Tag Archives: financial reform

You Say You Want a Revolution…

31 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by in Bernie Sanders, Campaign Financing, Corporations, Democrats, Election 2016, financial regulation, health care, Hillary Clinton, Obama administration, Politics, Supreme Court, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

…well you know, we don’t need one.
Let me get his out of the way first. I could not possibly care less about who gets the Republican nomination for president. Doesn’t matter one iota to me, I ain’t voting for any of them. No way, no how. I do, however, care who gets the Democratic nomination. Very much. Much has been gained during the Obama administration, naysayers on the left notwithstanding, and much stands to be lost should Democrats nominate the wrong person. The wrong person is Bernie Sanders.

I suppose that by the time one is pushing 60 years of life on this thing we call Earth, one should find very little at which to be surprised. One would be wrong. I find myself surprised at the intelligent, pragmatic, and otherwise generally clear-thinking and practical people who have been and continue to be taken in by the so-called Bernie Sanders revolution.

This isn’t original (read it somewhere but can’t remember where, another consequence of those nearly 60 years) but I wholeheartedly agree with it. The 2016 election isn’t about changing the guard, it’s about guarding the change. We changed the guard in 2008. After 8 years of the utter disaster that was Bush/Cheney, the American people were ready for a new direction–a completely different direction–we got that with the historic election of Barack Obama. Now we need a president who can guard the change. Who can first and foremost protect what has been accomplished and, where possible, make some incremental improvements. That isn’t nearly as exciting and sexy as “revolution” but I’ll take it 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

I suppose the appeal of the revolution is that it sounds so good and so simple. Medicare For All, Break Up the Banks, Overturn Citizens United. Yeah buddy, let’s do it. But drill down a little bit and it isn’t quite that good or that simple. Yes, the cost of health care is still a problem, the power of Wall Street is as well, and the influence of money on political campaigns needs to be addressed. But all these are complex and intricate issues which have reached the point they are now over years and even decades. They won’t be fixed with simple slogans and 8 page plans that don’t take into account the ramifications that would ensue should they be enacted.

Medicare For All. Does anybody actually believe that the health care needs of a family of four can be covered for $460 a year and paid for by nothing but a measly 2% increase in income taxes? Doesn’t pass my smell test. The state of Vermont found that out with their attempt to implement single-payer. When pencil met paper the result was closer to a 20 percent tax hike and a doubling of state expenditures.

Abolish private health insurance? What about the millions of Americans who make their living working for them? The private insurers aren’t just the few fat cat CEOs who sit at the top receiving exorbitant compensation. There are millions of Americans who work for not only those companies directly but whose jobs are dependant on their existence. Claims, billing, etc. What happens to them if private health insurance goes away? Does the Sanders plan lay out what happens to them should the “revolution” hit health care, and what would be the effects on the economy as a whole should private health insurance be outlawed? Nope.

The way forward is not to scrap the ACA after only 5 years, but to build on it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, none of these were perfect originally, neither is the ACA. But it’s damn sure better than what we had before, and in its infancy and with all its shortcomings has helped millions of Americans. To scrap it for a hastily concocted and not well thought out alternative would be foolish.

Break Up The Big Banks. Okay, then what?

“For example, to break up the big banks sounds good and well but what happens to the customers of those banks that rely on them for their savings accounts? What about small businesses that rely on those banks for loans? What about homeowners who pay a mortgage through the bank? Are all these accounts then shifted toward community banks? If so, which ones? What if this new bank is far away from someone’s home or business?”

And again, what is the effect on the economy of the break up and the loss of jobs sure to follow? As with the private insurers, these institutions are a significant portion of our economy and encompass more than just the guys at the top who get all the headlines. Lots of jobs for people not named Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein depend on Chase, Bank of America, Citi, et al. What happens to those people?

No, we don’t need to take that risk. Dodd-Frank, despite all its imperfections, is doing its job. Could it be stronger? Absolutely. But gradually and incrementally, as boring as that is, is the only way to proceed, both practically and politically.

Overturn Citizens United. This is a recording, it ain’t that simple. The Supreme Court can’t just take it upon themselves to overturn a standing decision. A case must be brought, in almost every situation, after having gone through years in lower courts. This whole “money is speech” and “corporations are people” mess got started with the Buckley v Valeo decision. In 1976. The rotten fruit of that decision became Citizens United. In 2010. For those keeping score, that’s 34 years. Changing the system will take time and a Supreme Court amenable to hearing and reviewing cases brought before it. We don’t have that now, revolution notwithstanding.

Just to be really blunt, Sanders can’t win in November. I know his supporters like to claim that he polls better against Republican candidates than does Hillary Clinton. Two things about that. One, January polls are about as predictive of November election results as Tarot cards and tea leaves. Two, should Sanders be nominated, and once Republicans settle on a nominee and turn all their blazing guns on Sanders, he will be destroyed by months of negative and yet more negative ads. He will go down and take a lot of people and a lot of progress with him in the process.

