It’s already time to announce the winner of TheCenterLane.com’s fifth annual Jackass of the Year Award. This was another one of those years when we had a last-minute contestant, who tried to his best to snatch the award away from those who had been working all year for the honor.
In the aftermath of the tragic mass-murder of 26 young children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School, the National Rifle Association’s vice-president, Wayne LaPierre, held his infamous press conference on December 21, wherein he blamed everything except guns for the killings. LaPierre blamed television violence, video games, hurricanes, “other natural or man-made disaster(s)”, terrorist attacks, and numerous other scapegoats. Did he blame porn? I can’t remember. After the press conference, even Rupert Murcoch’s New York Post saw fit to trash the guy with its headline: “Gun Nut: NRA Loon In Bizarre Rant Over Newtown”. The New York Daily News ran a headline describing LaPierre as a “vile NRA nut”, and the “Craziest Man on Earth”. Although I lack the professional credentials to render a diagnosis on the sanity of any individual, I do know a jackass when I see one. Wayne LaPierre is such a severe jackass that he deserves serious consideration as our 2012 Jackass of the Year.
Every year I have to resist the temptation to nominate Stuart Varney of Fox News. Varney is the senior business commentator for the Fox News Network. It seems as though Jon Stewart runs at least one video clip per week of Varney making a fool of himself. Varney is an unabashed hater of solar power and most other sources of “green energy”. He frequently refers to advocates of green energy as “greenies”, as though such an approach were something shameful. Nevertheless, Varney was able to dodge the award this year with his recent interview with Tommy Chong. The interview wasn’t that great, but it was good enough to warrant sparing Varney the indignity of this award.
Unfortunately, there is no single individual whom we can blame for the December 21 hysteria. The Vancouver Sun ran an interesting article about a local author named Brad Carrigan, who did his part to promote a good bit of the December 21 foolishness through a website where he sold books, videos, his own seminars and sessions at his “spiritual retreat centre in the mountains”. Unfortunately, Carrigan did not become prominent enough to earn our Jackass of the Year Award.
In an election year, the candidates are usually too easy to single out for this award. Nevertheless, the 2012 Presidential Campaign brought us this year’s Jackass of the Year Award winner: Donald Trump. His idiotic “birther-ism” served no other purpose than to motivate 400,000 people to sign a petition, requesting Macy’s to abandon its relationship with Trump. A good place to find a handy list of reasons why Trump deserves this award can be found at the New York Daily News website. There you will find a link to Penn Jillette’s book excerpt at Salon about Trump and what it was like to appear on Celebrity Apprentice. According to Jillette, Trump really cares about the things insignificant bloggers have to say about him. As one such insignificant blogger, all I can say is: Congratulations, Jackass!
The Dimon Dog has been eating crow for the past few days, following a very public humiliation. The outspoken critic of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act found himself explaining a $2 billion loss sustained by his firm, JPMorgan Chase, as a result of involvement in the very type of activity the Act’s “Volcker Rule” was intended to prevent. Financial industry lobbyists have been busy, frustrating regulatory attempts to implement Dodd-Frank’s provisions which call for stricter regulation of securities trading and transactions involving derivatives. Appropriately enough, it was an irresponsible derivatives trading strategy which put Jamie Dimon on the hot seat. The widespread criticism resulting from this episode was best described by Lizzie O’Leary (@lizzieohreally) with a single-word tweet: Dimonfreude.
The incident in question involved a risky bet made by a London-based trader named Bruno Iksil – nicknamed “The London Whale” – who works in JP Morgan’s Chief Investment Office, or CIO. An easy-to-understand explanation of this trade was provided by Heidi Moore, who emphasized that Iksil’s risky position was no secret before it went south:
Everyone knew. Thousands of people. Iksil’s bets have been well known ever since Bloomberg’s Stephanie Ruhle broke the news in early April. A trader at rival bank, Bank of America Merrill Lynch wrote to clients back then, saying that Iksil’s huge bet was attracting attention and hedge funds believed him to be too optimistic and were betting against him, waiting for Iksil to crash. The Wall Street Journal reported that the Merrill Lynch trader wrote, “Fast money has smelt blood.”
When the media, analysts and other traders raised concerns on JP Morgan’s earnings conference call last month, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon dismissed their worries as “a tempest in a teapot.”
Dimon’s smug attitude about the trade (prior to its demise) was consistent with the hubris he exhibited while maligning Dodd-Frank, thus explaining why so many commentators took delight in Dimon’s embarrassment. On May 11, Kevin Roose of DealBook offered a preliminary round-up of the criticism resulting from this episode:
In a research note, a RBC analyst, Gerard Cassidy, called the incident a “hit to credibility” at the bank, while the Huffington Post’s Mark Gongloff said, “Funny thing: Some of the constraints of the very Dodd-Frank financial reform act Dimon hates could have prevented it.” Slate’s Matthew Yglesias pointed back to statements Mr. Dimon made in opposition to the Volcker Rule and other proposed regulations, and quipped, “Indeed, if only JPMorgan were allowed to run a thinner capital buffer and riskier trades. Then we’d all feel safe.”
At issue is corporate governance at JPMorgan and the ability of its CEO, Jamie Dimon, to manage its risk. It’s reasonable to ask whether any CEO can manage the risks of a bank this size, but the questions surrounding Jamie Dimon’s management are more targeted than that. The problem Jamie Dimon has is that JPMorgan lost control in multiple areas. Each time a new problem becomes public, it is revealed that management controls weren’t adequate in the first place.
* * *
Jamie Dimon’s problem as Chairman and CEO–his dual role raises further questions about JPMorgan’s corporate governance—is that just two years ago derivatives trades were out of control in his commodities division. JPMorgan’s short coal position was over sized relative to the global coal market. JPMorgan put this position on while the U.S. is at war. It was not a customer trade; the purpose was to make money for JPMorgan. Although coal isn’t a strategic commodity, one should question why the bank was so reckless.
After trading hours on Thursday of this week, Jamie Dimon held a conference call about $2 billion in mark-to-market losses in credit derivatives (so far) generated by the Chief Investment Office, the bank’s “investment” book. He admitted:
“In hindsight, the new strategy was flawed, complex, poorly reviewed, poorly executed, and poorly monitored.”
During the party, Mr. Dimon took questions from the crowd, according to an attendee who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the bank. One guest asked about the problem of too-big-to-fail banks and the arguments made by Mr. Volcker and Mr. Fisher.
Mr. Dimon responded that he had just two words to describe them: “infantile” and “nonfactual.” He went on to lambaste Mr. Fisher further, according to the attendee. Some in the room were taken aback by the comments.
* * *
The hypocrisy is that our nation’s big financial institutions, protected by implied taxpayer guarantees, oppose regulation on the grounds that it would increase their costs and reduce their profit. Such rules are unfair, they contend. But in discussing fairness, they never talk about how fair it is to require taxpayers to bail out reckless institutions when their trades imperil them. That’s a question for another day.
