Sunday, January 10, 2010

The OTHER plot to wreck America...

...And Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qeada have nothing to do with it...Hopefully this panel generates some headlines, because we are OWED an explanation.

By Frank Rich in Yesterday's New York Times:
(original article here.)
THERE may not be a person in America without a strong opinion about what coulda, shoulda been done to prevent the underwear bomber from boarding that Christmas flight to Detroit. In the years since 9/11, we’ve all become counterterrorists. But in the 16 months since that other calamity in downtown New York — the crash precipitated by the 9/15 failure of Lehman Brothers — most of us are still ignorant about what Warren Buffett called the “financial weapons of mass destruction” that wrecked our economy. Fluent as we are in Al Qaeda and body scanners, when it comes to synthetic C.D.O.’s and credit-default swaps, not so much.

What we don’t know will hurt us, and quite possibly on a more devastating scale than any Qaeda attack. Americans must be told the full story of how Wall Street gamed and inflated the housing bubble, made out like bandits, and then left millions of households in ruin. Without that reckoning, there will be no public clamor for serious reform of a financial system that was as cunningly breached as airline security at the Amsterdam airport. And without reform, another massive attack on our economic security is guaranteed. Now that it can count on government bailouts, Wall Street has more incentive than ever to pump up its risks — secure that it can keep the bonanzas while we get stuck with the losses.

The window for change is rapidly closing. Health care, Afghanistan and the terrorism panic may have exhausted Washington’s already limited capacity for heavy lifting, especially in an election year. The White House’s chief economic hand, Lawrence Summers, has repeatedly announced that “everybody agrees that the recession is over” — which is technically true from an economist’s perspective and certainly true on Wall Street, where bailed-out banks are reporting record profits and bonuses. The contrary voices of Americans who have lost pay, jobs, homes and savings are either patronized or drowned out entirely by a political system where the banking lobby rules in both parties and the revolving door between finance and government never stops spinning.

It’s against this backdrop that this week’s long-awaited initial public hearings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission are so critical. This is the bipartisan panel that Congress mandated last spring to investigate the still murky story of what happened in the meltdown. Phil Angelides, the former California treasurer who is the inquiry’s chairman, told me in interviews late last year that he has been busy deploying a tough investigative staff and will not allow the proceedings to devolve into a typical blue-ribbon Beltway exercise in toothless bloviation.

He wants to examine the financial sector’s “greed, stupidity, hubris and outright corruption” — from traders on the ground to the board room. “It’s important that we deliver new information,” he said. “We can’t just rehash what we’ve known to date.” He understands that if he fails to make news or to tell the story in a way that is comprehensible and compelling enough to arouse Americans to demand action, Wall Street and Washington will both keep moving on, unchallenged and unchastened.

Angelides gets it. But he has a tough act to follow: Ferdinand Pecora, the legendary prosecutor who served as chief counsel to the Senate committee that investigated the 1929 crash as F.D.R. took office. Pecora was a master of detail and drama. He riveted America even without the aid of television. His investigation led to indictments, jail sentences and, ultimately, key New Deal reforms — the creation of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Glass-Steagall Act, designed to prevent the formation of banks too big to fail.

As it happened, a major Pecora target was the chief executive of National City Bank, the institution that would grow up to be Citigroup. Among other transgressions, National City had repackaged bad Latin American debt as new securities that it then sold to easily suckered investors during the frenzied 1920s boom. Once disaster struck, the bank’s executives helped themselves to millions of dollars in interest-free loans. Yet their own employees had to keep ponying up salary deductions for decimated National City stock purchased at a heady precrash price.

Trade bad Latin American debt for bad mortgage debt, and you have a partial portrait of Citigroup at the height of the housing bubble. The reckless Citi executives of our day may not have given themselves interest-free loans, but they often walked away with the short-term, illusionary profits while their employees were left with shredded jobs and 401(k)’s. Among those Citi executives was Robert Rubin, who, as the Clinton Treasury secretary, helped repeal the last vestiges of Glass-Steagall after years of Wall Street assault. Somewhere Pecora is turning in his grave

Rubin has never apologized, let alone been held accountable. But he’s hardly alone. Even after all the country has gone through, the titans who fueled the bubble are heedless. In last Sunday’s Times, Sandy Weill, the former chief executive who built Citigroup (and recruited Rubin to its ranks), gave a remarkable interview to Katrina Brooker blaming his own hand-picked successor, Charles Prince, for his bank’s implosion. Weill said he preferred to be remembered for his philanthropy. Good luck with that.

