Evans Liberal Politics
June 26, 2011
BIG NEWS on Elizabeth Warren!, Daily Kos, July 21, 2010, by Forrest Brown. Mr. Brown has no means to contact him but we knew he would want you to get this news, with apologies for simply republishing without permission:
BIG NEWS: 39 Democratic Reps have signed Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s letter supporting Elizabeth Warren’s nomination to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — over the objections of Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and big banks.
We need to keep the momentum going to send a strong signal to President Obama.
![]() |
|---|
Can you help us get to 50 members of Congress by calling your representative and asking him or her to sign on to “The Maloney Letter”? Click here for the number and a script.
The National Journal describes this as a “major lobbying battle over whether to appoint Elizabeth Warren” — and it’s all due to you.
In less than a week, over 140,000 people joined together to urge President Obama to appoint Warren — making waves in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal. Together with our friends at Credo Action and MoveOn we’ve made thousands of calls to Democratic members of Congress — and it’s working with 39 reps signing the Maloney Letter supporting Warren. Sen. Tom Harkin launched his own letter supporting Warren’s nomination, and yesterday, SEIU and the AFL-CIO piled on, publicly announcing their support for Warren’s nomination.
But Wall Street isn’t backing down. On Monday, Sen. Chris Dodd suggested Warren was too controversial. David Sirota explains that’s step one in “marginalizing an agent of change”.
This morning TPM reports that key Senate Democrats are hesitant about Warren — we need to act fast before they scare President Obama out of nominating Warren. Tell your Rep to fight back by signing the Maloney Letter.
This congressional letter will be a major boost for Warren if more House members sign it — so your call today is very important.
Can you take a minute to call your Representative? The number and a script are here.
(Forrest Brown is the senior organizing fellow for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee)
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
The New Finance Bill: A Mountain of Legislative Paper, a Molehill of Reform, Robert Reich.org, July 16, 2010, by Robert Reich, used with permission, quoted verbatim:
Thursday the President pronounced that “because of this [financial reform] bill the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street’s mistakes.”
Click the Magic Dollar Sign |
|---|
As if to prove him wrong, Goldman Sachs simultaneously announced it had struck a deal with federal prosecutors to pay $550 million to settle federal claims it misled investor — a sum representing a mere 15 days profit for the firm based on its 2009 earnings. Goldman’s share price immediately jumped 4.3 percent, and the Street proclaimed its chair and CEO, Lloyd (“Goldman is doing God’s work”) Blankfein, a winner. Financial analysts rushed to affirm a glowing outlook for Goldman stock.
Blankfein, you may recall, was at the meeting in late 2008 when Tim Geithner and Hank Paulson decided to bail out AIG, and thereby deliver through AIG a $13 billion no-strings-attached taxpayer windfall to Goldman. In a world where money is the measure of everything, Blankfein’s power and influence have grown. Presumably, Goldman can expect more windfalls in future years.
Although the financial reform bill may have clipped some of Goldman’s wings — its lucrative derivative business may require Goldman to jettison its status as a bank holding company, and the access to the Fed discount window that comes with it — the main point is that the Goldman settlement reveals everything that’s weakest about the financial reform bill.
The American people will continue to have to foot the bill for the mistakes of Wall Street’s biggest banks because the legislation does nothing to diminish the economic and political power of these giants. It does not cap their size. It does not resurrect the Glass-Steagall Act that once separated commercial (normal) banking from investment (casino) banking. It does not even link the pay of their traders and top executives to long-term performance. In other words, it does nothing to change their basic structure. And for this reason, it gives them an implicit federal insurance policy against failure unavailable to smaller banks — thereby adding to their economic and political power in the future.
The bill contains hortatory language but is precariously weak in the details. The so-called Volcker Rule has been watered down and delayed. Blanche Lincoln’s important proposal that derivatives be traded in separate entities which aren’t subsidized by commercial deposits has been shrunk and compromised. Customized derivatives can remain underground. The consumer protection agency has been lodged in the Fed, whose own consumer division failed miserably to protect consumers last time around.
On every important issue the legislation merely passes on to regulators decisions about how to oversee the big banks and treat them if they’re behaving badly. But if history proves one lesson it’s that regulators won’t and can’t. They don’t have the resources. They don’t have the knowledge. They are staffed by people in their 30s and 40s who are paid a small fraction of what the lawyers working for the banks are paid. Many want and expect better-paying jobs on Wall Street after they leave government, and so are shrink-wrapped in a basic conflict of interest. And the big banks’ lawyers and accountants can run circles around them by threatening protracted litigation.