AND the fact that large institutions arguing against transparency in derivatives trading won’t acknowledge that such rules could also save them from themselves is quite the paradox.
Dimon’s rant at the Dallas party was triggered by a fantastic document released by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas on March 21: its 2011 Annual Report, featuring an essay entitled, “Choosing the Road to Prosperity – Why We Must End Too Big to Fail – Now”. The essay was written by Harvey Rosenblum, the head of the Dallas Fed’s Research Department and the former president of the National Association for Business Economics. Rosenblum’s essay provided an historical analysis of the events leading up to the 2008 financial crisis and the regulatory efforts which resulted from that catastrophe – particularly the Dodd-Frank Act.
And now – only a few years after the banking crisis that forced American taxpayers to bail out the Street, caused home values to plunge by more than 30 percent, pushed millions of homeowners underwater, threatened or diminished the savings of millions more, and sent the entire American economy hurtling into the worst downturn since the Great Depression – J.P. Morgan Chase recapitulates the whole debacle with the same kind of errors, sloppiness, bad judgment, and poorly-executed and excessively risky trades that caused the crisis in the first place.
In light of all this, Jamie Dimon’s promise that J.P. Morgan will “fix it and move on” is not reassuring.
The losses here had been mounting for at least six weeks, according to Morgan. Where was the new transparency that’s supposed to allow regulators to catch these things before they get out of hand?
* * *
But let’s also stop hoping Wall Street will mend itself. What just happened at J.P. Morgan – along with its leader’s cavalier dismissal followed by lame reassurance – reveals how fragile and opaque the banking system continues to be, why Glass-Steagall must be resurrected, and why the Dallas Fed’s recent recommendation that Wall Street’s giant banks be broken up should be heeded.
At Salon, Andrew Leonard focused on the embarrassment this episode could bring to Mitt Romney:
Much has changed since the inception of the Occupy Wall Street movement. When the occupation of Zuccotti Park began on September 17, the initial response from mainstream news outlets was to simply ignore it – with no mention of the event whatsoever. When that didn’t work, the next tactic involved using the “giggle factor” to characterize the protesters as “hippies” or twenty-something “hippie wanna-bes”, attempting to mimic the protests in which their parents participated during the late-1960s. When that mischaracterization failed to get any traction, the presstitutes’ condemnation of the occupation events – which had expanded from nationwide to worldwide – became more desperate: The participants were called everything from “socialists” to “anti-Semites”. Obviously, some of this prattle continues to emanate from unimaginative bloviators. Nevertheless, it didn’t take long for respectable news sources to give serious consideration to the OWS effort.
One month after the occupation of Zuccotti Park began, The Economist explained why the movement had so much appeal to a broad spectrum of the population:
So the big banks’ apologies for their role in messing up the world economy have been grudging and late, and Joe Taxpayer has yet to hear a heartfelt “thank you” for bailing them out. Summoned before Congress, Wall Street bosses have made lawyerised statements that make them sound arrogant, greedy and unrepentant. A grand gesture or two – such as slashing bonuses or giving away a tonne of money – might have gone some way towards restoring public faith in the industry. But we will never know because it didn’t happen.
Reports eventually began to surface, revealing that many “Wall Street insiders” actually supported the occupiers. Writing for the DealBook blog at The New York Times, Jesse Eisinger provided us with the laments of a few Wall Street insiders, whose attitudes have been aligned with those of the OWS movement.
By late December, it became obvious that the counter-insurgency effort had expanded. At The eXiledblog, Yasha Levine discussed the targeting of journalists by police, hell-bent on squelching coverage of the Occupy movement. In January, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lashed out against the OWS protesters by parroting what has become The Big Lie of our time. In response to a question about Occupy Wall Street, Mayor Bloomberg said this:
“It was not the banks that created the mortgage crisis. It was, plain and simple, Congress who forced everybody to go and give mortgages to people who were on the cusp.”
Since then, both Bloomberg.com and Reuters each have picked up the Big Lie theme. (Columbia Journalism Review as well). In today’s NYT, Joe Nocera does too, once again calling out those who are pushing the false narrative for political or ideological reasons in a column simply called “The Big Lie“.
Once the new year began, the Occupy Oakland situation quickly deteriorated. Chris Hedges of Truthdig took a hard look at the faction responsible for the “feral” behavior, raising the question of whether provocateurs could have been inciting the ugly antics:
The presence of Black Bloc anarchists – so named because they dress in black, obscure their faces, move as a unified mass, seek physical confrontations with police and destroy property – is a gift from heaven to the security and surveillance state.
Chris Hedges gave further consideration to the involvement of provocateurs in the Black Bloc faction on February 13:
Occupy’s most powerful asset is that it articulates this truth. And this truth is understood by the mainstream, the 99 percent. If the movement is severed from the mainstream, which I expect is the primary goal of the Department of Homeland Security and the FBI, it will be crippled and easily contained. Other, more militant groups may rise and even flourish, but if the Occupy movement is to retain the majority it will have to fight within self-imposed limitations of nonviolence.
Despite the negative publicity generated by the puerile pranks of the Black Bloc, the Occupy movement turned a corner on February 13, when Occupy the SEC released its 325-page comment letter concerning the Securities and Exchange Commission’s draft “Volcker Rule”. (The Volcker Rule contains the provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform act which restrict the ability of banks to make risky bets with their own money). Occupy the SEC took advantage of the “open comment period” which is notoriously exploited by lobbyists and industry groups whenever an administrative agency introduces a new rule. The K Street payola artists usually see this as their last chance to “un-write” regulations.
Occupy the SEC is the wonky finreg arm of Occupy Wall Street, and its main authors are worth naming and celebrating: Akshat Tewary, Alexis Goldstein, Corley Miller, George Bailey, Caitlin Kline, Elizabeth Friedrich, and Eric Taylor. If you can’t read the whole thing, at least read the introductory comments, on pages 3-6, both for their substance and for the panache of their delivery. A taster:
During the legislative process, the Volcker Rule was woefully enfeebled by the addition of numerous loopholes and exceptions. The banking lobby exerted inordinate influence on Congress and succeeded in diluting the statute, despite the catastrophic failures that bank policies have produced and continue to produce…
The Proposed Rule also evinces a remarkable solicitude for the interests of banking corporations over those of investors, consumers, taxpayers and other human beings.
* * *
There’s lots more where that comes from, including the indelible vision of how “the Volcker Rule simply removes the government’s all-too-visible hand from underneath the pampered haunches of banking conglomerates”. But the real substance is in the following hundreds of pages, where the authors go through the Volcker Rule line by line, explaining where it’s useless and where it can and should be improved.
John Knefel of Salon emphasized how this comment letter exploded the myth that the Occupy movement is simply a group of cynical hippies:
The working group’s detailed policy position gives lie to the common claim that the Occupy Wall Street movement is “well intentioned but misinformed.” It shows there’s room in the movement both for policy wonks and those chanting “anti-capitalista.”