Among his causes is Carnegie Hall, where he is chairman of the board. To see how far American capitalism has fallen, contrast Weill with the giant who built Carnegie Hall. Not only is Andrew Carnegie remembered for far more epic and generous philanthropy than Weill’s — some 1,600 public libraries, just for starters — but also for creating a steel empire that actually helped build America’s industrial infrastructure in the late 19th century. At Citi, Weill built little more than a bloated gambling casino. As Paul Volcker, the regrettably powerless chairman of Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, said recently, there is not “one shred of neutral evidence” that any financial innovation of the past 20 years has led to economic growth. Citi, that “innovative” banking supermarket, destroyed far more wealth than Weill can or will ever give away.

Even now — despite its near-death experience, despite the departures of Weill, Prince and Rubin — Citi remains as imperious as it was before 9/15. Its current chairman, Richard Parsons, was one of three executives (along with Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and John Mack of Morgan Stanley) who failed to show up at the mid-December White House meeting where President Obama implored bankers to increase lending. (The trio blamed fog for forcing them to participate by speakerphone, but the weather hadn’t grounded their peers or Amtrak.) Last week, ABC World News was also stiffed by Citi, which refused to answer questions about its latest round of outrageous credit card rate increases and instead e-mailed a statement blaming its customers for “not paying back their loans.” This from a bank that still owes taxpayers $25 billion of its $45 billion handout!

If Citi, among the most egregious of Wall Street reprobates, feels it can get away with business as usual, it’s because it fears no retribution. And it got more good news last week. Now that Chris Dodd is vacating the Senate, his chairmanship of the Banking Committee may fall next year to Tim Johnson of South Dakota, home to Citi’s credit card operation. Johnson was the only Senate Democrat to vote against Congress’s recent bill policing credit card abuses.

Though bad history shows every sign of repeating itself on Wall Street, it will take a near-miracle for Angelides to repeat Pecora’s triumph. Our zoo of financial skullduggery is far more complex, with many more moving pieces, than that of the 1920s. The new inquiry does have subpoena power, but its entire budget, a mere $8 million, doesn’t even match the lobbying expenditures for just three banks (Citi, Morgan Stanley, Bank of America) in the first nine months of 2009. The firms under scrutiny can pay for as many lawyers as they need to stall between now and Dec. 15, deadline day for the commission’s report.

More daunting still is the inquiry’s duty to reach into high places in the public sector as well as the private. The mystery of exactly what happened as TARP fell into place in the fateful fall of 2008 thickens by the day — especially the behind-closed-door machinations surrounding the government rescue of A.I.G. and its counterparties. Last week, a Republican congressman, Darrell Issa of California, released e-mail showing that officials at the New York Fed, then led by Timothy Geithner, pressured A.I.G. to delay disclosing to the S.E.C. and the public the details on the billions of bailout dollars it was funneling to its trading partners. In this backdoor rescue, taxpayers unknowingly awarded banks like Goldman 100 cents on the dollar for their bets on mortgage-backed securities.

Why was our money used to make these high-flying gamblers whole while ordinary Americans received no such beneficence? Nothing less than complete transparency will connect the dots. Among the big-name witnesses that the Angelides commission has called for next week is Goldman’s Blankfein. Geithner, Henry Paulson and Ben Bernanke should be next.

If they all skate away yet again by deflecting blame or mouthing pro forma mea culpas, it will be a sign that this inquiry, like so many other promises of reform since 9/15, is likely to leave Wall Street’s status quo largely intact. That’s the ticking-bomb scenario that truly imperils us all.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

From Steve Benen of "Washington Monthly"

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/021802.php
STIMULUS FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS....
The American Enterprise Institute is a conservative think tank, which enjoyed very close ties to the Bush White House, and which is not exactly known for its support for the Democratic domestic agenda.

