Category Archives: financial reform

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.

Advertisement

“Audacity” is the New “Uppity”

26 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in Congress, financial reform, health care, Obama, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

President Obama held a meeting with Senate Republicans yesterday–no cameras present. I would assume GOP senators learned a lesson from the dressing-down their House counterparts took in January with cameras rolling and insisted on that. Afterward, Bob Corker of Tennessee and Pat Roberts of Kansas gave their versions of what transpired, and what they allegedly said to the president.

Corker spoke with Greg Sargent of The Plum Line:

“He got all uppity I felt like there was a degree of audacity in him being there today, after passing his third large partisan bill,” Corker told me, insisting Republicans had been stiff-armed by the White House on financial reform, health care, and the stimulus.

“I told him I felt like a prop afer the actions they had taken regarding bipartisanship,” Corker said. “It hit a nerve.” Corker added that Obama came back at him with “quite a lengthy response,” but he declined to share what, precisely, the president said.”

(Memo to President Obama: Limit your responses to Republican questions to short catchy phrases and words of no more than 2 syllables, they’re used to listening to Palin and get easily confused).

Hit a nerve, Bob? I can’t imagine why. Probably because you and your colleagues in the Senate have been nothing but road blocks to everything since day one of President Obama’s administration. (Latest case in point, Sen. Inhofe blocking the lifting of the liability cap on BP.) The president has taken a lot heat from his base for going too far in accommodating Republicans who in spite of those consolations have, with few exceptions, voted against everything. Yeah, I guess that statement might have “hit a nerve.”

Here’s what hits the GOP’s nerve. Their plan from Inauguration Day in January of 2009 was to block any and all legislation. In spite of their obstructionism, two major pieces  of the president’s agenda have been passed (the stimulus package and health care reform) and another (financial reform) is in conference committee.

What Sen. Roberts had to say is so ridiculous it’s barely worth a mention, but it’s a good example of the pervasive Republican attitude toward the president.

“He needs to take a Valium before he comes in and talks to Republicans,” Sen. Pat Roberts (Kan.) told reporters. “He’s pretty thin-skinned.”

Sen. Roberts, have a little respect please. At least try and fake it when you’re speaking to the national media and not at a Tea Party whinefest rally.

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..”

Six Senators “Abstain” on Brown–Kaufman Amendment

08 Saturday May 2010

Posted by in Congress, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

The gutlessness of our elected representatives never ceases to amaze. In Thursday night’s vote on the Brown–Kaufman amendment to limit the size of the big banks, 6 Senators voted “abstain”:

* Sen. Robert Bennett [R, UT]
* Sen. Jim Bunning [R, KY]
* Sen. Robert Byrd [D, WV]
* Sen. Jim DeMint [R, SC]
* Sen. Richard Lugar [R, IN]
* Sen. David Vitter [R, LA]

Profiles in cowardice.

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.

Oligarchs of a Feather Stick Together

02 Sunday May 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Buffett defends Blankfein:

OMAHA, Neb.— Warren Buffett offered a vigorous defense of Goldman Sachs Group Inc. Saturday, saying the embattled firm hadn’t engaged in improper activity and shouldn’t be blamed for the losses of its clients.

[…]

Mr. Buffett’s comments—which came early in the day at Berkshire Hathaway Inc.’s annual shareholders meeting—offer a powerful vote of confidence in Goldman, which has seen its shares slide since the SEC announced the investigation on April 16. Goldman’s stock fell 9.4% on Friday alone after it emerged that the Manhattan district attorney’s office was conducting a preliminary criminal probe into its mortgage-trading activities.

[…]

The billionaire investor said he fully supported Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Asked if he could choose a successor for Mr. Blankfein, Mr. Buffett said: “If Lloyd had a twin brother I’d go for him.”

But he does, Mr. Buffett, he does.

The Short-Lived “New Era of Openness”

01 Saturday May 2010

Posted by in economy, financial reform, Obama, Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

January 21, 2009:

“On his first full day in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order and two presidential memoranda heralding what he called a “new era of openness.”…President Obama said that “every agency and department should know that this administration stands on the side not of those who seek to withhold information, but those who seek to make it known.”

April 30, 2010:

“The Senate is getting ready to kick its financial reform debate into high gear next week when they start voting on amendments on all kinds of issues from both parties.