Why do you think Goldman got off so easily from such serious charges of fraud?
Reliance on the discretion of regulators rather than structural changes in the banking system plays directly into the hands of the big banks and their executives and traders who contribute mightily to Democratic and Republican campaigns. The flow of money virtually guarantees that regulatory agencies won’t be adequately staffed to enforce the law, that penalties for violations won’t be overly onerous, and that all loopholes (what’s a “derivative”? what has to be listed on exchanges? exactly how much capital must be on hand for which transactions? How are the various forms of predatory lending to be defined?) will be easily stretched in future years. Wall Street lawyers will have a field day. The profit-for-nothing sector of the economy (law, accounting, finance) will continue to grow buoyantly.
Make no mistake: As long as there’s no fundamental change in the structure of Wall Street — as long as the big banks stay as big and are allowed to grow bigger, and have every incentive to invent new financial gimmicks with which to bet other peoples’ money — they will remain too big to fail, and too politically powerful to control.
Goldman’s share price, as well as those of JP Morgan Chase, Citicorps, Morgan Stanley, and Bank of America, will no doubt soar the basis of the final bill because their future profits are almost guaranteed. The pay of their executives and traders, and of the managers of hedge funds and private-equity funds they deal with, will likewise accelerate. In the short term the economy will benefit, at least to the extent financial entrepreneurship is now the apex of American wealth and innovation. But over the longer term we will be much weaker for it.
Congress has labored mightily to produce a mountain of legislation that can be called financial reform, but it has produced a molehill relative to the wreckage Wall Street wreaked upon the nation.
See Interview: Elizabeth Warren Says Big Banks Must Stop Blocking Reform, Mother Jones, July 16, 2010, by Lynn Parramore: DC’s top bailout cop dishes on Wall Street’s lobbyist culture and how to restore consumer trust after the Great Recession.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
Feingold explains ‘no’ vote: Washington once again caved to Wall Street, The Raw Story, July 15, 2010, by Agence France-Presse, used with permission, quoted verbatim:
Senate passes sweeping bank reform bill
The US Senate voted Thursday to send President Barack Obama the most sweeping rewrite of Wall Street rules since the Great Depression of the 1930s, handing him a historic political win. The bill passed 60-39.
However, a top Democratic senator who voted “no” is arguing that “Washington once again caved to Wall Street.”
Lawmakers voted 60-38 to end a year of often bitter partisan debate on the 2,300-page measure and set the stage for a final passage ballot expected shortly after a last procedural test at 2:00 pm. (1800 GMT Thursday).
The bill, Obama’s top domestic priority, aims to rein in risky investment practices blamed for the 2007-2009 global financial meltdown and give regulators an arsenal of new weapons against shady big-bank dealings.
“We will fundamentally change the way our financial system is regulated, to rein in Wall Street and create a sound foundation to grow our economy and create jobs,” said Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd, a Democrat and a key author of the legislation.
It creates a new consumer financial protection agency, an early-warning system to predict and prevent the next crisis, and mechanisms aimed at liquidating rather than saving companies once deemed “too big to fail.”
The legislation also closes loopholes in regulations and requires greater transparency and accountability for hedge funds, mortgage brokers and payday lenders, and arcane financial instruments called derivatives.
It also includes a somewhat diluted version of the so-called “Volcker Rule” — named for former Fed chairman Paul Volcker — curbing commercial banks’ ability to make speculative investments that are not on behalf of clients.
Republicans mostly opposed the bill, charging it gives too much more power to regulators who failed to stem the previous crisis and does nothing to rein in activities by government-backed mortgage giants Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
“What we’re going to wind up doing is we’re going to be driving jobs and business overseas with this massive piece of legislation that truly doesn’t address the problem,” Republican Senator Saxby Chambliss charged Thursday.
Dodd said the bill was not “perfect” but underlined: “We must act now. Many of the same risks to our financial sector remain.”
Just three of the Senate’s 41 Republicans — Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine and Scott Brown of Massachusetts — lined up with 55 Democrats and two independents behind the bill, while Republican Senator Mike Crapo of Idaho did not vote.
Democratic Senator Russell Feingold opposed the measure, which he charged did not go far enough to curtail the dealings that led to the international economic collapse.