So it was interesting to see the AEI's economic outlook for 2010 and its analysis of the Obama administration's recovery package from last year. (via Jon Chait)

The real economy ... responded to the massive stimulus but remained heavily dependent on it. In the United States, growth during the second half of 2009 probably averaged about 3 percent. Absent temporary fiscal stimulus and inventory rebuilding, which taken together added about 4 percentage points to U.S. growth, the economy would have contracted at about a 1 percent annual rate during the second half of 2009. [emphasis added]


I realize that Republicans and their most strident allies are entirely convinced that the stimulus didn't work. I've also seen the polls that suggest Americans in general are skeptical about its efficacy.

But among economists, we seem awfully close to complete unanimity that the Democrats' recovery effort rescued the economy from collapse, created jobs, and generated economic growth that wouldn't have existed otherwise. Among those who know what they're talking about, this isn't even worth debating anymore -- it's simply an obvious truth.

Which is why the politics of the economic debate can be so exasperating. To reiterate a point from a month ago, the Republicans' track record of uninterrupted failure is rather astounding.

The GOP said the stimulus package would fail to create jobs. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the recovery efforts would fail to generate economic growth. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the stimulus "failed." We now know the Republicans were wrong.

The GOP said the government should cancel unspent recovery funds. We now know the Republicans were wrong.
The GOP said tax cuts are more effective at stimulating the economy than government spending. We now know the Republicans were wrong.

Had Republicans been in the majority a year ago, the results for the United States and the global economy likely would have been devastating. That GOP officials and their allies continue to pretend otherwise serves as a reminder of just how little role reality can play in our discourse.

Monday, January 4, 2010

A classic bit...

The Frantics' "Last Will and Testament - Boot to the Head" animated by Phoenix Wright. As Larry the Cable Guy is fond of saying, "I don't care who y'are - that's funny, right there."

Friday, January 1, 2010

Happy 2010!

...but not for Colin...



And then, in the morning - what a difference a night's sleep makes...

Sunday, November 1, 2009

"Government can't do anything better than the Private Sector"

I hear this a hundred times a day, despite the fact that those who say this STILL have not managed to demonstrate to me when their semi-sacred Private Sector ever won a war, put men on the Moon, or built a highway system...
Well, here's ANOTHER fact for them to ignore -
Obama auto plan stopped global auto collapse from Reuters:
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The global auto industry would have collapsed if the U.S. government had not provided taxpayer-backed financing for automakers General Motors and Chrysler, according to the chief executive officer of Motors Liquidation Co (MTLQQ.PK: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).

"If GM had gone down, the world's supply base would have gone down," said Al Koch, speaking at the Reuters Restructuring Summit in New York. Koch was GM's chief restructuring officer during the bankruptcy and now heads the GM unit that is being liquidated.

"There wouldn't have been a manufacturer that could have completed a car, because somewhere on the car there would be a part that needs to come from a supplier that had failed," he said.

"I'm not so sure that even Lexus (7203.T: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) wouldn't have suffered," said Koch. "I think that every single manufacturer would have gone down, and the cascading unemployment from that would have been catastrophic."

Earlier this year, the U.S. government helped finance bankruptcies for GM and Chrysler CCMLPD.UL with $60 billion in taxpayer money. The funding helped support operations while the automakers slashed debt and other obligations while in Chapter 11 protection from creditors.

The companies emerged from bankruptcy through a sale process that transferred their best assets to new operating companies funded by the U.S. government while leaving liabilities, excess equipment and some shuttered industrial sites in companies set up as liquidators.

"I do believe that if President Obama hadn't done what he did for GM and Chrysler, that the world's auto industry would have collapsed and I believe we would have been in the middle of a worldwide depression," Koch said.

(Reporting by Chelsea Emery; Editing by Gary Hill)


A pity for Conservatives that reality has such a strong liberal bias...

Monday, October 26, 2009

So let me get this straight...

Christians are feeling PERSECUTED? We're 70% of the freaking US population, and we're PERSECUTED? Gimme a frickin' break!
And all this comes from the recent hate crimes legislation passed by Congress. It has spawned a new wave of irrationality from the religious right, fearing it's an assault on freedom of religion.

My views on this were well summed up by Nance Greggs on Democratic Underground:

A rightwing acquaintance recently sent an email with a link to the following, “Christians on high alert over hate crimes passage”, adding the query “Is this one more nail in the coffin of Christianity?”

Well, the answer is yes and no, depending on what kind of “Christian” one is these days.

The first line of the linked article – “A hate crimes bill sent to President Obama for his signature raised a red flag for Christians” – sadly, and oh-so-ironically, speaks for itself.

