Category Archives: lobbyists

A Conversation With Thomas Jefferson

22 Monday Nov 2010

Posted by in Afghanistan, Bill of Rights, Financial Crisis, Foreclosures, lobbyists, Politics, special interests, Uncategorized, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

I recently sat down for an interview (sort of) with our third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson. The questions are mine, the responses all quotes attributed to Jefferson. You could look it up:

Mr. Jefferson, a topic in the headlines lately are the security measures being taken in our airports, the aim of which is, allegedly, our safety. What is your opinion on that?

“I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.”

Many Americans are protesting these actions by government officials. Would you support that effort?

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent…Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.”

Some see this as the continuation of policies instituted after September 11 which erode our civil liberties and Constitutional protections. Your thoughts?

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery.”

Also, on a related subject, what about the controversy over whether or not to try terrorist suspects in civilian court?

“I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet devised by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

Moving on to economic issues, have you been keeping up with what’s been labeled Foreclosuregate?

“If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”

What about the influence of the financial system on our political process?

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the Government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.”

And the influence, in general, of special and corporate interests?

“Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.”

What about the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world?

“I abhor war and view it as the greatest scourge of mankind…I love peace, and am anxious that we should give the world still another useful lesson, by showing to them other modes of punishing injuries than by war, which is as much a punishment to the punisher as to the sufferer.”

“War is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses.”

Any thoughts about ending the policy of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?

“Bigotry is the disease of ignorance, of morbid minds…Bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.”

In closing, Mr. President, any final words of guidance for the American people?

“If a Nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be…. If we are to guard against ignorance and remain free, it is the responsibility of every American to be informed.”

“The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.”

Thank you, sir.

Making Sense of the Tax Cut Extension Contradictions

11 Saturday Sep 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, lobbyists, Obama, Politics, Republicans, special interests

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

A couple of things don’t make sense in this debate over letting the tax cuts for the top 2% expire. Don’t make sense on the surface, that is. Dig a little deeper and it becomes perfectly clear.

Why is there such angst in Congress about raising taxes on the wealthy? Members of both the House and the Senate in both parties say they are so concerned with the deficit, but yet extending the cuts will add about $700 billion to the deficit. Many say raising taxes will kill job creation, but those same cuts led to little or no job creation during the 9 years they have been in effect. So what’s the big deal about raising taxes on millionaires?

Because they would be voting to raise taxes on themselves. One percent of Americans are millionaires, but 44% of the members of Congress are millionaires—237 out of 535. They would be voting not only to raise taxes on themselves, but their friends, their associates, and most importantly to them, the people who write the large campaign contribution checks.

Here’s the other thing that doesn’t appear to make sense. Naturally, most Republicans are against letting the cuts expire, for no other reason than that President Obama is in favor of it. But why are an increasing number of Democrats coming out in favor of an extension? Besides the fact that many if them are included in that number of millionaires, that is.

I know some probably get tired of me beating the drum for the importance of organized labor, but unions were once the largest constituency group and voting bloc who stood up and spoke out for working and middle-class people. Into the “vacuum” left by decreasing union membership and its influence on politicians and policy has stepped corporate interests and their money. From Winner-Take-All Politics via Kevin Drum at Mother Jones:

“Unions…are the particular focus of business animus. As they decline, they leave a vacuum. There’s no other nationwide organization dedicated to persistently fighting for middle class economic issues and no other nationwide organization that’s able to routinely mobilize working class voters to support or oppose specific federal policies.

With unions in decline and political campaigns becoming ever more expensive, Democrats eventually decide they need to become more business friendly as well. This is a vicious circle: the more unions decline, the more that Democrats turn to corporate funding to survive. There is, in the end, simply no one left who’s fighting for middle class economic issues in a sustained and organized way. Conversely, there are lots of extremely well-funded and determined organizations fighting for the interests of corporations and the rich.”

In my opinion, this also explains why some who vote Republican and support Republican policies, other than those who are simply anti-anything Obama related, are against raising taxes on the wealthy even though very few would be affected by an increase on those making over $250,000 a year. They’ve bought into the corporate-interest saturated media theme that unions are evil and that the wealthy special interests are looking out for them.

“They’re Coming For Your Social Security Money”

05 Monday Jul 2010

Posted by in lobbyists, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Following up on yesterday’s post about cutting and/or privatizing Social Security, the late, great George Carlin:

“They’re coming for your Social Security money. They want your retirement money. They want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street.”

