October 13, 2008
As John McCain’s Presidential campaign goes swirling down the toilet during the final desperate weeks of its existence, we see its surrogates cling to the non-issue of Obama’s contact with 1960s radical activist, Bill Ayers. As I said on October 2, McCain missed his chance to take control of this race by opposing the 700-billion-dollar “bailout bill”, which has yet to inspire the confidence of the investing public, foreign markets or the banks. By reuniting with his old ally from the “campaign finance reform” days, Democratic Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, as well as Democratic rising star, Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington, the “Blue Dog” Democrats and the so-called “House Republicans” led by Jeb Hensarling and Mike Pence, McCain could have secured his position as the man who would take the Republican Party into the new century. Instead, he chose to follow the advice of the lobbyists who run his campaign: Steve “Skinhead” Schmidt and (Jeffrey Dahmer look-alike) Rick Davis. These “Guys on the Plane” (if I may steal an expression from Peggy Noonan) have their careers rooted in the negative campaigning strategies created by Lee Atwater and refined by Karl Rove. These operatives have no other cards to play. They have no experience in successful reliance upon a strategy, based solely on portraying their own candidate in a positive way.
As the nation’s economic condition becomes more perilous, the McCain campaign leans more heavily on its claim that Obama’s contacts with Bill Ayers should determine the outcome of the 2008 Presidential election.
At this point it’s starting to get funny. Worse yet … it is an indicator (to me, at least) of how old I am and how old my generation has become. Back in my old home town (a place called Chicago) there is a writer for a local paper called the Chicago Tribune. His name is John Kass. Kass is an outspoken opponent of Chicago’s current mayor, Richard M. Daley and Kass has a nickname for him, just as I have nicknames for such worthy characters as Senator Joe “The Tool” Lieberman. On Sunday, October 12, Kass expressed his outrage that Marilyn Katz, Ayers’ fellow member of the 1960s radical group, Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), is involved in Obama’s Presidential campaign. Kass took particular umbrage at the fact that Marilyn Katz now has a successful public relations firm called: MK Communications. According to Kass, MK Communications now represents the Chicago Police Department, City Colleges of Chicago, the city’s “Law Department” (actually referred to as the Office of the Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago), and numerous other city departments … including the venerable “Streets and San”. Kass seemed like a shoe salesman trying to fit an old foot that was accustomed to the “militant radical” style of the 1960s, into the new, 21st century, “Terrorist” model. It doesn’t fit. The militant radicals of the 1960s used small bombs to make political statements. There is an absence of information about the number of alleged casualties or injuries resulting from such bombings. Today, “terrorists” use small bombs to take down airplanes and they use airplanes to take down skyscrapers. The use of the “terrorist” label to a 1960s radical is an obvious stretch.
The rant by the Tribune’s Kass about how former radical, Marilyn Katz, has become a “mainstream” figure in Chicago’s Public Relations business community, reminded me of an old song. On August 17, 1969, Grace Slick and her band, Jefferson Airplane, woke up the crowd at the Woodstock Music and Arts Fair with what she described as “morning maniac music”: the title song from their upcoming album, Volunteers. Included among the song’s lyrics was the following passage:
One generation got old.
One generation got soul.
This generation got no destination to hold.
The Marilyn Katz story and the Bill Ayers story tell me that our generation got old. The former radicals of that era are now playing important roles within what they used to consider an archaic milieu, referred to as “the establishment”. Nevertheless, many members of this latest “establishment” generation are in a fight to retain the claim of having “soul” by helping to bring an African-American to The White House for the first time in this nation’s history. The crowds at the McCain and Palin rallies have expressed their fear of what an Obama Administration might bring to America. These McCain supporters have been able to replace their fears of how they are going to economically survive from day to day and how to fund their retirement plans with the fears conjured up by Schmidt, Davis and their ilk. The ball is now in the court of the Obama campaign to help establish a legacy for these people and all Americans – by righting the ship capsized by the “perfect storm” of greed, corruption and deregulation. Another three-pointer would be nice.
Fed Up With The Fed
July 20, 2009
Last week’s news that Goldman Sachs reported $3.44 billion in earnings for the second quarter of 2009 provoked widespread outrage that was rather hard to avoid. Even Jon Stewart saw fit to provide his viewers with an informative audio-visual presentation concerning the role of Goldman Sachs in our society. Allan Sloan pointed out that in addition to the $10 billion Goldman received from the TARP program, (which it repaid) Goldman also received another $12.9 billion as a counterparty to AIG’s bad paper (which it hasn’t repaid). Beyond that, there was the matter of “the Federal Reserve Board moving with lightning speed last fall to allow Goldman to become a bank holding company”. Sloan lamented that despite this government largesse, Goldman is still fighting with the Treasury Department over how much it should pay taxpayers to buy back the stock purchase warrants it gave the government as part of the TARP deal. The Federal Reserve did more than put Goldman on the fast track for status as a bank holding company (which it denied to Lehman Brothers, resulting in that company’s bankruptcy). As Lisa Lerer reported for Politico, Senator Bernie Sanders questioned whether Goldman received even more assistance from the Federal Reserve. Because the Fed is not subject to transparency, we don’t know the answer to that question.
A commentator writing for the Seeking Alpha website under the pseudonym: Cynicus Economicus, expressed the opinion that people need to look more at the government and the Federal Reserve as being “at the root of the appearance of the bumper profits and bonuses at Goldman Sachs.” He went on to explain:
The opacity of the Federal Reserve has become a focus of populist indignation since the financial crisis hit the meltdown stage last fall. As I discussed on May 25, Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas introduced the Federal Reserve Transparency Act (HR 1207) which would give the Government Accountability Office the authority to audit the Federal Reserve as well as its member components, and require a report to Congress by the end of 2010. Meanwhile, President Obama has suggested expanding the Fed’s powers to make it the nation’s “systemic risk regulator” overseeing banks such as Goldman Sachs, deemed “too big to fail”. The suggestion of expanding the Fed’s authority in this way has only added to the cry for more oversight. On July 17, Willem Buiter wrote a piece for the Financial Times entitled: “What to do with the Fed”. He began with this observation:
Since the introduction of HR 1207, a public debate has ensued over this bill. This dispute was ratcheted up a notch when a number of economics professors signed a petition, urging Congress and the White House “to reaffirm their support for and defend the independence of the Federal Reserve System as a foundation of U.S. economic stability.” An interesting analysis of this controversy appears at LewRockwell.com, in an article by economist Robert Higgs. Here’s how Higgs concluded his argument:
Close down the Federal Reserve? It’s not a new idea. Back on September 29, when the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 was just a baby, Avery Goodman posted a piece at the Seeking Alpha website arguing for closure of the Fed. The article made a number of good points, although this was my favorite:
So the battle over the Fed continues. In the mean time, as The Washington Post reports, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke takes his show on the road, making four appearances over the next six days. Tuesday and Wednesday will bring his semiannual testimony on monetary policy before House and Senate committees. Perhaps he will be accompanied by Goldman Sachs CEO, Lloyd Bankfiend, who could show everyone the nice “green shoots” growing in his IRA at taxpayer expense.