For those of us raised as Christians back in the day, it would seem that enacting laws that prosecute and punish the propagation of hate towards one’s fellow citizens, hopefully reducing same in consideration of the consequences thereof, would be right in keeping with Christian values and the promotion of increased civility and understanding among us.

But that was, as I’ve said, back in the day – before the new, improved, narrow-minded, homo-hating, sword-wielding, the-end-justifies-the-means Jesus hit the shelves, currently being marketed at a pulpit in your area (action accessories, e.g. “Jesus hates Faggots” placards, home addresses of abortion providers, etc., sold separately).

“On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed a hate crimes bill that Christian leaders have warned for years could greatly infringe on the rights of those who speak to loudly about their religious views. Matt Barber of Liberty Counsel agrees with most observers that President Obama will sign the measure -- adding that the president desires to "throw a bone to homosexual activists because they have been breathing down his neck...and this is a way to hold them off."

Ah, yes – the “homosexual activists”, those nasty immoral people who Jesus railed against continually. One need only look to the New Testament to read quote after quote by the Prince of Peace himself to know that – oh, that’s right. He was completely silent on the topic. I guess he had more important things on his mind. There’s also the fact that Jesus’ dad left any mention of “thou shalt not” out of the Ten Big Ones when it came to homosexuality – and bein’ God and all, one would imagine he could have gone with Eleven Commandments if he’d been of a mind to. (Hey, it’s not like He couldn’t foresee a problem, if He thought one existed).

As for the statement that Mr. Barber “agrees with most observers” – who are said “observers”, and what are their names? Inquiring minds really DO want to know these days.

“Barber views the legislation as something akin to a muzzle. ‘Unfortunately, it places Christians – people of faith, people who have traditional values relative to sexual immorality – in an untenable position,’ says the attorney.

Yes, the position IS untenable – if you’re taking the position that spewing hate is part and parcel of Christianity, and shouldn’t be “muzzled”. That would appear to be, on its face, as untenable as it gets.

If modern-day followers of the New Improved Jesus see anti-hate-crime legislation as being somehow anti-Christian, one has to ask exactly what it is they are seeking to “protect” as their God-given right (pun definitely intended) to say, do and promote as part of “free speech” or “freedom of religion”.

It would seem that speaking to “traditional Christian values” would include the oldies-but-goodies – like being thy brother’s keeper, tending to the sick and homeless in His name, treating the least among us as we ourselves would hope to be treated – and wouldn’t be subject to, by any stretch of the imagination, being “muzzled” by government fiat.

But this, of course, is the underlying problem. The current crop of hypocrites behind the New Improved Jesus movement know that what they seek to be exempt from prosecution for is becoming more and more blatantly a matter of hatred disguised as moral rectitude; what is being sought to be “protected” is not the right to speak freely, but the right to hide behind religion while spewing intolerance against those who refuse to conform to the New Fangled Christianity being espoused by those who want to hold on to their prejudices and still be recognized as part of the flock.

“Barber explains that Liberty Counsel intends to challenge the constitutionality of the hate crimes legislation.”

Well, you do that, Mr. Barber. I wouldn’t want to think you and your ilk are wasting time challenging the constitutionality of torture, or the involvement the past administration in war crimes, or the moral reprehensibility of withholding medical care from those who can’t afford it – things that the Old Time Jesus would, no doubt, have had something to say about were he still here.

Apparently Mr. Barber thinks that the lefties, the progressives, the Democrats, are too wacky to know the difference between the freedom to publicly acknowledge one’s religious beliefs and hate speech – which is pretty rich considering the out-and-out wackiness of the “religious right” we, as a nation, have had to endure for far too long.

I have no doubt that if the speech and/or actions Mr. Barber fears will fall squarely under the grounds of a hate crime under the new legislation included loving one's neighbor as one's self, he'd have a legitimate argument. But it doesn't, and he doesn't, and there you have it, plain and simple.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted for spewing hatred and intolerance in the Lord’s name – for they shall inherit the Earth.”

I don’t actually recall that as being one of the Beatitudes – but it’s a whole new world under the New Improved Jesus.

I just wish the Old Jesus was still in vogue. He was someone worth meeting, getting to know - too bad Mr. Barber never had the pleasure.