From Down With Tyranny (profanity warning):

Billions for Big Oil, Nothing for the Unemployed

04 Sunday Jul 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Deepwater Horizon, economy, Gulf Oil Spill, lobbyists, Obama administration, oil exploration, Politics, special interests, Unemployment

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

We can’t afford to extend unemployment benefits, but:

“…an examination of the American tax code indicates that oil production is among the most heavily subsidized businesses, with tax breaks available at virtually every stage of the exploration and extraction process.”

Take, for instance, two of the major players in the Gulf oil spill—Transocean and BP:

“When the Deepwater Horizon drilling platform set off the worst oil spill at sea in American history, it was flying the flag of the Marshall Islands. Registering there allowed the rig’s owner to significantly reduce its American taxes.

The owner, Transocean, moved its corporate headquarters from Houston to the Cayman Islands in 1999 and then to Switzerland in 2008, maneuvers that also helped it avoid taxes.

At the same time, BP was reaping sizable tax benefits from leasing the rig. According to a letter sent in June to the Senate Finance Committee, the company used a tax break for the oil industry to write off 70 percent of the rent for Deepwater Horizon — a deduction of more than $225,000 a day since the lease began.”

Congress and the Obama administration are working (allegedly) on legislation that would cut $20 billion in oil industry tax breaks. The response from the oil companies? One wrong move and the economy gets it:

“Jack N. Gerard, president of the American Petroleum Institute, warns that any cut in subsidies will cost jobs. “These companies evaluate costs, risks and opportunities across the globe,” he said. “So if the U.S. makes changes in the tax code that discourage drilling in gulf waters, they will go elsewhere and take their jobs with them.”

What are the chances of Congress eliminating these subsidies? Slim and none:

“Efforts to curtail the tax breaks are likely to face fierce opposition in Congress; the oil and natural gas industry has spent $340 million on lobbyists since 2008, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which monitors political spending.”

An example is Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who is co-sponsoring the legislation that would end the tax breaks, but:

“While the legislation would cut many incentives over the next decade, it would not touch the tax breaks for oil refineries, many of which have operations and employees in his home state, New Jersey.”

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.

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..”

Blankfein Supports Financial Reform?

28 Wednesday Apr 2010

Posted by in economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Goldman Sachs, lobbyists, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

OK, now I’m suspicious. Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein says Wall Street will be the “biggest beneficiary” of financial reform:

“A financial regulatory reform bill has at least one supporter outside of Congressional Democrats, Lloyd Blankfein, the head of investment bank Goldman Sachs. “I’m generally supportive,” Blankfein told the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Wall Street will benefit from the bill because it will make the market safer, Blankfein said.

“The biggest beneficiary of reform is Wall Street itself,” he said.

I think one of the commenters at The Hill has the right analogy. “Oh please don’t throw me in the briar patch, said Br’er Rabbit.”

Or it could be that Blankfein and his fellow banksters are anticipating a favorable return on their investment:

“For the first time since 2004, the biggest Wall Street firms are now giving most of their campaign donations to Republicans.

A Wall Street Journal analysis of 12 large financial services companies, including J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Goldman Sachs Group Inc. shows that they have collectively made $1.4 million in political donations, with 52% going to Republicans so far this year.”

Regulatory Capture and the Washington/Wall Street Revolving Door

28 Sunday Mar 2010

Posted by in bailout, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Regulatory capture: a term used to refer to situations in which a state regulatory agency created to act in the public interest instead acts in favor of the commercial or special interests that dominate in the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.

See also John C. Dugan, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Related subject: Washington/Wall Street revolving door. From today’s New York Times:

Houston

John C. Dugan, a former bank lobbyist, has been comptroller since 2005…and he’s responsible for regulating banks with national charters, including giants like Citibank and Chase. Like his recent predecessors, Mr. Dugan often takes positions that align with banks, even as they have come under withering attack for their role in the financial crisis.”

“For now at least, the nation’s front line for consumer financial protection resides on the 34th floor of a downtown office tower here…The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency operates this service center, fielding thousands of complaints each year about the nation’s banks…What many customers may not realize is that the man who oversees the operation used to represent the very banks they are complaining about.

Here comes the revolving door:

“A 2005 appointee of President George W. Bush, Mr. Dugan came to the O.C.C. after working for 12 years as a lawyer and lobbyist representing the banking industry. Before that, he worked for the federal government, including stints as counsel for the Senate Banking Committee and as an assistant secretary in the Treasury Department.”

