Category Archives: economy

Would the GOP Deliberately Sabotage the Economy? Is There Any Doubt?

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in Congress, Conservatives, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Commenting on a Huffington Post piece about how Republicans, and Ben Nelson (excuse my redundancy), appear poised to kill the tax-extenders bill in the Senate, Steve Benen at Washington Monthly writes:

“In the real world, this means millions of jobless Americans will lose their already-modest benefits, and hundreds of thousands of workers will be laid off over the next year, including teachers, police officers, and firefighters. All of this will happen because Republicans are more concerned about the deficit — a deficit they created under Bush/Cheney — than the economy.

It’s unpleasant to think about, and I really hope it’s not true, but it may be time for a discussion about whether GOP lawmakers are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their midterm election strategy.”

What’s to discuss? It’s true. Of course Republicans are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their mid-term election strategy, as well as their 2012 presidential election strategy. Republicans in Congress don’t care about deficits (see Dick Cheney) or the debt, except when they’re out of power. When they were in control of everything in D.C. from 2001-2007 what happened? Were there even any cursory attempts to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt?

Quite the contrary. With 2 wars and tax cuts and Medicare Part D, all on the credit card, the debt exploded.

You bet your ass the GOP wants the economy in the tank, as far in as possible. If unemployment is double what it is now and we go into a double-dip recession, or in their wettest dreams a depression, the champagne corks will be popping and ‘Happy Days Are Here Again’ will be blaring from the speakers in Michael Steele’s office. Do you think they care about the pain and suffering it would cause the American people? They care about one thing and one thing only—power. That’s it. If the “small people” have to bear the brunt of that quest, so be it.

Of course once they get it, their faux concern about the deficit and excessive spending will go out the door as they come in. Just like it did before.

Senate Turns Down Extension of Unemployment Benefits

17 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Republicrats in the Senate gave a big middle finger to the long-term unemployed yesterday, as 12 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting down the extension of unemployment benefits, citing their hypocritical concerns about increasing the deficit as the reason:

“I’ve said all along that we have to be able to pay for what we’re spending,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who voted against the bill. “$77 billion or more of this is not paid for and that translates into deficit spending and adding to the debt, and the American people are right: We’ve got to stop doing that.”

Funny, Sen. Nelson didn’t have any problem with deficit spending when he voted for $165 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008 and 2009.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) also voted again the extension over her concerns that unemployment benefits are so generous that they encourage people to not look for a job:

“We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance,” Feinstein said. “The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don’t want to go back to work at all?”

Right DiFi, the unemployed are getting fat and happy living on benefits that are about one-third of their previous wages. This coming from the ninth richest member of Congress whose assets in 2005 were estimated at $40 million. And oh by the way, whose husband, Richard Blum, just happens to own two defense contractors that benefitted greatly from Sen. Feinstein’s time as chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee.

Feinstein was echoing what Congressman John Linder (R-GA) said last week:

“Georgia Republican Rep. John Linder suggested Thursday that extended unemployment benefits keep people from looking for work…”[N]early two years of unemployment benefits are too much of an allure for some,” said Linder.”

OK, Rep. Linder, let’s apply your logic to the Pentagon. Since you also voted for the $165 billion in funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t that “too much of an allure” for the continuation of both wars? Let’s cut off their funding and end their addiction.

Last but not least, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) turned up the stoopid yesterday with his proposal that the unemployed undergo drug tests in order to receive benefits. Right, Orrin. The 46% of the unemployed who have been out of work for more than 6 months, the highest number since the Labor Department started keeping that statistic in 1948, would rather sit around the house, get high and watch the tube than go to work. Idiot.

I propose that members of Congress undergo drug testing. Or maybe more appropriately, brain scans.

Frank and Dodd Set to Serve Their Corporate Masters

10 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama administration, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

With the conference committee set to start meeting today to come up with a final version of financial reform legislation, the finance industry whores on the committee (aka Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) are doing their best to backpedal on Blanche Lincoln’s provision to force the big banks to spin off their derivatives operations.

“Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd [$3.1 million from Finance Industry PACs], a skeptic on the Lincoln plan, called it a “strong provision” and said she “was on the right track.” He did not, however, agree with his Democratic colleagues Wednesday who said Lincoln’s election win would make it harder to eliminate the provision.

And Frank [$2.3 million], who is chairing the conference committee, gave no indication Wednesday of where he intended to steer the House-Senate conference on the issue.”

No big surprise here either:

“The plan faces opposition from the administration, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.”

Change you can believe in.

With Gregg on Finance Reform Committee Prospects Aren’t Good

08 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Financial reform is once again on the agenda as the House—Senate conference committee attempts to reconcile the differences between the 2 bills beginning on Thursday. This article from McClatchy doesn’t give me reason to be optimistic about the outcome:

“A group of lawmakers who are about to write an historic overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system has been stacked carefully with veteran compromisers — and one wild card.”

“Veteran compromisers.” To me, that translates into someone who doesn’t stand for anything. A typical politician with a moistened finger of one hand in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, while the other hand reaches for the largest campaign contribution.

“That’s Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a flinty Yankee individualist who briefly was set to be President Barack Obama’s commerce secretary before he changed his mind. Gregg’s expected to be the leading proponent of GOP and financial sector views, and therefore a key player in shaping the final legislation.”

An “individualist” who is “expected to be the leading proponent of GOP and financial sector views?” Can you say oxymoron? More like a party-line hack who is in the pocket of the financial sector to the tune of $710,000 from financial industry PACs, and who has a 78% approval rating by the US Chamber of Commerce for his pro-business voting record.

“Gregg, who’s retiring from the Senate after this year, thinks some features of the legislation that initially passed the Senate and the House of Representatives amount to dangerous liberalism. He’s unenthusiastic about expanding government oversight of banks and other financial institutions, and creating a powerful new agency to protect consumers’ financial interests.”

In other words, Gregg is for the status quo. No new regulation necessary, leave it in the hands of private business. That’s worked so well in the Gulf of Mexico, why not do the same for Wall Street. “Dangerous liberalism?” Can it be any more dangerous than the hands-off, let the market fix itself attitude that nearly led to Great Depression, Part II?

“This bill doesn’t break down conservative-liberal. This bill breaks down populist-rational,” he said. He cited a desire in both parties to punish Wall Street and show voters that Congress can get tough with the financial sector, but he fears that could go too far.

Wrong, Senator. It breaks down along what’s in the best interest of the people vs. what’s in the best interest of the big bankers, and it’s pretty clear what side you come down on there. Go too far? These greedy SOBs nearly caused the collapse of our economy and  put millions of people out of work. Is there such a thing as going too far?

“Financial interests, which also fear the bill will overreach, hope Gregg can bridge differences. “He will help to serve as an honest broker to achieve consensus among the conferees,” said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, the trade group for big financial firms.

“Honest broker.” Right. As honest as $710,000 will allow. And as usual, Democrats are sending the fox an engraved invitation to the henhouse:

“Democrats say that not only will Gregg be invited in, he also could become a crucial voice as deliberations progress.”

Which tells me one of two things. Either Democrats have a serious case of amnesia and don’t remember that no matter what Republicans say, they are there to block what they can and weaken the rest until it amounts to nothing, or Democrats on the committee don’t want real reform and Gregg is their useful idiot.

I think the latter is more likely.

Goldman’s “Clients” Interests Always Come First” (Snicker)

20 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, Goldman Sachs, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

The giant vampire squid gets the gold mine:

“Goldman Sachs makes more money from trading than any other Wall Street firm. In the first quarter, the bank’s $7.39 billion in revenue from trading fixed-income, currencies and commodities dwarfed the $5.52 billion made by its closest rival, Charlotte, North Carolina-based Bank of America Corp. In equities, Goldman Sachs’s $2.35 billion in revenue was about 50 percent higher than its nearest competitor.”

Their clients, whose “interests always come first” (now tell me the one about Goldilocks and the bears) get the shaft:

“Goldman Sachs Group Inc. racked up trading profits for itself every day last quarter. Clients who followed the firm’s investment advice fared far worse.

