Today, members of the Minnesota House heard two controversial bills that could cost the state millions and hamper voter access in a state that is renowned for progressive election policy.
Minnesota has long boasted above-average voter turnout, thanks, in part, to a decades-old policy that permits eligible citizens to register and vote on Election Day with a zero-rate of voter fraud. Despite lacking evidence of pervasive voter impersonation issues (as well as lacking available funding), state lawmakers are intent on changing the rules governing Election Day Registration and adding a requirement for all voters to present photographic proof of identity before voting.
It seemed like it was easier when health care was pretty much the only political news. Now, news on so many issues gushing up so quickly, we need a round-up thread to cover it all:
Correction: no decision on amendments today Contrary to my earlier report that the Democratic caucus will make a decision today on whether amendments to Wall Street reform will require 51 or 60 votes to pass, I have heard from Harry Reid's office that no decision will be made today. That was an error on my part.
Economic Crisis: Greenspan kept Fed worries about housing bubble secret:New transcripts from 2004 show that many senior officials at the Federal Reserve feared that there was a speculative housing bubble that could lead to economic catastrophe. However, their fears were deliberately hid from the public by then-Fed chair Alan Greenspan, because he figured the Fed knew best and didn't want to alarm the stupid public:
As top Federal Reserve officials debated whether there was a housing bubble and what to do about it, then-Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that the dissent should be kept secret so that the Fed wouldn't lose control of the debate to people less well-informed than themselves.
"We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand," Greenspan said, according to the transcripts of a March 2004 meeting.
Apparently, it was best to keep the public in the dark about fears of a possible economic collapse, and then do nothing to avert the possible collapse. Because, you know, the Fed knows best.
Oil Spill: Attach this amendment to anything you want passed: Senator Bob Menendez, chair of the DSCC, has introduced a bill raising the liability of oil companies from $75,000,000 to $10,000,000,000 (update: originally I left off three zeroes) in the event of a spill. Even though some Senators undoubtedly will still vote against this, it is still hard to believe that a bill like this would not comfortably have 60 votes to pass right now. Aas such, it seems like it would be a good idea to turn this bill into an amendment, and quickly attach it to something that is difficult to pass.
PA-Sen: Sestak closing on SpecterA new poll from Muhlenberg in Pennsylvania shows Joe Sestak only 6% behind Arlen Specter in the May 18th Democratic primary. This is actually going to be a daily tracking poll, so it will be easy to keep tabs on the state of the campaign. Two weeks ago, Rasmussen showed Sestak closing to within 2%, although that was hard to believe given that Sestak had not yet gone on the air. A new Quinnipiac poll comes out tomorrow morning.
AR-Sen: Racist anti-Halter ad to keep running through the election. In an ad that could become known as the Willie Horton ad of Democratic primaries, an offensive anti-Halter ad will continue running in Arkansas through the May 18th primary:
The president of a group airing an advertisement using Indian actors and images to raise claims Senate candidate Lt. Gov. Bill Halter outsourced jobs says he doesn't think the spot is offensive.
Americans for Job Security president Stephen DeMaura said he has no plans to pull the spot that begain airing Monday on Arkansas' airwaves. He says the ad will continue for two weeks.
Halter and Sen. Blanche Lincoln have both condemned it as offensive.
Immigration debate moves to the right. Right wing forces on immigration have gained a lot of ground since 2006, and not just because of what happened in Arizona. As Ron Brownstein explains, a bill that passed the Senate in 2006, when Republicans were in the majority, was further to the left then the bill currently lacking support in the Senate. The main shift has been among Republicans, who have turned hard-right on the issue.
Political news is back, big time. The post-health care slump is over.
Update: The charges against Goldman Sachs could be the tip of the iceberg, according to analysts. Good.
***
Two of the main schools of thought on financial reform are those who seek reform through new regulations, and those who seek reform through criminal prosecution. If you will forgive me for sounding like David Brooks for a moment, in this article I will refer to them as "the New Regulators" versus "the Punishers."