Mr. Dugan’s term expires in August. Any guesses where he’s headed after that?

Pre-Existing Condition Loophole?

26 Friday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, health care, lobbyists, Politics

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

When Speaker Pelosi said of health care reform legislation on March 9 that “we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy,” I would guess she was referring to all the positive elements of the bill which would come to light after all the sturm und drang of the debate had passed. However, there appears to be some controversy only 2 days after the bill’s passage over the ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. From AP via Firedoglake:

“President Barack Obama’s new health care law has a gap when it comes to one of its much-touted immediate benefits, improved coverage for children in poor health, congressional officials confirmed Tuesday.

Under the new law, insurance companies still would be able to refuse new coverage to children because of a pre-existing medical problem, said Karen Lightfoot, spokeswoman for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, one of the main congressional panels that wrote the bill that Obama signed into law Tuesday.”

According to Kaiser, the language in the legislation is a bit murky (intentionally perhaps?) :

“…health advocates and some insurers say the law does not clearly state that such protection starts this year. If it doesn’t, uninsured children with pre-existing conditions might not get help until 2014, when the law requires  insurers to issue policies for all applicants regardless of health condition.

…One thing is clear: The law does nothing to stop insurers from charging higher rates for children with pre-existing illnesses until 2014 when insurers can no longer use health status in setting premiums.”

Of course the insurance companies and their lobbyists jumped all over this possible loophole:

“Randy Kammer, a vice president for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida, the largest health insurer in that state, said she interprets the law as allowing insurers to reject coverage for children in some cases until 2014.

America’s Health Insurance Plans, the main insurance lobbying group, says through a spokesman that it interprets the new law as not requiring insurers to cover all child applicants this year.”

It’s almost as if the insurance companies knew the loophole was there. Couldn’t have anything to do with Liz Fowler, a former VP of WellPoint, being a senior aide to Sen. Baucus and director of the Senate Finance Committee health care staff, could it?

The response from the administration is that “clarifying regulations” will be forthcoming from the Department of Health and Human Services. “Clarifying regulations” for 2-day old legislation? The old carpenter’s adage about ‘measure twice, cut once’ comes to mind.

An Earmark Ban That’s Not Really an Earmark Ban

11 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, lobbyists, Politics, special interests

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Reading this headline in the New York Times—“Leaders in House Block Earmarks to Corporations”— might give the impression that some serious reform is underway on Capitol Hill, right? Wrong. As usual with our esteemed members of Congress,  it’s all about appearance. The appearance of doing something while actually doing nothing. And again, as usual, there are loopholes big enough for Patton’s Third Army to march through.

For instance, the ban on earmarks only applies to for-profit companies, allegedly. Which means that:

“Under the new restrictions, not-for-profit institutions like schools and colleges, state and local governments, research groups, social service centers and others are still free to receive earmarks. The new restrictions, for example, would still allow the type of award to local governmental agencies that became infamous in 2005 with Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Loophole No. 2:

“In addition, billions added to the defense bills for existing national security programs under contract with major defense companies such as Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman probably would not be affected.

For example, when House appropriators add more funds for Boeing’s C-17 cargo aircraft, they do not disclose them as earmarks. Instead, they are considered programs essential to national security even though none of the funds are requested by the Pentagon. These funds benefit lawmaker districts where the weapons systems are built.”

So what’s the point? It’s all about “image,” “appearances” and “optics.”

“House Democrats, in a bid to rehabilitate the image of a committee long mired in ethical mishaps, announced the Appropriations panel would not approve earmarks for for-profit corporations…”

“…For Pelosi, it clearly seemed to be a bid to simultaneously rehabilitate her party’s image and that of the Appropriations Committee, several of whose members were cleared in a wide-ranging ethics probe last month.”

“…Practically, many understand this rule means very little. Defense insiders say the proposal, especially without the help of the Senate, is an empty stab at reform…But optically, the move was important for Democrats.”

“…Democrats still think it’s a step in the right direction for the body as a whole, even if just for the sake of appearances. Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a second-term member, said he doesn’t earmark for private entities and still is able to help defense contractors in Connecticut with federal projects.”

“I think it helps some of the optics with some of the members who I think are for earmark reform,” said [Rep. Joseph] Crowley [D-NY].”

Better headline: “Congress’ Eternal Quest, How Can We Fool ‘Em Today”