Even Mayor Bloomberg’s BusinessWeek spoke highly of Occupy the SEC’s efforts. Karen Weise interviewed Occupy’s Alexis Goldstein, who had previously worked at such Wall Street institutions as Deutsche Bank, where she built IT systems for traders:
Like Goldstein, several members have experience in finance. Kline says she used to be a derivatives trader. Tewary is a lawyer who worked on securitization cases at the firm Kaye Scholer, according to his bio on the website of his current firm, Kamlesh Tewary. Mother Jones, which reported on the group in December, says O’Neil is a former Wall Street quant.
There are parts of the rule that Occupy the SEC would like to see toughened. For example, Goldstein sees a “big loophole” in the proposed rule that allows banks to make proprietary trades using so-called repurchase agreements, by which one party sells securities to another with the promise to buy back the securities later. The group wants to make sure other parts aren’t eroded.
From the perspective of someone who’s spent a lot of time in working groups of Occupy Boston, what I love about this story is that it’s early evidence of what Occupy can and will do, beyond “changing the discourse,” which is the best that sympathetic people who haven’t been involved seem to be able to say about Occupy, or just going away and dying off, which is what non-sympathizers think has happened to Occupy. Many of us have been quietly working away over the winter, and the results will start to be seen in the coming months.
If Chris Sturr’s expectation ultimately proves correct, it will be nice to watch the pro-Wall Street, teevee pundits get challenged by some worthy opponents.
Comments Off on More Scrutiny For An Organization Called Americans Elect
On July 25, I explained that the Republi-Cratic Corporatist Party was being threatened by a new, Internet-based effort to nominate a presidential ticket, which would be placed on the 2012 ballot in all fifty states. Last summer, that organization – Americans Elect – described itself in the following terms:
Americans Elect is the first-ever open nominating process. We’re using the Internet to give every single voter – Democrat, Republican or independent – the power to nominate a presidential ticket in 2012. The people will choose the issues. The people will choose the candidates. And in a secure, online convention next June, the people will make history by putting their choice on the ballot in every state.
* * *
We have no ties to any political group – left, right, or center. We don’t promote any issues, ideology or candidates. None of our funding comes from special interests or lobbyists. Our only goal is to put a directly-nominated ticket on the ballot in 2012.
* * *
The goal of Americans Elect is to nominate a presidential ticket that answers to the people – not the political system. Like millions of American voters, we simply want leadership that will work together to tackle the challenges facing our country. And we believe a direct nominating process will prove that America is ready for a competitive, nonpartisan ticket.
Since that time, there has been a good deal of scrutiny focused on Americans Elect. Justin Elliott recently wrote a comprehensive piece for Salon, highlighting the numerous sources of criticism targeting Americans Elect. Mr. Elliott provided this summary of the controversies surrounding the organization:
The group is hoping to raise $30 million for its effort. It has already raised an impressive $22 million as of last month. So where is all that money coming from? Americans Elect won’t say. In fact, the group changed how it is organized under the tax code last year in order to shield the identity of donors. It is now a 501(c)(4) “social welfare” group whose contributors are not reported publicly.
What we do know about the donors, largely through news reports citing anonymous sources, suggests they are a handful of super-rich Americans who made fortunes in the finance industry. (More on this below.) But it’s impossible to fully assess the donors’ motives and examine their backgrounds and entanglements – important parts of the democratic process – while their identities and the size of their donations remain secret.
* * *
Americans Elect officials often tout their “revolutionary” online nominating convention, which will be open to any registered voter. But there’s a big catch. Any ticket picked by participants will have to be approved by a Candidate Certification Committee, according to the group’s bylaws.
Among other things this committee will need to certify a “balanced ticket obligation” – that the ticket consists of persons who are “responsive to the vast majority of citizens while remaining independent of special interests and the partisan interests of either major political party,” according to the current draft of Americans Elect rules. Making these sorts of assessments is, of course, purely subjective.
Jim Cook of Irregular Times has been keeping a steady watch over Americans Elect, with almost-daily postings concerning the strange twists and turns that organization has taken since its inception (and incorporation). Mr. Cook’s December 11 update provided this revelation:
The 501c4 corporation Americans Elect is arranging for the nation’s first-ever privately-run online nomination of candidates for President and Vice President of the United States in 2012. As with any other corporation in the United States, it has a set of bylaws. On November 18, 2011 the Americans Elect corporation held an unannounced meeting at which it amended its previous bylaws.
A month later, Americans Elect has not posted changes to the bylaws, or posted any notice of the changes, on its website for public review. Furthermore, Americans Elect has generally made it a practice to post its documents as images that cannot be indexed by search engines or searched by keyword. For these reasons, Irregular Times has retyped the bylaws into an easily searchable text format, based on a pdf file submitted to the Florida Secretary of State on November 22, 2011. You can read the full text of the amended bylaws here.
Just a day earlier (on December 10) Jim Cook had been highlighting one of the many transparency controversies experienced by the group:
On the Americans Elect’s “Candidates” web page it rolled out last month, various numbers were tossed up without explanation. A reference to a wildly error-prone slate of candidates’ supposed policies drawn up by Americans Elect contractor “On the Issues” appeared next to various politicians’ names, but the actual calculation by which Americans Elect came up with its “National Match” for each politician has never actually been published. I’ll repeat that in bold: Americans Elect’s system for calculating its numerical rankings of politicians was never shared with the public.
Another problem for Americans Elect concerns compliance with its bylaws by individual directors, and the lack of enforcement of those bylaws, as Cook’s December 9 posting demonstrates:
The Americans Elect bylaws are very specific, as an Americans Elect Director, Christine Todd Whitman is not supposed to “communicate or act in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for President or Vice President at any time before the adjournment of the online nominating convention of Americans Elect.”
But here she is this week nevertheless, appearing on national television via FOX News to communicate in favor of presidential candidate Jon Huntsman . . .
* * *
The bylaws say that when the neutrality provision is violated, there must be some sort of sanction. But Christine Todd Whitman is getting away with it again and again and again where the whole country can see it. Is the Americans Elect corporation inclined to follow its own rules? If not, how much trust should we place in it as it gets ready to run its own private presidential nomination in less than five months’ time?
Richard Hansen, a professor at the University of California at Irvine Law School, wrote an essay for Politico, which was harshly critical of Americans Elect. He concluded the piece with these observations:
But the biggest problem with Americans Elect is neither its secrecy nor the security of its election. It is the problems with internal fairness and democracy. To begin with, according to its draft rules, only those who can provide sufficient voter identification that will satisfy the organization – and, of course, who have Internet access – will be allowed to choose the candidate. These will hardly be a cross section of American voters.
In addition, an unelected committee appointed by the board, the Candidates Certification Committee, will be able to veto a presidential/vice presidential ticket deemed not “balanced” – subject only to a two-thirds override by delegates.