The New Regulators do not believe reform is possible without changing existing law surrounding the finance industry. The Punishers do not believe reform is possible without at least some of the people responsible for the crisis going to jail. This is largely a conflict of emphasis, between those who those who view the regulations, and those who view the regulators, as the main problem.
By filing fraud charges against Goldman Sachs today, the SEC helped to bridge the gap between these two schools of thought. The Punishers are absolutely right that new laws won't mean a whole lot if there is no enforcement of those laws. However, in an environment where regulators are actually filing charges against large financial firms like Goldman Sachs for actions related to the causes of economic crisis, an improved regulatory structure begins to appear viable. However small, these charges are the first step in demonstrating that financial regulations can, and will be, enforced.
Speaking only for myself, the Obama administration would increase the credibility of financial regulation reform if they were to simultaneously appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, charge, and convict anyone who engaged in crimes that led to the financial crisis. Really, they should have done this last year. If a series of ongoing investigations, and even convictions, were taking place simultaneous to the legislative fight over financial reform in Congress, it would help provide a series a concrete examples to what this otherwise very abstract fight over financial reform can accomplish.
New regulations are needed, but new regulations without enforcement are meaningless. When regulators are actually filing charges against large financial firms like Goldman Sachs, it helps to deflate the view that regulators will not enforce any new laws. With Republicans now saying they have the votes to block the bill, this is exactly the sort of news that proponents of legislative reform need to help drive up support for their cause.
Two key lawmakers on the House Financial Services Committee, Reps. Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Ron Paul (R-TX), are pushing to authorize a full, comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. The plan has sparked fury from both the Fed and the corporate banking industry, but the proposal is so appealing that the controversy is almost laughable.
The Federal Reserve is one of the most powerful economic institutions in the world, but most of its operations are conducted in total secrecy. The Fed's rescue activities have dwarfed the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program, but without any public accounting. Some of these efforts may have been entirely appropriate, but we don't even know who the Fed is helping. That fact is a major barrier to establishing effective and fair economic policy.
"The Fed is a typical Washington institution that operates un-democratically and in virtually total secrecy, and a Congressionally-mandated audit that they (and much of the DC establishment) desperately oppose would be a serious step towards changing the dynamic of how things function. At the very least, it would provide an important template for defeating the interests which, in Washington, almost never lose."
Under the Grayson-Paul plan, which is offered as an amendment to the Financial Stability Improvement Act of 2009, the Government Accountability Office would be given the authority to audit all of the Federal Reserve's activities, just as it can audit other public programs and institutions.
Last week, the House Financial Services Committee approved the audit-the-fed bill, despite opposition from panel Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), who tried to gut the plan. Even on the Financial Services Committee, where the banks concentrate their campaign contributions, Grayson was able to convince 14 other Democrats to stand up to the financial establishment.
The vote of approval scarcely registered on mainstream media's radar, and even then, the Grayson-Paul legislation was portrayed as an assault on the Fed's "political independence." As Dean Baker notes for Talking Points Memo, it's hard to see how a simple, public accounting can be construed as a political hit on the Fed's policy-making.
By setting interest rates, the Fed has enormous power to do almost anything under the economic sun, from fueling quick growth to destroying jobs. All of these powers have useful functions under the right circumstances, and we really don't want Congress to make decisions about the economy based on the interests of powerful lobby groups. The Grayson-Paul bill wouldn't do anything of the sort. As John Nichols explains for The Nation, audits of sensitive economic policy decisions would be subject to a six-month lag before they could be publicly released. If the Fed needs to act fast, Congress won't be able to get in its way. The public will eventually know how its own money is being spent, however, and learn how a public institution is conducting itself.
"In other words, this is about simple transparency, which everyone should favor," Nichols writes.
The White House and the Congressional Democratic leadership need to support a full and comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. It's an issue of basic democratic accountability. There is no good reason why economic policy should be conducted in secret.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Unemployment figures in the U.S. are staggering: The official rate stands at 10.2%, the highest in 26 years. A broader measure that includes people who are involuntarily working part-time or who have given up looking for work is at 17.5%. That's a full-blown economic emergency.