Seven of the investment bank’s nine “recommended top trades for 2010” have been money losers for investors who adopted the New York-based firm’s advice, according to data compiled by Bloomberg from a Goldman Sachs research note sent yesterday. Clients who used the tips lost 14 percent buying the Polish zloty versus the Japanese yen, 9.4 percent buying Chinese stocks in Hong Kong and 9.8 percent trading the British pound against the New Zealand dollar.”

And these are the people who want to get their hands on your 401k.

Senate Votes on Financial Regulation Amendments

12 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, McCain, Politics, Progressives, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Any time anything passes in the Senate by a vote of 96–0 I’m suspicious. Those numbers are usually reserved for meaningless proclamations declaring ‘National Be Kind to Puppies and Kitties Day.’ But such a vote took place yesterday on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ amendment to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sanders’ original amendment would have required the Fed to submit to regular audits, but the watered-down version passed yesterday is for a one-time audit with a specific scope and time frame. This only adds to my suspicion that the newer version is more than likely toothless:

“A Fed spokeswoman declined to comment on the Senate action, but Fed leaders, who previously have objected to broader efforts to review monetary policy, have not opposed the most recent version of Sanders’s proposal.”

A more accurate gauge of where the Senate stands on REAL financial reform can be found in other amendments taken up yesterday, like the one proposed by David Vitter which called for the stronger provisions contained in Sanders’ original proposal. It was voted down 62 to 37 with only 6 Democrats voting “Yea”—Cantwell, Dorgan, Feingold, Lincoln, Webb, and Wyden.

Another amendment, proposed by Sen. McCain, called for a time frame for winding down and eventually ending the government’s conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That failed by a vote of 56 to 43 with only 2 Democrats–Bayh and Feingold–voting “Yea.” An alternative to the McCain amendment, proposed by Chris Dodd, called for “the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study on ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” That passed by a margin of 63–36. Russ Feingold (I detect a pattern here) was the lone Democrat voting “Nay.”

Credit where credit is due, Sen. Shelby is right on the money (so to speak):

“Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were at the heart of the financial crisis,” Shelby said Tuesday. “How we can have basic regulatory reform, financial reform, if we’re not going to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?”

Also set for a vote this week is Sen. Lincoln’s amendment which would place strong restrictions on derivative trading. Needless to say, Wall Street is going all out to kill this:

“…the five [largest] banks together have mustered more than 130 registered lobbyists, including 40 former Senate staff members and one retired senator, Trent Lott. The list includes former staff members for the Senate majority and minority leaders, the chairmen and ranking members of the banking and finance committees, and more than 15 other senators. In the first quarter, the banks spent $6.1 million on lobbying.”

Why are the banksters fighting so hard to stop it? Follow the money:

“The change could cost the industry a lot of money. Banks reported $22.6 billion in derivatives revenue in 2009..”

The Geithner Solution to Regulatory Failure: More Authority for Regulators

08 Saturday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, Politics, too big to fail, Uncategorized, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Sure, federal regulators (like the former head of the New York Federal Reserve pictured at left) were inept, incompetent, and inadequate when it came to their ability to first foresee and then to take proper pre-emptive action based on all the red flags that were waving leading up to the financial crisis.

Sure, they may have overlooked the dangers of subprime mortgages, of major financial institutions being leveraged 30 to 1, and of those financial institutions becoming so interconnected through the packaging, re-packaging, and re-re-packaging of toxic securities and selling them back and forth that the failure of one could lead to the failure of all.

Hey, just minor oversights. No need to think they don’t deserve to keep their jobs, or better yet, be given more authority. Treasury Secretary Geithner seems to think so:

“During an appearance on Capitol Hill, Geithner acknowledged failures in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s supervision of Citigroup and other large banks, said regulators were “not conservative enough” when it came to overseeing banks’ leverage ratios and criticized capital requirements as not having done a “good enough job” as a buffer against risk.

He also said that regulators like himself could have done more to prevent the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression…To ensure these kinds of failures are avoided in the future…Geithner wants to leave it up to federal regulators — the same ones that presided over the housing bubble, oversaw extreme risk-taking by banks and other financial firms, and tried (yet failed) to contain a subprime crisis from mushrooming into a financial meltdown.