It gets worse. Under the group’s bylaws, that committee, along with the three other standing committees, serves at the pleasure of the board – and committee members can be removed without cause by the board. The board members were not elected by delegates; they chose themselves in the organization’s articles of incorporation.
The bottom line: If Americans Elect is successful, millions of people will have united to provide ballot access not for a candidate they necessarily believe in – like a Ross Perot or Ralph Nader – but for a candidate whose choice could be shaped largely by a handful of self-appointed leaders.
Despite the veneer of democracy created by having “delegates” choose a presidential candidate through a series of Internet votes, the unelected, unaccountable board of Americans Elect, funded by secret money, will control the process for choosing a presidential and vice presidential candidate – who could well appear on the ballot in all 50 states.
Forget about Tom Friedman’s breathlessly-enthusiastic New York Times commentary from last summer, gushing praise on Americans Elect. It’s beginning to appear as though this movement is about to go off the rails, following the Cain Train into oblivion.
This was bound to happen. Now that the Occupy Wall Street protest has become a big deal, the Democrats are trying to claim it as their own franchise. Fortunately, the protesters aren’t interested. My October 6 posting focused on the hypocrisy of the pseudo-populist Democrats, who – as of that time – had failed to express any support for this new movement:
The Occupy Wall Street protest has exposed the politicians – who have always claimed to be populists – for what they really are: tools of the plutocracy. Conspicuously absent from the Wall Street occupation have been nearly all Democrats – despite their party’s efforts to portray itself as the champion of Main Street in its battle against the tyranny of the megabanks. As has always been the case, the Democrats won’t really do anything that could disrupt the flow of bribes campaign contributions they receive from our nation’s financial elites.
The party-crashing Democrats are now attempting to advance their status from interlopers to hosts. At the Occupy Wall Street website, this question was posted with an invitation for comments:
“Are you cool with the Democrats taking ownership of OWS?”
Not surprisingly, the responses were overwhelmingly negative. Here are a few examples:
WorkingClassAntiHero (Manchester, NH):
Anyone thinking about this thing in the old terms of left, right, Democrat, Republican, etc…is either not paying attention or isn’t really involved.
There needs to be more visible demonstration that this is not a Democrat movement but a movement by a non-partisan group against the corporate political machine. More signs protesting Democrats people!
Also make more signs that clearly state that both parties can get lost. They’re BOTH part of the problem.
We no longer accept the idea of political ownership. It is the corporate media wolves trying to define us as Republicrat’s, because they want to deny there is a Revolution happening here and all over the globe. They so desperately need to define us because they are scared shitless of us. They pretend to not comprehend our agenda, they keep saying we don’t know what we want. They only see in Republicrat terms. Both parties Rep. and Dem. alike have had a direct hand in passing legislation that has aided in this ponzi scheme whereby we, the 99% have been robbed of our wealth and savings and dignity. This is a global societal movement/revolution, which I am proud to be witnessing and participating in. Together with all our brothers and sisters of the world we will effect global change so we can all enjoy our right to abundance.
Glenn Greenwald of Salon did a thorough job of trashing the notion that Occupy Wall Street could be turned into a Democratic Party movement:
Can the Occupy Wall Street protests be transformed into a get-out-the-vote organ of Obama 2012 and the Democratic Party? To determine if this is likely, let’s review a few relevant facts.
In March, 2008, The Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline “Democrats are darlings of Wall St“, which reported that both Obama and Clinton “are benefiting handsomely from Wall Street donations, easily surpassing Republican John McCain in campaign contributions.” In June, 2008, Reuters published an article entitled “Wall Street puts its money behind Obama”; it detailed that Obama had almost twice as much in contributions from “the securities and investment industry” and that “Democrats garnered 57 percent of the contributions from” that industry. When the financial collapse exploded, then-candidate Obama became an outspoken supporter of the Wall Street bailout.
After Obama’s election, the Democratic Party controlled the White House, the Senate and the House for the first two years, and the White House and Senate for the ten months after that. During this time, unemployment and home foreclosures were painfully high, while Wall Street and corporate profits exploded, along with income inequality. In July, 2009, The New York Times dubbed JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon “Obama’s favorite banker” because of his close relationship with, and heavy influence on, leading Democrats, including the President. In February, 2010, President Obama defended Dimon’s $17 million bonus and the $9 million bonus to Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein – both of whose firms received substantial taxpayer bailouts – as fair and reasonable.
* * *
Would it not be a bit odd for a protest movement to “Occupy Wall Street” while simultaneously devoting itself to keeping Wall Street’s most lavishly funded politician in power?
At Washington’s Blog, we were informed about an attempt by the Democratic-aligned MoveOn organization to wrest control of Occupy Wall Street:
David DeGraw – one of the primary Wall Street protest organizers – just sent me the following email:
Top MoveOn leaders / executives are all over national television speaking for the movement. fully appreciate the help and support of MoveOn, but the MSM is clearly using them as the spokespeople for OWS. This is an blatant attempt to fracture the 99% into a Democratic Party organization. The leadership of MoveON are Democratic Party operatives. they are divide and conquer pawns. For years they ignored Wall Street protests to keep complete focus on the Republicans, in favor of Goldman’s Obama and Wall Street’s Democratic leadership.
If anyone at Move On or Daily Kos would like to have a public debate about these comments, we invite it.
Please help us stop this divide and conquer attempt.
DeGraw – who is wholly non-partisan [like the writers at Washington’s Blog] – tells me that there are many political views represented, and that Occupy Wall Street is very diverse with opinions across the political spectrum (and see this.)
This mirrors what some of the original organizers of various “Occupy” protests in other cities have said as well: MoveOn attempted to take credit for the events.
Everyone’s trying to cash in on the courage and conviction of the Wall Street protesters.
People are trying to associate Occupy Wall Street with their pet projects, in the same way that advertisers try to associate the goodwill of the Super Bowl, NBA playoffs, World Series or Olympics with their product.
But I hear from OWS organizers that the protesters come from totally diverse political affiliations. Many protesters support Ron Paul, many like Obama, others are for other parties or candidates or don’t vote at all.
The protesters themselves are having none of it, tweeting today:
We don’t want to be the democratic tea party or liberal tea party. We want to be our own movement separate of any political affiliation.
Just as President Obama disregarded the opportunity to turn the economy around in 2009, his party scoffed at the opportunity to rehabilitate its tattered reputation in the wake of its failure to enact meaningful financial reform legislation. The efforts by Democrats to jump the OWS train at this point are transparently specious. They aren’t fooling anyone.
I’ve been reading a great number of articles by commentators who have expressed outrage concerning President Obama’s shocking capitulation in the negotiations involving the debt ceiling bill. Despite the Democratic Party’s tactic of blaming the “Tea Party terrorists” for the all cuts – no revenue, pro-billionaire legislation, a few pundits have seen through this fog to point out that Obama actually got the bill he secretly wanted all along. Glenn Greenwald presented a solid case for this theory at Salon.