“I made clear that my test for this bill would be whether it prevents another economic crisis. Unfortunately, this bill falls short,” he said in a statement after the vote.
Feingold’s statement added,
The reckless practices of Wall Street sent our economy reeling, triggered the worst recession since the Great Depression, and left millions of Americans to foot the bill. Despite these cataclysmic events, Washington once again caved to Wall Street on key issues and produced a bill that fails to protect the American people from the pain of another economic disaster. I will not support a bill that fails to adequately protect the people of Wisconsin from the recklessness of Wall Street.
Amid stubbornly high unemployment near ten percent and deep US public anger at Wall Street four months before November mid-term elections, Obama has led Democrats in painting Republicans as opposed to common-sense reforms.
Republicans have repeatedly denounced key planks of the Democratic platform as “job-killing” and accused the president of not doing enough to fix the crisis he inherited from Republican predecessor George W. Bush.
The US House of Representatives approved the legislation on June 30 in a largely party-line 237-192 vote.
Final passage of the bill would hand Obama a second historic legislative triumph after successfully pushing the US Congress to overhaul the US health care system over fierce Republican objections.
See Obama Pushes Through Agenda Despite Political Risks, The New York Times, July 15, 2010, by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, excerpt quoted verbatim:
WASHINGTON — If passage of the financial regulatory overhaul on Thursday proves anything about President Obama, it is this: He knows how to push big bills through a balky Congress.
But Mr. Obama’s legislative success poses a paradox: while he may be winning on Capitol Hill, he is losing with voters at a time of economic distress, and soon may be forced to scale back his ambitions.
The financial regulatory bill is the final piece of a legislative hat trick that also included the stimulus bill and the landmark new health care law. Over the last 18 months, Mr. Obama and the Democratic Congress have made considerable inroads in passing what could be the most ambitious agenda in decades.
Mr. Obama has done what he promised when he ran for office in 2008: he has used government as an instrument to try to narrow the gaps between the haves and the have-nots. He has injected $787 billion in tax dollars into the economy, provided health coverage to 32 million uninsured and now, reordered the relationship among Washington, Wall Street, investors and consumers.
But as he has done so, the political context has changed around him. Today, with unemployment remaining persistently near double digits despite the scale of the stimulus program and the BP oil spill having raised questions about his administration’s competence, Mr. Obama’s signature legislation is providing ammunition to conservatives who argue that government is the problem, not the solution.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
Progressive Breakfast: Financial Reform Gains Votes In The Senate, Campaign for America’s Future, July 13, 2010, by Terrance Heath, used with permission, quoted verbatim:
With Sens. Brown and Snowe signalling support, financial reform moves closer to a filibuster-proof majority: “Maine Republican Olympia Snowe came out in favor of the sweeping overhaul Monday, saying ‘I intend to support passage of the legislation when it’s brought before the Senate.’ She added, ‘While not perfect, the legislation takes necessary steps to implement meaningful regulatory reforms, create strong consumer protections and restore confidence in the American financial system.’ Earlier, Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) sounded a similar theme about the so-called Dodd-Frank bill. In a statement, Brown also noted that the legislation ‘isn’t perfect,’ but that it’s a ‘better bill than it was when this whole process started,’ citing safeguards designed to forestall another financial meltdown as well as consumer protections. In addition, ‘it is paid for without new taxes. That doesn’t mean our work is done,’ Brown said.”
Click the Obama’s |
|---|
Also in Finance, the FDIC gained more power to evaluate banks: “Federal bank regulators have agreed to give the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation unlimited authority to investigate banks, clarifying the agency’s power, which was in question during the financial crisis. The F.D.I.C.’s board on Monday approved an agreement between the agency and regulators at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department. It spells out the F.D.I.C.’s authority to make special examinations of banks. It was approved 5 to 0. Federal bank regulators were widely criticized during the financial crisis for failing to signal high-risk practices before the institutions failed. The F.D.I.C., which takes over failed banks, has said it lacked access to information it needed to evaluate banks’ risk.”
Wall Street is having it’s best recovery since the Great Depression: “Many Americans are still waiting for an economic recovery. But for corporate America, a recovery of sorts is already at hand. The corporate earnings season, that quarterly rite of Wall Street, begins in earnest on Monday, and investors are hoping for some good news. Major corporations are expected to report some of their strongest profits in years. ‘It has been one of the strongest profits recoveries ever,’ said David S. Bianco, chief United States equity strategist for Bank of America Merrill Lynch. ‘You have got to go back to the Depression to find a profits recovery that outpaces this one. The question on many economists’ minds is whether this corporate recovery will last — and if it does, when it will yield jobs for recession-weary Americans.”