[…]

In short, Geithner said he wants to give regulators more authority, leaving it up to them to exercise their best judgment.”

No thanks, Tim. We’ve seen what leaving crucial decisions up to the “best judgment” of federal regulators leads to, from Wall Street to the Gulf of Mexico.

Quote of the Day: Taibbi’s Goldman–Roethlisberger Analogy

06 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, Financial Crisis, Goldman Sachs, Politics, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

From Matt Taibbi’s latest at Rolling Stone, The Feds vs. Goldman:

“The bank will try and – who knows – might even succeed in defending itself in a court of law against these charges. But in the court of public opinion it was doomed the instant the SEC decided to put this ghastly black comedy of a fraud case on the street for everyone to see. Just as Pittsburgh Steeler Ben Roethlisberger will never recover from the image of him (allegedly) waving his dick at a scared 20-year-old coed in the darkened hallway of a Georgia nightclub, Goldman may never bounce back from the SEC’s brutal blow-by-blow account of how the bank conspired with a hedge-fund magnate to bend one gullible business partner after another over the edge of the subprime housing market.

Priceless.

Alan Grayson on Geithner’s Conflict of Interest

06 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in Congress, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Progressives, too big to fail, Uncategorized, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

I’ve been considering relocating from Texas to the Sunshine State, since it looks like we may be in for another 4 years of Secessionist Rick here. Alan Grayson’s latest shot across the bow of the U.S.S Turbo Timmy might be enough to tip the scales. From Zero Hedge:

“In today’s ABC Top Line, Alan noted, “when Tim Geithner says that he doesn’t want to see the Fed audited, what he’s really saying is he doesn’t want to see Tim Geithner audited…”

“He was the head of the New York Fed for years and years. This audit would apply to him. And the actions he took — which he can now take in secret and, when this bill passes, will no longer be secret — we’ll be able to see and understand the decisions that he made that among other things put huge amounts of bailout money into the hands of private interests.” Grayson added: “It’s one of the biggest conflicts of interest I’ve ever seen.”

[…]

“The Fed doesn’t want to be audited. Who does? Do you want to be audited? I don’t want to be audited, but sometimes it’s necessary,” he said. “When you’re handing out a trillion dollars at a time — a trillion dollars at a time, which works out to $3,000 for every man woman and child in this country — don’t we have a right to know what happened to it?”

“It’s central to the bill. We’ve had secret bailouts from the Fed to private interests now for the past two years without any exposure whatsoever. … We need to know what happened to our money, because when the Fed hands out our money, every dollar in your pocket, every dollar in your checking account, every dollar in your 401(k) becomes that much cheaper and less in value.”

Dialing 1-800-MOVERS.

Senate Passes Two Meaningless Amendments on Financial Regulation

06 Thursday May 2010

Posted by in Congress, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Any time I see that the Senate has passed something by a vote of 93–5 or 96–1 I can be sure of one thing—it’s meaningless. It’s the equivalent of a proclamation naming Sunday as the official first day of the week. Such was the case yesterday with 2 amendments to the financial regulatory bill:

“The Senate on Wednesday approved two amendments to the financial regulatory bill that both Democrats and Republicans claimed would end the prospect of taxpayer-financed bailouts for companies deemed “too big to fail.”

[…]

By a vote of 93 to 5, the Senate approved an amendment by Senator Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee [which] eliminated a $50 billion fund that was designed to help bridge financial shortfalls while a failing company was undergoing liquidation. Mr. Shelby said the fund was “a honey pot” that would facilitate “backdoor bailouts.” (Somewhere Frank Luntz is smiling).

[…]

The Shelby amendment also requires the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to oversee the liquidation of a systemically important financial company that is failing, using money provided by a special line of credit with the Treasury.”

And where does the Treasury get its money again?

“The Senate also approved, by a vote of 96 to 1, an amendment by Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, saying that no taxpayer money may be used to keep a ailing financial company alive.”

Wow, earthshaking stuff there too. Wake me up when (or should that be if) they get around to the Brown–Kaufman amendment.