Polling guru Nate Silver wrote two items on August 1, in which he analyzed the Congressional voting and demonstrated that President Obama – despite having been afforded the opportunity to include provisions in the bill to make it more economically stimulative and less onerous for those experiencing the greatest hardship from the economic crisis – decided to leave some available provisions “on the table”.
Fiscal austerity at a time of economic distress, and on largely Republican terms, is not what Democrats thought they were getting when they elected Mr. Obama in 2008. Mr. Obama might have done more to make short-term stimulus – like further reductions to the payroll tax, which would not have violated the Republicans’ ostensible goals – the price for long-term austerity.
Although it is impossible to prove one way or the other, I am not persuaded by the notion that Mr. Obama could not have delivered a better result to Democrats had he done more to stand his ground. Despite the dissent in the Republican caucus, which had originally seemed like a tactical victory for Democrats, the compromise wound up looking more like Mr. Boehner’s original bill than Mr. Reid’s.
Later that evening, Mr. Silver provided an analysis, which exposed Obama’s abandonment of the objectives he was elected to promote:
These results seem to suggest that Mr. Obama left something on the table. That is, Mr. Obama could have shifted the deal tangibly toward the left and still gotten a bill through without too much of a problem. For instance, even if all members of the Tea Party Caucus had voted against the bill, it would still have passed 237-to-193, and that’s with 95 Democrats voting against it.
Specifically, it seems likely that Mr. Obama could have gotten an extension of the payroll tax cut included in the bill, or unemployment benefits, either of which would have had a stimulative effect.
* * *
With that payroll tax cut, the deal becomes a much easier sell to Democrats – and perhaps also to swing voters, particularly given that nobody spent much time during this debate talking about jobs. Plus, it would have improved growth in 2012 and, depending on how literally you take the economic models, improved Mr. Obama’s re-election chances.
As many observers have noted, the plutocracy has been able to accomplish much more with Obama in the White House, than what would have been achievable with a Republican President. This latest example of a bipartisan effort to trample “the little people” has reinforced my belief that the fake “two-party system” is a sideshow – designed to obfuscate the insidious activities of the Republi-Cratic Corporatist Party.
What follows is the transcript of an imaginary telephone conversation between President Obama and Roger Ailes of Fox News:
Obama: Hi Rodge!
Ailes: Hi Barry! Congratulations on the debt ceiling bill! Great work!
Obama: Thanks. I won’t have to renew the Bush tax cuts again until after the election. That’s a relief! Unfortunately, we’re getting some bad polling numbers now. Problems with the base. I need you guys to lean on the “liberal” stuff a little harder. Both O’Reilly and Hannity have been doing OK on it – but I just wish they would get back to some more of the “socialist” accusations. That would really help rehabilitate my cred with my estranged base.
Ailes: The “socialist” shtick was more Beck’s routine – but I’ll get them on it.
Obama: I found some old pictures of myself with Bill Ayers that you guys might want to use . . .
Ailes: Ayers is sooooo 2008! We need something new. We need to get you to Syria for a meeting with Bashar al-Assad. When you shake hands with him – make sure you bow! We can get a lot of mileage here from that!
Obama: No! That will piss off too many liberals – especially the Jews. I’m trying to keep the smart people in my corner!
Ailes: OK. OK. We just really need to get you on some sort of apology tour or something. You could start traveling around to abortion clinics and promising them some federal aid . . .
Obama: Great one, Rodge! I love that!
Ailes: I’ll plant some of our protesters along the way – the ones who’ve already been cleared by the Secret Service.
Obama: Yeah! Bring back that guy with the fake assault rifle! He was a trip!
Ailes: I have someone better. This guy has been posing as a “Tea Party activist” at “town meetings”. He’s a great new talent!
Obama: We could set up another “Joe the Plumber”-type of confrontation with that guy!
Ailes: Definately! I’ll have my people put a script together. That story will have some legs that will carry us all the way to the election! . . . Speaking of legs – I’m getting some good numbers in on Bachmann!
Obama: How’s our girl doing?
Ailes: Great! She’s really gonna’ kick some ass in Iowa!
Obama: I saw her on with Sean the other day. She’s doing a great job! Are you guys going to start a scandal involving Mitt?
Ailes: I need to maintain plausible deniability about what Rupert’s operatives are up to. You know . . .
Obama: Gotcha! ‘Nuff said!
Ailes: Well, I’ll let you get back to work. You must have loads of angry campaign donors trying to bend your ear right about now . . .
Obama: Yeah . . . But that’s not where the real money is.
It seems as though every time some venal politician breaches a campaign promise while attempting to grab a payoff from a lobbyist, the excuse is always the same: “I’ve decided to tack toward the center on this issue.” “The Center” has become stigmatized as the dwelling place of those politicians who lack a moral compass.
I get particularly annoyed by those who persist in characterizing Barack Obama as a “centrist”, who is mimicking Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” strategy. During his campaign and throughout the early days of his Presidency, Obama successfully posed as a centrist. Nevertheless, his track record now demonstrates a policy of what Marshall Auerback described as “gutting the Democratic Party of its core social legacy.” I particularly enjoyed reading the comments to Auerback’s above-quoted piece about Obama entitled, “Worse Than Hoover”. Most of the commentators expressed the opinion that Auerback went way too easy on Obama. Here are some examples:
We have to stop comparing Obama to these iconic American figures. Obama is an opportunistic corporatist. There is no there there.
I’m beginning to wonder if we are still giving Obummer too much credit. Common view seems to be trending toward he’s a manipulative scumbag.
He’s very useful to the plutocracy. A Repub president could never persuade Dems to cut SS, Medicare, and Medicaid and all sorts of other essential programs.
He got the glory and the thrill of winning the election to become the 1st black president and I suspect that’s all the narcissio-path ever really wanted as far as the presidency is concerned. He certainly doesn’t look like he’s enjoying himself right now. I think he’s ready to cash out and is trying to create a scenario where he becomes an untenable candidate. He also wants to maintain his celebrity appeal so he’s going to try to posture as the adult of adults that was just too good for dc …
From a more technocratic perspective, I tend to see Obama as a consummate politician – able to inspire – but sadly lacking in intellectual curiosity and overflowing with ego, thus unable to quench his ignorance. This leaves him extremely susceptible to “experts” whom he parrots with enthusiasm. It was experts who helped him pick his advisers and now his expert advisers are misleading him and making him complicit in this quest toward neo-feudalism.
Keep in mind that those comments were not posted at Fox News or some right-wing website. They were posted at Naked Capitalism, where the publisher – Yves Smith – offered a comment of her own in reaction to Marshall Auerback’s “Worse Than Hoover” posting.
Obama is an authoritarian narcissist, an ugly combination.
He also seems unaware of the limits of his knowledge. That can render many otherwise intelligent people stupid in their decisions and actions in their blind spots.