Obama administration officials have declined to weigh in on any specific amendments, with one exception: a move by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) to give the government more power to audit certain operations at the Federal Reserve. Fed and administration officials have signaled they would fight to stop it at all costs.”

So I guess the definition of an “era” is now about 15 months.

“Put Up or Shut Up” Time on Too Big To Fail

01 Saturday May 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Now that the Senate Republicans have abandoned their filibuster (after perusing the public opinion polls on Wall Street and observing the tap-dancing by Goldman Sachs execs at the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations hearings, I assume) financial reform legislation is set for debate.

Richard Eskow at the Huffington Post has a one-question test we can apply to our elected representatives to tell if they are serious about reforming the financial system or just being a posturing, pontificating blowhard—something that comes naturally to most politicians.

“This quick, easy-to-use test can be applied from the comfort of your own home (if you still have one), from that third job you’ve got to work every evening (too bad you can’t help the kids with homework anymore) … why you can even use it while you’re waiting on line to collect the last of your unemployment benefits!

As long as there’s a television droning away in the waiting area while you wait for that job interview, or a newspaper somebody left behind on that park bench, as long as you can learn how your politician voted, you can learn whether he’s really on your side or just another bank lackey.

Here’s the test: Will they vote to break up the big banks or not? It’s as simple as that … really.

…Yesterday Sens. Ted Kaufman and Sherrod Brown officially introduced an amendment that limits the size of banks and the amount of risk they can take. Under this amendment, no bank could become either so big or so leveraged that its collapse could threaten the economy… An identical amendment was introduced in the House by Reps Brad Miller, Keith Ellison, Steve Cohen, and Ben Chandler.

…What’s striking about the proposal is how simple and effective it is. No bank could hold more than 10% of the nation’s deposits, nor could it leverage (take risks with) sums that amount to more than 2% of the GDP.

What’s also striking is how few institutions it would affect. Only the three biggest banks would be affected by the size limit, and the cap on liabilities would only affect an estimate nine institutions or so.

These amendments offer our representatives in the House and Senate a simple choice: Support a safer and more rational banking system, or be counted among those whose votes are being swayed by the influence of Wall Street money. And they give the rest of us an invaluable tool. We’ll be able to see whether our leaders really means those words about “too big to fail” and “no more bailouts” by seeing whether or not they vote for these amendments.

If they do, they’ve passed the test. If they don’t, they’ve failed. Simple as that.

Here’s the greatest benefit this new test offers to frustrated voters everywhere. It lets us say to politicians, once and for all, on one of the most crucial issues of our day, those words every citizen longs to say to a long-winded public servant:

Put up or shut up.”

Incompetence and Regulatory Capture at Washington Mutual

29 Thursday Apr 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Financial Crisis, financial reform, Politics, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Any questions about why financial reform legislation must have strict provisions for enforcement not left up to the discretion of the so-called “regulators” should be cleared up by David Heath’s extensive piece at the Huffington Post about incompetence, corruption, and regulatory capture at Washington Mutual:

“A recent Senate inquiry offered a rare peek into the secret world of bank examiners. What it revealed was that regulators had stopped regulating.

In the case of Washington Mutual, regulators found all sorts of trouble, from lax lending standards to high delinquency rates on loans, and yet failed to prevent the biggest bank failure in history.

Starting in 2003, examiners for the Office of Thrift Supervision found 545 problems at the bank. But the agency left it up to WaMu to track its own compliance with examiners’ recommendations, and took no formal action against the bank until it was too late.

[…]

A central lesson from the failure of Washington Mutual was that a system set up to prevent what happened utterly failed. For all the talk of reform, Congress isn’t addressing the problem of regulators who fail to do their job.

Regulators routinely deferred to bankers and market forces and engaged in petty squabbles over who had authority over the bank. So the question now is: Can Congress fix ineffective regulators themselves?

[…]

OTS’s own fortunes were heavily tied to Washington Mutual’s. The bank paid fees that amounted to 15 percent of OTS’s budget – more than any other financial institution under its watch. So it was in the OTS’s interest to make sure WaMu survived as a thrift, a bank that specializes in home mortgages.”

Can Congress fix it? Yes they can. Will they? Ay, there’s the rub.