But, as Joshua Holland explains for AlterNet, President Barack Obama's response to the unemployment crisis has not matched the urgency of his response to the crisis on Wall Street. This isn't just unfair, it's bad economics.
"It's important to understand that the economic crisis in which we find ourselves is not just a function of a shaky financial system but of a crash in consumption that's come along with the evaporation of $14 trillion worth of the wealth of American families," Holland writes.
Widespread joblessness can be every bit as damaging to the economic structure as a financial crisis. When people are out of work, they buckle down on household expenses. When several million people cut back at the same time, the economic machine grinds to a halt. If people are not buying and selling stuff, the economy isn't working.
As Mary Kane explains for The Washington Independent, about 40% of families don't have enough money to cover expenses through a three-month stretch of unemployment-even if one member of the household is receiving unemployment benefits. Kane highlights a Brandeis University study that reveals the haggard state of the American household and the unfair distribution of wealth along racial lines. A full 66% of African-American and Latino families can't afford three months without work. At a time when 5.6 million workers have been jobless for at least six months, the study highlights just how dire finances have become for many households.
GRITtv's Laura Flanders discusses potential labor market remedies with economist Dean Baker and The Nation's John Nichols. Baker suggests a work-share arrangement, in which employers cut back on their workers' hours to allow more people to work. To prevent losses for households, the government would step in and pay for the shortfall in hours. Employers would have more part-time jobs available, but the government would make sure everyone was paid as if they were working full-time. Baker also endorses a public jobs program, which he says could be especially useful in cities like Detroit and Cleveland that have been hit particularly hard by the economic downturn.
Nichols highlights the political consequences of failing to fix the unemployment mess. Unemployment directly affects the lives of voters. If widespread joblessness persists through November 2010, Democrats will net huge Congressional losses. If Obama thinks it's hard to garner bipartisan support for his legislative priorities now, imagine a few dozen more Republican obstructionists.
It's not that Obama failed to respond to the unemployment crisis. He did. That's what the stimulus package was all about. Today's 10.2% unemployment is a catastrophe, but it would be more like 12% without the stimulus package. But, given the seriousness of the issue, Obama is not giving unemployment enough attention.
In fact, Obama's economic priorities are a mirror-image of his campaign promises, as Robert Scheer argues in both a column for TruthDig and an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! After talking tough about reining in recklessness on Wall Street and making the financial system more accountable, Obama has hired many of the very policy makers who pushed through the deregulatory agenda back in the 1990s. Top Obama administration officials like Larry Summers, Timothy Geithner, Gary Gensler and Neal Wolin helped make this mess in the first place.
"This is not a minor criticism," Scheer says. "I think the guy is betraying his own presidency."
Obama's timid efforts to rein in Wall Street and heal the ailing job market are setting the stage for a political disaster. If Obama and Congressional Democrats can't take strong action to fix the economy, they will find themselves with much narrower majorities next November. The economy, and the public institutions that support it, are supposed to work for everyone, not just the financial elite.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
By proposing financial reforms that won't curb Wall Street excess, U.S. policymakers have offered an unacceptably weak response to our enormous financial crisis. If voters don't demand that their elected representatives help workers and consumers instead of simply boosting corporate profits, the economic downturn will last for several more years and leave the economy vulnerable to another bank-induced meltdown.
The banks have unbelievable lobbying clout. In an interview with Cenk Uyger of The Young Turks, Heather Booth, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform, describes how one-sided the Wall Street reform fight has been. Despite broad public support for a fundamental financial overhaul, going up against the bank lobby is, as Booth describes, "a David and Goliath fight." It's basically Americans for Financial Reform against every major corporation in the U.S.
Booth notes that the Chamber of Commerce has vowed to spend $100 million on a campaign to defend the "so-called free enterprise system"-you know, the "free market"-in which corporate lobbyists spend millions of dollars to write the rules of the economic game. Just seven financial lobby groups have spent a massive $147 million peddling influence over the past two years.