Obama’s foremost critic from the Left is Glenn Greenwald of Salon. Mr. Greenwald has frequently opined that “… Obama wants to be attacked by liberals because of the perception that it politically benefits him by making him look centrist, non-partisan and independent . . . It’s not merely that he lacks a fear of liberal dissatisfaction; it’s that he affirmatively craves it.” Greenwald emphasized the foolishness of following such a course:
But that’s a dangerous strategy. U.S. presidential elections are very closely decided affairs, and alienating the Left even to some degree can be lethal for a national Democratic campaign; shouldn’t the 2000 election, along with 2010, have cemented that lesson forever?
I doubt that Obama is attempting to follow anything similar to Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” strategy. If Obama had been attempting such a plan, it has already backfired to an embarrassing degree, causing irreparable damage to the incumbent’s reelection prospects. Barack Obama has lost his credibility – and in the eyes of the electorate, there is no greater failing.
To get an appreciation for how much damage Obama has caused to his own “brand”, consider this article written by Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs for the Huffington Post:
Thus, at every crucial opportunity, Obama has failed to stand up for the poor and middle class. He refused to tax the banks and hedge funds properly on their outlandish profits; he refused to limit in a serious way the bankers’ mega-bonuses even when the bonuses were financed by taxpayer bailouts; and he even refused to stand up against extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich last December, though 60 percent of the electorate repeatedly and consistently demanded that the Bush tax cuts at the top should be ended. It’s not hard to understand why. Obama and Democratic Party politicians rely on Wall Street and the super-rich for campaign contributions the same way that the Republicans rely on oil and coal. In America today, only the rich have political power.
* * *
America is more militarily engaged under Obama than even under Bush. Amazing but true.
* * *
The stimulus legislation, pushed by Obama at the start of his term on the basis of antiquated economic theories, wasted the public’s money and also did something much worse. It discredited the vital role of public spending in solving real and long-term problems. Rather than thinking ahead and planning for long-term solutions, he simply spent money on short-term schemes.
Obama’s embrace of “shovel-ready” infrastructure, for example, left America with an economy based on shovels while China’s long-term strategy has given that country an economy based on 21st-century Maglev trains. Now that the resort to mega-deficits has run its course, Obama is on the verge of abandoning the poor and middle class, by agreeing with the plutocrats in Congress to cut spending on Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and discretionary civilian spending, while protecting the military and the low tax rates on the rich (if not lowering those top tax rates further according to the secret machinations of the Gang of Six, now endorsed by the president!)
* * *
America needs a third-party movement to break the hammerlock of the financial elites. Until that happens, the political class and the media conglomerates will continue to spew lies, American militarism will continue to destabilize a growing swath of the world, and the country will continue its economic decline.
The urgent need for a third-party movement was also the subject of this recent piece at The Economic Populist:
If the country had a legitimate third party to vote for, the Democrats and Republicans would be in serious trouble. Of course, the political system is geared to prevent third parties from emerging, so the country flounders about, looking for leadership from pusillanimous Democrats or ideological Republicans who consider raising taxes a mortal sin. The voters are probably a few steps away from concluding what is meant to be hidden but by now should be obvious: American democracy doesn’t exist, and the political system in Washington is beyond repair. What is worse: there are people and organizations who like things just the way they are and will fight any attempts at reform.
* * *
None of this suggests that Barack Obama is even considering abandoning his servitude to corporate interests. He’s merrily going along from one fundraiser to the next, raising millions of dollars each week from hedge fund managers and corporate lobbyists, so that he can get reelected as a “centrist” and bipartisan deal maker. This is based on his reading of what The People want – an end to the divisiveness in Washington – but Obama is fundamentally misreading the problem in Washington. It isn’t the rancor, name-calling, and petulance that is constantly on display which worries the American people. It is the backroom deals, the hidden bailouts, the tax evasions, the deregulation initiatives, the lack of prosecution for criminal behavior, that is more than frustrating Americans, because the beneficiaries of all this are wealthy people and corporations who have shifted power and money to themselves. Voters want this system overthrown – even the Tea Party voters, who keep searching for Republicans who will finally say no to corporate money.
In the mean time, we are stuck witnessing America’s demise. If you think that Obama’s critics from the Left are the only people voicing a dispirited attitude about our country’s future, be sure to read this essay at Counterpunch, “An Economy Destroyed”, written by Paul Craig Roberts – Assistant Secretary of the Treasury during the Reagan Administration and the co-creator of Reaganomics:
Recently, the bond rating agencies that gave junk derivatives triple-A ratings threatened to downgrade US Treasury bonds if the White House and Congress did not reach a deficit reduction deal and debt ceiling increase. The downgrade threat is not credible, and neither is the default threat. Both are make-believe crises that are being hyped in order to force cutbacks in Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.
* * *
The US economy is driven by consumer demand, but with 22.3 per cent unemployment, stagnant and declining wages and salaries, and consumer debt burdens so high that consumers cannot borrow to spend, there is nothing to drive the economy.
Washington’s response to this dilemma is to increase the austerity! Cutting back Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, forcing down wages by destroying unions and offshoring jobs (which results in a labor surplus and lower wages), and driving up the prices of food and energy by depreciating the dollar further erodes consumer purchasing power. The Federal Reserve can print money to rescue the crooked financial institutions, but it cannot rescue the American consumer.
As a final point, confront the fact that you are even lied to about “deficit reduction.” Even if Obama gets his $4 trillion “deficit reduction” over the next decade, it does not mean that the current national debt will be $4 trillion less than it currently is. The “reduction” merely means that the growth in the national debt will be $4 trillion less than otherwise. Regardless of any “deficit reduction,” the national debt ten years from now will be much higher than it presently is.
The longer you think about it – the more obvious it becomes: We really need to sweep all of those bastards out of Washington as quickly as possible and replace them with intelligent, honest individuals who are willing to represent this country’s human inhabitants – rather than its corporations, lobbies and “special interests”.
Many commentators have expressed surprise about the extensive criticism directed against President Obama by liberals. During the new President’s third month in office, I pointed out how he had become the “Disappointer-In-Chief” – when he began to elicit groans from the likes of Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. President Obama has continued on that trajectory ever since. More recently, Obama’s mishandling of the economic crisis resulted in a great cover story for New York Magazine by Frank Rich, entitled, “Obama’s Original Sin”. Although Frank Rich may have been a bit restrained in his criticism of Obama, Marshall Auerback didn’t pull any punches in an essay he wrote for the New Economic Perspectives website entitled, “Barack Obama: America’s First Tea Party President”:
Cutting public spending at this juncture is the last thing the US government should be doing. Yet this President is pushing for the largest possible cuts that he can on the Federal government debt. He is out-Hoovering the GOP on this issue. He is providing “leadership” of the sort which is infuriating his base, but should endear him to the Tea Party. This is “the big thing” for Barack Obama, as opposed to maximizing the potential of his fellow Americans by seeking to eliminate the scourge of unemployment. Instead, his big idea is to become the president who did what George Bush could not, or did not, dare to do: cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. What more could the Tea Party possibly want?
