatic response that 18 percent real unemployment and a continuing foreclosure crisis demand.

President Obama insisted he would veto any financial reform that wasn’t real. But he didn’t spell out what that might mean. Does that mean he’ll veto financial reform that doesn’t contain a Consumer Financial Protection Agency or meaningful derivatives regulation? The president didn’t say. He also didn’t pledge to fight for any specific reforms in Congress. The only specific he mentioned was his proposed bank fee to recoup costs of the bailouts.

President Obama blames his legislative frustrations on his own inability to fully explain his policies. But the president who has repeatedly promised no more business as usual remains afraid to tap into, and act on, the public’s honest passion for real change.

Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/28/2010

Mr. Angelides, Which Side Are You On?

While I was watching the hearings into the financial crisis last week, a haunting old song got into my head and wouldn’t leave.

It was “Which Side Are You On?” from the 1930s out of the coalfields of Harlan County, Kentucky.

Coal miners faced brutally harsh living and working conditions, under strict control by the coal barons who had complete power over the miners and their communities. The miners and their families waged a tough struggle to win recognition for their union and concessions from the bosses.

The lyrics describe how at a certain point in the fight, the population of Harlan County had to take sides.

They simply couldn’t remain neutral any more. They either had to stand with the miners and their families or with the coal barons and the thugs who enforced their rule.

I wanted to ask Angelides: which side are you on?

Are you on the side of the people who are suffering in the worst economic calamity since the Depression? Or on the side of the bankers and the politicians and regulators who did nothing to halt the crisis and whose response has only made it worse?

Lots of people admire Angelides. He’s a former real estate developer who built a reputation as a reformer while California Treasurer, then ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2006.

I found him an odd choice. Previous high-profile investigations have featured lawyers with not only great intellectual chops but who were skilled storytellers and fearless to boot.

Angelides is a bright guy who has some understanding of high finance, but without any of the characteristics that distinguished previous investigators. Far from being a courageous outsider, he’s a Democratic Party insider who has grubbed for political contributions.

He’s bright enough to get training and surround himself with people with those skills.

So why were the hearings so lacking in urgency to get to the bottom of the financial crisis, hold people accountable and offer material support for real reform?

Because Angelides doesn’t understand that at this point, there simply are no more neutrals. If you understand the public’s anger and the mishandling of the financial crisis, then you have an obligation to take a strong stance, and show you are on the side of really fixing the problems.

That’s what Sen. Christopher Dodd found out.

For years the Connecticut Democrat was a darling of the financial industry. Then came the crisis and the bailout. He tried to refashion himself as a reformer but he had no credibility with his constituents after having taken millions in campaign contributions from the financial sector over the years.

The voters in Connecticut weren’t buying the new image. They were threatening to throw him out, so Dodd retired. Since his announcement, he’s showed his true colors, doing his contributors’ bidding by dropping his push for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

Unlike Dodd, Angelides is not running for office, at least not now. But he’s wearing the mantle of public protector, and the public is in no mood for phonies.

People don’t want an arbitrator, they want a fighter.

They also don’t have a burning need for another investigation. Several very thorough investigations have already been conducted, including one by the Consumer Education Foundation that you can find here.

Mr. Angelides, we know what happened. What we want to know is, what are you going to do about it? You can still set this commission straight. But you have to bring a sense of passion for the fight that has been missing so far. And you’ve got to know which side you’re on.

Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission / Martin Column - 01/20/2010