In fact, as Janine Wedel observes for Salon, the U.S. economic system is starting to look an awful lot like the clannish systems of government that looted Eastern European countries in the early 1990s. Today, the public good takes a backseat to the narrow interests of powerful corporations.
With the Obama administration working with advisers from Citigroup and Goldman Sachs, we're not just watching Wall Street write its own regulations. We're watching the financial sector re-write the official role of the government in the economy. In this new role, the government's top priority is securing profits for corporate America.
"The intertwined coterie of financial and policy deciders in the United States is creating not only the financial architecture of the future, backed by the power and billions of the state, but, more generally, new relationships between the bureaucracy and the market," Wedel writes.
GRITtv's Laura Flanders echoes this theme in an interview with John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, and journalist Russ Baker. Lobbyists have so thoroughly hijacked the U.S. economy, Perkins argues, that the nation's government now resembles those of Latin American nations he worked with in the 1980s and 1990s.
"I don't think the U.S. president has much power these days, to be honest with you. . . . It's the big corporate executives who call the shots today, and let's face it, they financed Obama's campaign," Perkins says.
The very efforts the government deployed to save the financial system are being perverted to create another disaster. In a five-part interview with Paul Jay of The Real News, Jane D'Arista, an influential economist and author of The Evolution of U.S. Finance, explains how Wall Street destroyed itself over the past decade. By borrowing massive amounts of money, Wall Street was able to place bigger bets in the capital markets casino, resulting in huge profits when those bets paid off. But when the bets backfired, the losses were just as massive. Companies couldn't pay them off, so the government stepped in to support them.
One of those support mechanisms came from the Federal Reserve, which began making incredibly cheap loans to firms that engaged predominantly in speculative trading. The Fed used to lend exclusively to commercial banks, which used the money to make loans that helped grow the real economy. But now those loans are being used to support risky securities trading, so we're seeing big profits in the financial sector, without much help for workers and consumers. This is a major long-term problem-if the economy can't keep pace with the Wall Street casino, those speculative trades are going to backfire and we'll be right back to the chaos of September 2008, only with an even weaker economy.
All hope is not lost. As Perkins and Baker emphasize in their interview with Flanders, citizens have to demand corporate accountability and a government that actually serves the public good. For much of the past decade in Latin America, governments have been elected that stood up to major corporations and demanded that they stop pillaging their nation's resources at the people's expense.
In addition to demanding much stronger reforms for the financial sector, we have to demand that the government respond seriously to problems facing workers. With the unemployment rate at 10.2% and expected to go still higher, we need jobs. As Steve Benen notes for The Washington Monthly, Obama's economic stimulus package helped stave off total economic devastation. What we need now is another stimulus to get people back to work, not just slow the pace of job losses.
"A bold, ambitious jobs bill can make a huge difference-the stimulus got us out of the ditch, a new effort can get us going in the right direction again," Benen writes.
And the only argument against this plan is that we "can't afford it." That is-the government's fiscal deficit is too high, and we just can't spend money to help people in real economic trouble.
But as Christopher Hayes writes for The Nation, the deficit excuse is pretty pathetic. Economic stimulus bolsters economic growth, thus improving tax returns for the government in the future. And any spending on any project can be taken out of the budget from other measures. Hayes notes that our massive military spending is almost never included in discussions about "fiscal responsibility." If we were really worried about how much it would cost to fix the economy, we could stop spending so much money killing people.
"Fiscal conservatism and deficit concern is nearly always code speak in Washington for something else," Hayes writes. "Most often, when someone in Washington says they're concerned about the deficit, what they're really saying is, 'I would like to make sure we have a government that focuses maximally on blowing people up.'"
The government has to start saying 'no' to corporate America. Corporate profits are not the same thing as a strong economy. We need to demand an economic policy that answers to workers, not just bank balance sheets.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Today, the public will get a look at how funds distributed through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 are being spent when the reports from agencies receiving these stimulus funds are released.
While many questions will surround the release of this information, it's likely that a critical part of this story will be lost unless we ask the right questions about this spending. Namely, is this stimulus really creating a recovery for everyone?