Glenn Greenwald of Salon has been a persistent critic of President Obama for quite a while. Back in September of 2010, I referenced one of Glenn Greenwald’s exceptive essays about Obama with this thought:
Glenn Greenwald devoted some space from his Salon piece to illustrate how President Obama seems to be continuing the agenda of President Bush. I was reminded of the quote from former Attorney General John Ashcroft in an article written by Jane Mayer for The New Yorker. When discussing how he expected the Obama Presidency would differ from the Presidency of his former boss, George W. Bush, Ashcroft said:
“How will he be different? The main difference is going to be that he spells his name ‘O-b-a-m-a,’ not ‘B-u-s-h.’ ”
John Ashcroft’s prescient remark could not have been more accurate. Who else could have foreseen that the Obama Presidency would eventually be correlated with that of President George W. Bush? Although it may have seemed like a preposterous notion at the time, it’s now beginning to make more sense, thanks to a very interesting piece I read at the Truthdig website entitled, “If McCain Had Won” by Fred Branfman. Branfman began with a list of “catastrophes” we would have seen from a McCain administration, followed by this comment:
Nothing reveals the true state of American politics today more, however, than the fact that Democratic President Barack Obama has undertaken all of these actions and, even more significantly, left the Democratic Party far weaker than it would have been had McCain been elected.
More important, the sentence immediately following that remark deserves special attention because it forms the crux of Branfman’s analysis:
Few issues are more important than seeing behind the screen of a myth-making mass media, and understanding what this demonstrates about how power in America really works – and what needs to be done to change it.
From there, Branfman went on to explain how and why McCain would have made the same decisions and enacted the same policies as Obama. Beyond that, Branfman explained why Obama ended up doing things exactly as McCain would have:
Furious debate rages among Obama’s Democratic critics today on why he has largely governed on the big issues as John McCain would have done. Some believe he retains his principles but has been forced to compromise by political realities. Others are convinced he was a manipulative politico who lacked any real convictions in the first place.
But there is a far more likely – and disturbing – possibility. Based on those who knew him and his books, there is little reason to doubt that the pre-presidential Obama was a college professor-type who shared the belief system of his liberalish set …
* * *
Upon taking office, however, Obama – whatever his belief system at that point – found that he was unable to accomplish these goals for one basic reason: The president of the United States is far less powerful than media myth portrays. Domestic power really is in the hands of economic elites and their lobbyists, and foreign policy really is controlled by U.S. executive branch national security managers and a “military-industrial complex.”
The ugly truth strikes again! The seemingly “all-powerful” President of the United States is nothing more than a tool of the plutocracy. It doesn’t matter whether the White House is occupied by a Democrat or a Republican – the policies (domestic, foreign, economic, etc.) will always be the same – because the people calling the shots are always the same plutocrats who control those “too big to fail” banks, the military industry and big pharma. As Branfman put it:
. . . anyone who becomes president has little choice but to serve the institutional interests of a profoundly amoral and violent executive branch and the corporations behind them.
Perhaps in response to the oft-cited criticism that “if you’re not part of the solution – you’re part of the problem”, Fred Branfman has offered us a proposal that could send us on the way to changing this intolerable status quo:
But however important the 2012 election, far more energy needs to be devoted to building mass organizations that challenge elite power and develop the kinds of policies – including massive investment in a “clean energy economic revolution,” a carbon tax and other tough measures to stave off climate change, regulating and breaking up the financial sector, cost-effective entitlements like single-payer health insurance, and public financing of primary and general elections – which alone can save America and its democracy in the painful decade to come.
Wait a minute! Didn’t Obama already promise us all of that stuff?
Perhaps the only way to achieve those goals is by voting for Independent political candidates, who are not beholden to the Republi-cratic Corporatist Party or its financiers. When the mainstream media go out of their way to pretend as though a particular candidate does not exist – you might want to give serious consideration to voting for that person. When the media try to “disappear” a candidate by “hiding” that person “in plain sight”, they could be inadvertently providing the best type of endorsement imaginable.
The same level of energy that brought Obama to the White House could be used to bring us our first Independent President. All we need is a candidate.
Comments Off on Widespread Disappointment With Financial Reform
Exactly one year ago, I wrote a piece entitled, “Financial Reform Bill Exposed As Hoax” wherein I expressed my outrage that the financial reform effort had become a charade. The final product resulting from all of the grandstanding and backroom deals – the Dodd–Frank bill – had become nothing more than a hoax on the American public. My essay included the reactions of five commentators, who were similarly dismayed. I concluded the posting with this remark:
The bill that is supposed to save us from another financial crisis does nothing to accomplish that objective. Once this 2,000-page farce is signed into law, watch for the reactions. It will be interesting to sort out the clear-thinkers from the Kool-Aid drinkers.
During the year since that posting, I felt a bit less misanthropic each time someone spoke out, wrote an article or made a presentation demonstrating that our government’s “financial reform” effort was nothing more than political theater. Last July, Rich Miller of Bloomberg Newsreported that according to a Bloomberg National Poll, almost eighty percent of those surveyed expressed “just a little or no confidence” that the financial reform bill would make their financial assets more secure. Forty-seven percent believed that the bill would do more to protect the financial industry than consumers. The American public is not as dumb as most people claim!
This past week brought us three great perspectives on the worthlessness of our government’s financial reform facade. I was surprised that the most impressive presentation came from a Fed-head! Thomas M. Hoenig, President and CEO of the Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank, gave a speech at New York University’s Stern School of Business, concerning the future of “systemically important financial institutions” or “SIFIs” and the Dodd-Frank Act. (Bill Black prefers to call them “systemically dangerous institutions” or “SDIs”.) After a great discussion of the threat these entities pose to our financial system and the moral hazard resulting from the taxpayer-financed “safety net”, which allows creditors of the SIFIs to avoid accountability for risks taken, Tom Hoenig focused on Dodd-Frank:
Following this financial crisis, Congress and the administration turned to the work of repair and reform. Once again, the American public got the standard remedies – more and increasingly complex regulation and supervision. The Dodd-Frank reforms have all been introduced before, but financial markets skirted them. Supervisory authority existed, but it was used lightly because of political pressure and the misperceptions that free markets, with generous public support, could self-regulate.
Dodd-Frank adds new layers of these same tools, but it fails to employ one remedy used in the past to assure a more stable financial system – simplification of our financial structure through Glass-Steagall-type boundaries. To this end, there are two principles that should guide our efforts to restore such boundaries. First, institutions that have access to the safety net should be restricted to certain core activities that the safety net was intended to protect – making loans and taking deposits – and related activities consistent with the presence of the safety net.
Second, the shadow banking system should be reformed in its use of money market funds and short-term repurchase agreements – the repo market. This step will better assure that the safety net is not ultimately called upon to bail them out in crisis.