We can’t afford to let that happen. Change is hard, change takes time, and nobody waves a magic wand. The way forward is to build on the solid foundation laid by what will be the 8 years of President Obama. Given the two choice facing Democratic primary voters (sorry Martin, but it’s true) Hillary Clinton is the right person for that job.

Advertisement

Foreclosure Fraud Just the Tip of the Iceberg

12 Tuesday Oct 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Foreclosures, Justice Department, Obama administration, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Dylan Ratigan, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker unravel foreclosure fraud:

To reiterate, the fraud in foreclosures that we’re seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. The purpose is to try and cover up, and cover for, the fraud in the mortgage process all the way back to the origination of the mortgages, which were then packaged into securities and fraudulently sold to investors as AAA quality, a rating gained by paying off the ratings agencies. As our parents always told us, one lie requires another one to cover up the first one, which requires another lie to cover up the second one, and so on, and so on, and…….

In my opinion, that’s why the Senate tried to sneak through the legislation that President Obama vetoed—it would have given the big banks protection from liability in this entire mess. As an aside–again just my opinion– but the only reason the president vetoed the bill was because of the attention it received and the light that was shone on its alleged “unintended consequences” (and if you’ll buy that….) My cynical nature when it comes to politicians tells me that “sending the bill back for modifications” translates into, ‘We’ll try again when the heat’s off.’

It’s also why, according to David Axelrod, the hope in the White House is that “this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly.” And why the White House opposes a national moratorium on foreclosures. A moratorium would give investigators and especially some 40 states’ attorneys general time to delve back into fraud and deceit at every level of the process

As Mr. Denninger explained, the only remedy is to force the big banks to buy back the toxic securities that they sold to investors under false pretenses. They can’t do that, which means Chase, BofA, et al, are insolvent. Actually, they’re insolvent now but for the phony profits from peddling this garbage to unsuspecting investors.

There is a provision in the financial reform legislation for resolution authority, that is breaking up large financial institutions that pose a “systemic risk” to the entire economy. Will Congress use it or will they do what they have done in the past and bail out their Wall Street cronies and contributors—again. If Republicans take control of Congress will they hold true to their campaign rhetoric of “no more bailouts” or will they dance to the tune of their big donors on Wall Street?

We may soon find out.

Axelrod in Wonderland

24 Friday Sep 2010

Posted by in financial reform, health care, Obama administration, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

David Axelrod in yesterday’s Washington Post:

“Pundits will spend a lot of time predicting who will win in November. But more is at stake than the fate of Democrats or Republicans. What’s at stake is whether the powerful corporate special interests will go back to writing our laws or whether our democracy will remain where it belongs — in the hands of the American people.”

What color is the sky in the land where unicorns run free, Dave? “Go back?” They never left. Former insurance company lobbyists and executives wrote the lion’s share of health care “reform.” Your boss cut a backroom deal with the pharmaceutical industry to ensure their monopoly remained intact. Did the big banks get broken up by so-called financial reform? Hell no. Is too big to fail still around? Hell yes. Does the military-industrial complex still get the same blank check that they’ve always had? Absolutely.

FYI, Mr. Axelrod, we no longer have a democracy in America. The correct term is oligarchy.

It’s True Harry, and You Have Only Yourself to Blame

15 Thursday Jul 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, Politics, Unemployment, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Welcome to the party, Harry. You’re a little late, but glad you finally got here:

“Republicans hope unemployment rates jump higher to give them a better shot at retaking Congress, Majority Leader Harry Reid said Wednesday.

At a press conference announcing a package of proposals to help small business, the Nevada Democrat said Republicans were obstructing legislation to help the economy for political reasons.

“They think the worse the economy is come November, the better they’re going to do election-wise,” Reid said.

Reid cited an extension of unemployment benefits as an example of legislation that would help the economy but was being blocked by Republicans.”

They don’t care about extending unemployment benefits. That money goes mostly to the vanishing middle-class that Republicans have been trying to kill off since 1980 anyway. This will just accelerate the process in the direction of their goal of a two-class society—the very rich and the poor. The fat cats on Wall Street are hiring and doling out the big bonuses again, and that’s all that matters to the GOP.

BTW, Harry. If you’re looking for someone to blame, find a mirror. If you and the other Dems would have had the balls to change that stupid-ass 60 vote rule in the Senate 18 months ago, none of this would have been possible. We could have had a REAL stimulus package, REAL health care reform, and REAL financial reform.

Democrats didn’t want to change it because they were anticipating some time in the future when they were in the minority and could use the filibuster to their advantage.

That time will be here a lot sooner than they thought.

Obstructionist Republicans and Gullible Democrats

30 Wednesday Jun 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Scott Brown is a quick learner. In his short time in the Senate he’s become a master at the game of ‘How To String Along The Gullible Democrat’ aka Lucy and the Football.

Here’s how it goes: Obstructionist Republican says, “I would vote for this particular piece of legislation except for X.” Gullible Democrat believes Obstructionist Republican (although for the life of me I can’t figure out why) and changes or takes out X. Obstructionist Republican then says, “That’s all well and good, but I also don’t like Y. If you take that out too, I may vote for said legislation.” Gullible Democrat removes Y, and the process repeat itself over and over until said legislation is either dead or too weak to do anything remotely resembling its original intention.