This is an important consideration given that many groups of Americans have consistently been left behind in ways that hard work and personal achievement alone cannot address. This was true even before the economic downturn began to affect everyone else, and it's likely that the crisis has further worsened gaps in income and assets that existed already.
To get an idea of what some Americans faced before the crisis, just look at 2007, the year before the crisis began affecting everyone:
Bailout pay czar Ken Feinberg raised a ruckus last week when he announced plans to slash cash payouts to executives at seven companies that have received massive levels of taxpayer support. While better oversight of the bailout barons is helpful, the best way to change Wall Street pay practices is to adopt a set of tough, comprehensive regulations that cover everything from the executive suite to the loan department. As is, many of the executives Feinberg cracked down on will still make millions this year from stocks and other perks, while the very banks that depend the most on bailout money are spending like mad to lobby against reform.
Feinberg's new salary limits only apply to executives at Citigroup, Bank of America, AIG, GM, Chrysler, GMAC and Chrysler Financial. But while these new rules are an effort to reduce the incentive for executives to take big risks for short-term gains, the rules of the game for non-bailout barons haven't changed at all. Risky securities trading and unenforced consumer protection regulations still allow financiers to make a killing by gambling on mortgages and credit cards.
As Greg Kaufmann explains for The Nation, Feinberg has been barred from altering some of the most egregious bonus arrangements at even the biggest fund recipients, as the employment contracts were signed prior to the government's bailout. AIG plans to pay out $198 million in bonuses in March 2010, and none of Feinberg's recent rulings will change that. As Kaufmann also notes, back in March, AIG agreed to pay pack $45 million of the bonuses it shelled out early this year. After over seven months, just $19 million has been repaid.
The government's hands-off approach to AIG employment contracts is a rather flagrant display of deference to executives. Nothing stopped the government from renegotiating contracts for union laborers when it bailed out Chrysler and GM, as Dean Baker notes for The American Prospect.
Lest we forget, the government literally owns AIG, and would own both Citigroup and Bank of America had it demanded a market rate of return for its investment. Taxpayers injected several times the stock market values of both Citi and BofA into the troubled banks, but settled for a 36% stake in Citi and preferred stock in BofA. As Mike Madden emphasizes for Salon, Feinberg is still letting executives make several times the median household income in cash alone-nevermind stock-and it's unlikely that his move will spark changes among bankers outside the handful of companies ordered to make changes.
"Executives are still taking home paychecks that dwarf what the average American earns. And it's not clear whether any other companies will get on board with the Treasury plan unless they're forced to," Madden writes.
Congress hasn't taken any significant steps to curb Wall Street paydays since the crisis broke, but lawmakers did take two other important steps toward banking reform this week. Two different House committees passed bills to rein in the wild world of derivatives trading and establish a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). In a video piece for the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, Amanda Zamora and Lagan Sebert detail the legislative battle to create a CFPA, which has faced an enormous lobbying push from both banks and the top lobby group for the corporate executive class, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Zamora and Sebert note that top bank lobbyist Ed Yingling is arguing that if regulators simply enforced the existing consumer protection laws, all of the major abuses in mortgage lending and credit cards would have been prevented. Even for a corporate lobbyist, Yingling's disingenuousness is absolutely breathtaking. He acknowledges that existing regulators are not enforcing consumer protection laws, says he wants the laws enforced, and then says it would be a bad idea to create a new agency to enforce those laws.
The CFPA won't have any mysterious new powers. It will have the same authorities on credit cards and mortgages that existing federal regulators have. But the current regulators are focused primarily on bank profits, which often run directly contrary to fair play with consumers. Yingling and Wall Street are really afraid of a serious regulator who will stand up for consumers. They're terrified that the CFPA will actually enforce consumer protection rules against powerful banks-but are talking as if all they want is effective enforcement. It's a lie, pure and simple.