Another engaging perspective on financial reform efforts came from Phil Angelides, who served as chairman of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which conducted televised hearings concerning the causes of the financial crisis and issued its final report in January. On June 27, Angelides wrote an article for The Washington Post wherein he discussed what caused the financial crisis, the current efforts to “revise the historical narrative” of what led to the economic catastrophe, as well as the efforts to undermine, subvert and repeal the meager reforms Dodd-Frank authorized. Angelides didn’t pull any punches when he upbraided Congressional Republicans for conduct which the Democrats have been too timid (or complicit) to criticize:
If you are Rep. Paul Ryan, you ignore the fact that our federal budget deficit has ballooned more than $10 trillion annually since the financial collapse. You disregard the reality that two-thirds of the deficit increase is directly attributable to the economic downturn and bipartisan fiscal measures adopted to bolster the economy. Instead of focusing on the real cause of the deficit, you conflate today’s budgetary disaster with the long-term challenges of Medicare so you can shred the social safety net.
* * *
If you are most congressional Republicans, you turn a blind eye to the sad history of widespread lending abuses that savaged communities across the country and pledge to block the appointment of anyone to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau unless its authority is weakened. You ignore the evidence of pervasive excess that wrecked our financial markets and attempt to cut funding for the regulators charged with curbing it. Across the board, you refuse to acknowledge what went wrong and then try to stop efforts to make it right.
On one hand, Europe’s politics of finance seem to be gradually moving in the direction of Sweden — that is, in the direction of growth and stability. As the Washington Post reports, that Scandinavian country — the very kind American Tea Party types write off with “socialist” epithets — has the kind of economy the U.S. can now “only dream of: growing rapidly, creating jobs and gaining a competitive edge (as) the banks are lending, the housing market booming (and) the budget is balanced.” It has accomplished this in part by seriously regulating its banking sector after it collapsed in the 1990s.
* * *
After passing an embarrassingly weak financial “reform” bill that primarily cemented the status quo, the U.S. government is now delaying even the most minimal new rules that were included in the legislation. At the same time, Senate Republicans are touting their plans to defund any new financial regulatory agencies; the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee has declared that “Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks” — not the other way around; and the Obama administration is now trying to force potential economic partners to accept financial deregulation as a consequence of bilateral trade deals.
Meanwhile, the presidential campaign already looks like a contest between two factions of the same financial elite — a dynamic that threatens to make the 2012 extravaganza a contest to see which party can more aggressively suck up to the banks.
Any qualified, Independent political candidate, who is willing to step up for the American middle class and set out a plan of action to fight the financial industry as well as its lobbyists, would be well-positioned for a 2012 election victory.
The Tea Party movement brought us more than a few Republicans who described themselves as “libertarian”, only to advance the agenda of the televangelist lobby once they were elected to office. Beyond that, the “tax reform” they espouse applies only to corporations and the wealthy, with the middle class left to pay the difference to the Corporate Welfare State.
The 2012 Presidential campaign is now wide-open with the entry of an authentic libertarian, who has jumped into contention for the Republican nomination. Although Ron Paul (a former Presidential nominee, representing the Libertarian Party in the 1988 election) has been receiving more than a little encouragement to make another White House bid (he won the straw poll at the Conservative Political Action Conference – CPAC) his age is a huge obstacle. As Congressman Paul approaches his 76th birthday, many consider him too old for the job.
April 21 brought us the entry of Gary Johnson, a former Governor of New Mexico, into the race for the Republican Presidential Nomination. At age 58, he is an active triathlete, who successfully climbed to the summit of Mt. Everest in 2003. This guy brings loads of excitement into the race and is likely the only Republican who could defeat Barack Obama. Gary Johnson’s support from outside the ranks of the Republican Party extends – not only to Independent voters – but to Democrats. That’s right. Gary Johnson could actually win the votes of a significant number of Democrats – something no other Republican could accomplish. Republicans are going to have to take Johnson very seriously. Nevertheless, Gary Johnson will surely make the televangelist lobby sick with his hardcore libertarian views.
Some recent articles about Johnson are the stuff of Bill O’Reilly’s worst nightmares. For example, an April 20 piece by Christian Heinze for The Hill included this tidbit about the new candidate:
He’s running for the Republican presidential nomination on a platform that calls for withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq – a position that’s anathema to the party’s ruling class. He also supports abortion rights and, most controversially, favors legalizing marijuana.
See what I mean? Johnson has the guts to speak out for the changes which many Democratic voters would like to see – and which Barack Obama would never even bother to include among his trademark, false campaign promises.
Republican pundits regularly emphasize the importance of a candidate’s history of success in the business world, which is perhaps why they are now fretting that the party could be stuck with Donald Trump as its 2012 nominee. Willard Romney’s inherited wealth gave him the opportunity to participate in the private equity business (Bain Capital) which he left in 1999 to become CEO of the 2002 Olympic Games in Salt Lake City. As a result, Romney has been able to contrast that background against the qualifications of his political opponents, who have generally spent their adult lives at the public trough. Gary Johnson presents a fresh challenge to Romney in the area of business credentials. Johnson started his own construction business in the 1970s and became a self-made millionaire.
As a two-term Governor of New Mexico, Johnson didn’t hesitate to veto bills. He used the veto pen more than 750 times and kept the state budget under control.
Johnson’s view of the 2012 budget proposed by Congressional Republicans is not likely to win him any new friends in the party’s establishment. Here is what we learned from The Hill:
He claims the biggest threat to U.S. security is the nation’s debt, and to show how serious he is about fighting it, he says Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis.) proposed budget actually isn’t serious enough.
“It takes too long, and only get us a quarter of where we should be many years down the road,” he said.
One of the more informative essays about Gary Johnson was written by Niall Stanage for Salon on May 5, 2010. That piece points out how Johnson doesn’t have much use for Rush Limbaugh or Jesus, which could cause him some trouble with the Republican base – many of whom have trouble differentiating between those two individuals. Worse yet, the people at Fox News probably pulled out their hair after reading this:
Ask Johnson what he thinks of Barack Obama, for instance, and rather than the stream of vitriol that might issue semi-automatically from the lips of some party colleagues, he answers: “You can’t help but like him.”
Obama, he says, “touched” him with his rhetoric during the 2008 campaign, though he adds that the president has proven disappointing and disingenuous since then.
After reading that remark, I was on the verge of giving Gary Johnson my unqualified endorsement. Let’s see how he does on the campaign trail.
The 2012 Presidential race just became really interesting!
TheCenterLane.com offers opinion, news and commentary on politics, the economy, finance and other random events that either find their way into the news or are ignored by the news reporting business. As the name suggests, our focus will be on what seems to be happening in The Center Lane of American politics and what the view from the Center reveals about the events in the left and right lanes. Your Host, John T. Burke, Jr., earned his Bachelor of Arts degree from Boston College with a double major in Speech Communications and Philosophy. He earned his law degree (Juris Doctor) from the Illinois Institute of Technology / Chicago-Kent College of Law.