The latest example is the so-called financial reform bill. Brown wanted a loophole in the Volcker Rule to exempt banks in Massachusetts from being subject to limits on risky investments. With the help of Barney Frank and (surprise!)  the Treasury Department, the loophole was inserted into the legislation. (BTW, also at the insistence of Senator Brown, another loophole was added to the Volcker Rule which may delay its implementation until 2022.)

Brown’s objection to the bill then shifted to a $19 billion fee to be collected from large financial institutions, calling it a “tax.” I’m sure Brown’s opposition has absolutely nothing to do with the $450,000 he received from executives at financial institutions in the six days before the election in Massachusetts. Strictly coincidence..

Guess what? The bank fee is out now, too

“Top Democratic House and Senate negotiators who worked out a deal on a sweeping overhaul of financial regulations regrouped Tuesday to eliminate a $19 billion fee on banks that had threatened to derail the legislation.”

Brown wasn’t alone. He had two other Lucies standing with him:

“Besides Brown, Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, both of whom also voted for the Senate bill last month, said they, too, had qualms about the bank assessment that negotiators inserted into the bill last week.”

I guess the only alternative to the Democrats being gullible and naive is that they are complicit and corrupt. That they don’t really want actual reform and are just using the guise of compromising with the Republicans to play their favorite game—giving the appearance of doing something while in reality doing nothing which might upset the goose that lays the golden eggs of campaign contributions.

Gullible and naive or complicit and corrupt? Either way it doesn’t bode well for the future of the Republic.

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.

“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.

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.”

A Crucial Week for Financial Reform

26 Monday Apr 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

In what’s shaping up as a crucial week in the quest for financial reform there are some encouraging signs, some not so encouraging, and a demonstration by the executives at “the great vampire squid” (aka Goldman Sachs) give us an example of why meaningful reform is necessary.

First, the reasons to be hopeful. There appear to be some cracks in the Republican wall of solidarity. Sen. Olympia Snowe endorsed Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s tough stance toward derivative trading passed last week by the Agriculture Committee. (Sen. Grassley, another possible defector, was the lone Republican on the committee who voted for Lincoln’s proposal). In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, Snowe wrote:

“I believe that strong derivatives regulation goes to the heart of an effective financial reform bill and that Chairman Lincoln’s legislation is a strong step towards realizing this fundamental component to financial reform……I believe that we should err on the side of caution and finally bring full transparency to these markets once and for all and allow regulators to preemptively identify these damaged firms.

“Accordingly, I believe the Senate should start with a comprehensive, strong derivatives reform proposal and defend attempts to weaken it, not the other way around and the legislation produced by the Senate Agriculture Committee includes the strongest safeguards and most robust transparency provisions on our expansive derivatives market.

I urge the Majority Leader to incorporate these provisions into the regulatory reform bill.”

On Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, “agreed to replace his proposed restrictions on derivatives with those of the Senate Agriculture Committee, chaired by Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln.”

On This Week yesterday, Sen. Bob Corker said he intended to propose an amendment containing a “claw back” provision to the legislation “which would take away the personal earnings for the past five years of the corporate officers of failed institutions that fall under the government’s resolution authority.”

Another possible Republican defector might be the newly-elected senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown. Will someone who was elected as a sort of “man of the people” want to be painted as a defender of Wall Street? Especially when he faces re-election in 2 years? Maybe not.

Also on the positive side, “President Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank have personally urged Dodd not to cut a deal with Republicans…This is a welcome sign that Obama realizes that public opinion is moving in the direction of tougher banking reform, and that he learned from the health debate that bipartisan compromise on key reform issues is a snare and a delusion.”

Sen. Dodd has shown signs of weakening the legislation in order to compromise with Republicans leaders in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and Richard Shelby, who want to use the same tactics Republicans used on health care reform—stall and delay as long as possible. Hopefully, Dodd will be emboldened by support from President Obama and not dilute reform to try and pacify those whose intentions are to maintain the status quo.

Now to the crooks at Goldman. What were they doing as the housing market was collapsing and threatening to take the entire economy with it? Having a party:

“As the U.S. housing market began its epic fall nearly three years ago, top executives at Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs cheered the large financial gains the firm stood to make on certain bets it had placed, according to newly released documents.

The documents show that the firm’s executives were celebrating earlier investments calculated to benefit if housing prices fell, a Senate investigative committee found. In an e-mail sent in the fall of 2007, for example, Goldman executive Donald Mullen predicted a windfall because credit-rating companies had downgraded mortgage-related investments, which caused losses for investors.

“Sounds like we will make some serious money,” Mullen wrote.”

To somewhat defend Goldman, what they were doing, “selling short,” (betting against certain investments) is something that happens on Wall Street every day. But, betting against instruments that they designed to fail, and which were sold to investors as AAA investments allowing Goldman to profit from on both ends, may not be illegal (although it should be) but it certainly shows that the execs at the “great vampire squid” have no interest in what’s best for the country. They have one party’s interests in mind—-their own.