On Monday and Tuesday, thousands took to the streets in Chicago to protest a meeting of Yingling's lobby group, the American Bankers Association (ABA). Esther Kaplan details the protests in a piece for The Nation, complete with video footage. The ABA retaliated against Kaplan's reporting by revoking her press credentials, but it appears to have been worth it, as her piece describes everything from citizen outrage to police intimidation and awkward banker solidarity. As Democracy Now! explains, the ABA has spent decades lobbying against rules to strengthen the economy and prevent banker abuses, and is now at the heart of an effort to use taxpayer bailout money to lobby Congress against financial reforms.
So far, their efforts seem to be paying off. Last week, one of the CFPA's chief advocates, Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC), co-authored an amendment significantly restricting the agency's enforcement powers. As Sebert and Zamora note, Miller agreed to exempt banks with $10 billion or less in assets from regulatory examinations by the CFPA-roughly 98% of all banks. The existing, corrupted regulators who didn't lift a finger to prevent the subprime mortgage crisis will be the people actually going to the banks and reviewing their books. While the CFPA could send along one of its own regulators to participate in the exam, the new agency can't tax the bank to pay for it, which would make it very difficult for the CFPA to keep an eye on smaller banks.
Even worse, there is nothing to prevent a giant bank like Bank of America from moving all of its most egregiously predatory activities into a series of small corporate subsidiaries. By exploiting this loophole, 100% of U.S. banks could be exempt from CFPA enforcement, including the giant banks most heavily involved in subprime mortgage abuses.
The other big piece of Obama-backed financial legislation to make its way through Committee last week had to do with derivatives, also known as the wild Wall Street securities that brought down AIG. The best way to fix the derivatives mess is to require that derivatives be traded on an exchange the same way stocks are, so that companies can't make crazy bets without regulatory and market scrutiny. But Obama only wants "standardized" derivatives to be processed through a central clearinghouse-like an exchange, except without any public pricing information. And so long as a derivative contract can be deemed "customized," it would be totally exempt from even this limited reform.
But as Art Levine notes for AlterNet, the derivatives bill actually got worse in committee. Plenty of non-financial businesses use derivatives to legitimately hedge real risks: Airlines try to insure themselves against swings in oil prices, for instance. Lawmakers agreed to exempt any contract with these companies, termed "end-users" in the financial jargon, from central clearing requirements. The trouble is, big Wall Street hedge funds and private equity firms can be classified as "end-users," opening a fatal loophole in the legislation. The five banks who control 95% of the derivatives market will just conduct all of their most reckless trades with hedge funds and avoid oversight entirely.
A modest reform on paychecks for bailout recipients is nowhere near sufficient to protect our economy from banker excess. If Wall Street is going to serve any productive economic function, it has to be subject to serious consumer protection rules, and its derivatives casino has to be dismantled.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the economy by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Audit for a complete list of articles on economic issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Mulch, The Pulse and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
One thing that every major policy initiative the Obama administration has taken/has been forced to take on (most of them are in the latter category given the stakes) early in their term have in common is their overwhelming complexity. I am glad we have a President with real brains and a mind that can understand complexity, because when I think about the problems we have, and what it will take to solve them, the idea of George W. Bush, John McCain, or Sarah Palin being in charge gives me a bad case of the shivers. Think about what is on this President's plate: solving the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, dealing with the mess in Afghanistan, finding a long term international solution to climate change, finally reforming health care in a comprehensive way, dealing with an utterly out of control and corrupt financial sector, finally finding a fair and comprehensive solution to immigration reform. I know I'm missing some big things, but you get my point. There's not a single issue on this list that is simple to resolve, either substantively or politically. This level of major issues and crises to handle really does rival only a few other Presidents- Washington, Adams, and Jefferson in our nation's earliest days, Lincoln in the Civil War years, FDR. So thank goodness he's smart, and thank goodness he has surrounded himself with a lot of really bright advisers, because to make progress- let alone resolve- these issues is going to take a huge amount of brain power.
Two new economic studies just came out that, especially taken in combination, are truly stunning and profoundly troubling. The first, by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (a DC-based think tank), reported that the federal government is essentially subsidizing the Too Big to Fail (TBTF) banks in terms of the interest rates banks must pay to borrow funds. The second, coming out of Rutgers University, tells us that- if all goes quite well- that we don't get back to our pre-recession level of employment until the last half of 2017.