Small businesses say that banks aren’t lending: “The worst may be over for small businesses struggling to obtain credit, but this important corner of the financial system doesn’t show signs of recovering very quickly, according to officials and business leaders who gathered at the Federal Reserve for a one-day conference. ‘Overall, the survey data seem to suggest that current economic conditions for small businesses, though still quite challenging, are less dire than they were in 2009,’ said Robin Prager, an assistant research director at the Fed, at the forum on small-business lending. …Small business owners and the groups that represent them said they haven’t seen lenders becoming more lenient. ‘It still feels very depressed,’ said Leslie H. Benoliel, executive director of the Philadelphia Development Partnership, one of the area’s largest providers of micro-enterprise business advice.”
Fed. Chair Ben Bernanke called on banks to boost lending to small businesses: “Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke on Monday called on banks to do all they could to lend to small businesses, pointing out that they were ‘central’ to creating jobs. Credit conditions for small businesses have barely improved since the depths of the financial crisis. This is emerging as one of the main barriers to a strong economic recovery in the US. ‘The formation and growth of small businesses depends critically on access to credit. Unfortunately, those businesses report that credit conditions remain very difficult,’ Mr Bernanke said at a Federal Reserve conference on small-business lending being held in Washington. Mr Bernanke noted that small companies created about 60 per cent of gross overall new jobs in the US. A lack of new jobs – which pay wages that therefore support consumption – is the biggest concern about the health of the US economic recovery.”
Don’t count on the Fed to stimulate the economy. Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke says it’s not gonna happen: “Federal Reserve Governor Elizabeth Duke said the central bank has no current plans to deploy additional tools for stimulating the economy. The Fed could alter its communications strategy, lower the interest rate it pays on excess reserves or replace mortgage- backed securities that are rolling off its balance sheet, Duke said today in an interview with Bloomberg Television, when asked what tools the central bank has at its disposal. ‘I would emphasize there are no plans to do that at this point,’ she said. ‘There are a lot of reserves out there in the system,’ Duke said. ‘We don’t think the barrier is there’s not enough money out there.’ She also said ‘I think we are in the right place’ on monetary policy.”
![]() |
|---|
When American consumers go down for the count, they will take the economies of several countries with them: “It’s not just that one out of four Americans is unemployed or underemployed (working part-time, overqualified, or at a lower wage than before). More significantly, the Great Recession burst the housing bubble that had let American consumers turn their homes into ATMs. Now the cash machines are closed. So the Administration figures foreign consumers will have to fill the gap. Problem is, most other economies also relied on American consumers. Remember the trade gap? Americans used to be the world’s biggest and most reliable customers — sucking in high-tech gadgets assembled in China, car parts from Japan, shirts and shoes from Southeast Asia, and precision instruments from Germany. With American consumers pulling back, these other economies have also been slowing down. Their unemployment is rising.”
The next wave of the foreclosure crisis may be building right now — nearly 2.4 million Americans with prime loans seriously delinquent on their mortgage: “They are the new face of the housing crisis. Unlike subprime borrowers, most of these homeowners did everything right. They bought houses they could afford and used standard mortgages. But falling home prices and a protracted recession have pushed them into a classic squeeze: They can’t keep up their mortgage payments because someone in the household has lost his or her job. They can’t sell because they owe more than the home is worth. ‘In the next 12 months it’s going to be tragic — most people are just starting to fall behind now,’ said Avi Liss, a lawyer helping homeowners avoid foreclosure in the Boston area. According to the Center for Responsible Lending, a nonprofit research and policy group, as many as 9 million homeowners could go into foreclosure between 2009 and 2012. Is there a solution? Yes, but it’s controversial. Congress would have to force banks to write off part of homeowners’ troubled loans as a way to keep them in their homes.”
Ezra Klein has five practical (and one impractical) ways Congress can improve the economy by November: “If elections are dependent on the economy, then the obvious question is what, if anything, can Democrats in Congress actually do to improve the economy between here and November? The answer, even if they had the votes, is probably not that much. But that’s not to say nothing. First, Congress can pass policies to keep things from getting, or feeling, worse. Unemployment insurance and state and local aid are probably the biggest players here. If unemployment insurance isn’t extended, millions of unemployed Americans will stop getting checks. As angry as they are about the economy now, they’ll be much angrier after Congress deserts them.”