These two things are each worthy of huge concern. In combination, they spell very, very big economic trouble for America.
Arianna Huffington's spot-on post yesterday about our country's broken financial system led with the sentence "The window for reform is closing." Which is word for word what Elizabeth Warren said to me in a conversation we had a few days ago. For all of the incredible power Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase have, their Achilles heel is momentarily exposed because of the incredibly anger the American public justifiably has at them right now, and there is a window for at least some progress on this.
There is, ironically, another reason for urgency as well: as Arianna and I and others have noted in multiple articles in recent weeks, the big Wall St. traders are back to their old tricks, business as usual pure and simple. And those tricks are exactly what brought down our financial system over the last couple of years. With our economy in such fragile shape, their recklessness endangers us greatly. I've heard people say that if we don't fix the problem, we could be in danger of another financial meltdown 10 or 20 years from now, but that way understates the problem. With our economy as weak as it is, we could see another financial crisis next year, not 10 or 20 years from now.
The remarkable thing about all this is that the reforms the White House has proposed are so modest. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is a commonsense, reasonable proposal that even the Republicans I know from the financial industry think makes perfect sense. For an old lefty populist like myself, I don't think it goes nearly far enough. But even this moderate policy is running into a violent assault by Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase, and the American Bankers Association. If something this reasonable is opposed by these guys, it's a sign of how far out on the ledge these companies have gone in pursuit of making billions by unregulated gambling and chicanery.
The window is closing on financial reform, and the window is closing on health care reform. These are easily the biggest political tests of Obama's Presidency, those that will determine whether his Presidency is going to be a success. A President can come back politically from early failures on big issues, as Bill Clinton did, but if they lose the big early battles, they generally don't try to do anything big or ambitious again.
I wrote in my book The Progressive Revolution about how the pattern of American history is that every so often, the window to create big change comes open for a while, that the combination of crisis, leadership, and political movement make it possible to really make big positive changes in our country. That window is open right now, and President Obama, to his credit, is trying to keep it open by doing some big and important things. But if he gives up the fight and caves in to special interest lobbyists, or if Democrats in Congress don't back his play, or if the reform movements on these big issues can't deliver grassroots strength, then the window will slam shut. That would be an immense tragedy, because this country desperately needs some big changes, and because the Republican opposition to Obama is going down such a dark path.
This country has been very lucky for much of its history. But if we can't fight through the special interest muck and deliver big change soon, I fear that our luck could run out. The economic and political storm are gathering in the sky, and we can't afford to do nothing to change the dynamics.
After reading Mike's diary, "A Simple Test", I found myself agreeing with the broad thrust of it, that Obama needs to move left-as FDR did, after his initial '100 Days'-guided most simply by the test, "does it benefit poor and middle class people, or does it benefit Goldman and Morgan?". Yet, at the same time, I found myself disagreeing that this simple test is necessarily enough. It's certainly a good starting point, and given that no legislation is ever perfect, and that time and energy spent on one thing is taken away from another, that test may well be enough for most legislation in most circumstances. But we should be clear that ideally more is required, and we should be clear just what that is, so that even when we don't pursue it, we know precisely what it is that we are foregoing. And so I present my three-part test:
(1) Mike's Simple Test:
who does it benefit the most, and who does it benefit first? If the main or biggest beneficiary is the big majority of poor and middle income people, I rate it a success. If the first and biggest beneficiaries are the wealthy and powerful, then I rate it a failure
(2) The Marine Test: Who did it leave behind on the battlefield? Who could have been helped who was not helped? Particularly when more was clearly achievable. If it failed to help a substantial number of poor and middle income people, then it was failure, even if it passed Mike's Simple Test-unless there is a clear and credible plan and a path forward to do more to help those people, and there is the political will to pass legislation that achieves the unmet goal.
(3) The Gramsci Test: Did it help change the direction of basic operating assumptions for future political struggles in a more progressive direction? If so, rate it a success. If it missed a rare opening, created new obstacles, or needlessly reinforced conservative assumptions, it is a failure.
Now, let me emphasize again, I am not suggesting that all three tests should apply to every piece of legislation, just because they could be applied. First of all, as already noted, there are practical trade-offs to be considered. Second, there are significant differences in the opportunities presented at different times. But when we're talking about major pieces of legislation, such as the stimulus, or the health care reform, then it seems entirely proper to employ all three tests. We might, in the end, decide to support legislation that failed one or more of the tests, but at least we would support it having a much more realistic sense of the cost involved.
On the flip, I consider what difference this might make in evaluating the stimulus and health care reform-with particular attention to the former, in light of new statistics out about the state of state finances. By sharpening critical awareness of what happened with the stimulus, perhaps we can do better with health care and global warming.
I have always had a simple test for any public policy: who does it benefit the most, and who does it benefit first? If the main or biggest beneficiary is the big majority of poor and middle income people, I rate it a success. If the first and biggest beneficiaries are the wealthy and powerful, then I rate it a failure- after all, they generally do just fine without special benefits from the government. And the who-it-benefits-first thing is a critical part of the equation, because as John Maynard Keynes famously said, in the long run we are all dead. The reality is that policy, politics, other unexpected circumstances change too rapidly in this country that if poor and middle income folks are not benefiting early from some policy change, they probably aren't going to benefit at all (See trickle down economics in general as an example of what I mean.)
By this simple test, even though it is now clear that the stimulus package passed earlier this year was clearly too small, I still rate it a success in some important ways. It has saved the jobs of a lot of teachers, firefighters, police officers, social workers, and others doing important work, and it has created new jobs in the environment, health care, science, technology, the arts, construction, and road building.
Goldman Sachs has openly, blatantly gone back to business as usual, knowing they will be bailed out by taxpayers if their high rolling gambles don't work, and they don't care who knows about it.
The reason they can be so breathtakingly arrogant, so stunningly cavalier about not giving a damn about things that any other company's PR and government relations department would advise them against, is that they know they have the power to do anything they want to do. The Obama White House needs to take Goldman Sachs to the woodshed rhetorically, and they should have the Justice Department investigating them for anti-trust violations and all manner of stock manipulation. It is time to start squeezing the management at Goldman, and making them nervous about being broken up into pieces that are not too big to fail.
Here's (with brief intro) Matt Taibbi, Rob Johnson, and myself taking about Goldman Sachs on what is rapidly becoming my favorite media program for discussing economic issues, GRITtv:
If you've seen the news today, you know Goldman Sachs exceeded its second quarter expectations for earnings, making $3.44 billion after dividends. As I wrote yesterday, this gigantic, much better than expected profit is largely from engaging in the same risks that got Goldman and other companies into trouble in the first place- taking massive risks on things like volatile currencies. The same risks that has helped lead the country to economic collapse. Apparently the only thing Goldman learned from the financial collapse was that the government would bail it out if it kept taking big gambles, which isn't the lesson I was hoping it would learn.
And hey look, even more thrilling, it's been reported in late June that the company plans to pay its employee record bonuses. Congrats, guys.
Okay, Goldman. So as long as you're paying record bonuses to many of the same employees that engaged in these wildly speculative trading ventures, how about paying back the $13 billion you got from AIG by way of the U.S.Treasury? Or the unrevealed billions (likely many tens of billions) from the Federal Reserve?
Now I wouldn't be so irritable about all this if unemployment wasn't still going up, and most economists weren't saying it will continue to go up through 2010. I wouldn't be so irate if unemployed folks were getting jobs, home prices were starting to up again, and as a result bankers also made money. I wouldn't be so completely pissed out of my mind if we didn't already know, based on the last eight years, that the trickle-down economics of making sure the biggest banks recovered first just didn't work for everyone else in this economy.
It is time for a movement to take on the big bankers and change the economy so that it produces jobs for the rest of us.
STATE BLOGS