![]() |
|---|
The unemployment benefits standoff is going to continue for at least another week, as the Senate waits for Robert Byrd’s replacement: “Senate Democrats will remain one vote short of the 60 needed to reauthorize unemployment benefits for the long-term jobless at least until the end of the week, as West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin says he wants to wait until the state legislature has cleared up the law on how to fill the Senate seat left behind by the late Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.). …Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has repeatedly said that Senate Democrats need Byrd’s replacement to break the filibuster by Republicans and Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson, whose approval — had he decided to give it — would have ended the endless debate that has already cut off unemployment checks to some 2.1 million people.”
Republicans not only don’t like the unemployed, but they lie about them too: “In the latest example, we see Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett (R), the frontrunner in this year’s gubernatorial race, arguing publicly that jobless workers in his state are choosing not to work, preferring to live on meager unemployment aid. …I obviously can’t speak with confidence about what some guy told some other guy who in turn told Corbett. But the general argument is getting quite tiresome. ‘The jobs are there’? No, they’re really not. Nationwide, there are five applicants for every one opening, which is a terribly painful ratio. Pennsylvania’s unemployment rate is currently at a 26-year high. Corbett not only seems confused about economic conditions, but his animosity about the jobless’ attitudes is awful. Yes, I can appreciate the fact that an unemployed worker who’s exhausted his/her benefits will be more desperate to take any job than an unemployed worker who’s still receiving public aid. But this dynamic matters a whole lot more when there are plenty of job opportunities for those who want them. That’s just not the current reality.”
Robert Samuelson diagnoses the recessions stranglehold on some Americans: “Another theory — more powerful, I think — is that the Great Recession, though jarring to almost everyone, has been most disruptive and disillusioning to those who were previously the most protected. It punctured their cocoons so unexpectedly that they became more cautious and fearful, whereas those who even in good times faced job loss and income shifts (many blacks, the young and the poor) were less surprised. One legacy of the Great Recession is that insecurity and uncertainty have gone upscale. People feel more exposed. They tend to plan for the worst rather than hope for the best. Their reluctance to make major purchase commitments (a new car or home) validates their pessimism by retarding recovery.”
Sen. Jon Kyl has shown the GOP’s hand on deficits and tax cuts: “‘[Y]ou should never raise taxes in order to cut taxes,’ Jon Kyl said on Fox News Sunday. ‘Surely Congress has the authority, and it would be right to — if we decide we want to cut taxes to spur the economy, not to have to raise taxes in order to offset those costs. You do need to offset the cost of increased spending, and that’s what Republicans object to. But you should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans.’ What’s remarkable about Kyl’s position here is that it appears to be philosophical. ‘You should never have to offset cost of a deliberate decision to reduce tax rates on Americans,’ he said. Never! This is much crazier than anything you hear from Democrats. Imagine if some Democrat — and a member of the Senate Democratic leadership, no less — said that as a matter of principle, spending should never be offset. He’d be laughed out of the room.”
They rarely every say it, but Kyl plainly laid bare the GOP’s philosophy: “We rarely see it said quite so openly as all that. Except that it wasn’t really a very honest statement, because where Kyl says “Americans” what he in fact means is those who earn more than $250,000, because they’re the only Americans who’ll be affected. As for the impact of the Bush tax cuts on the deficit, opinions of course differ. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which I would tend to trust, reported that the cuts accounted for around $240 billion of the 2004 deficit. The Heritage Foundation begs to differ but it acknowledges that the cuts had a minimal negative deficit impact of $58 billion. Either way, they were not deficit neutral. But see, under Republinomics, they don’t have to be. Rich people are good, see.”
First, he showed the GOPs hand (and political philosophy) on deficits and tax cuts. Now Sen. Jon Kyl says unemployment benefits are a “necessary evil”: “Kyl said that the government would prefer not to have to pay unemployment benefits. ‘It’s a necessary evil in a sense. You’d like not to have raise revenue in order to pay people for not working – or not to pay them for not working, but because they can’t get work. You want them to get work so you don’t have to pay them. It’s something the government would just as soon not have to do if it could avoid it,’ he said. ‘To me, you shouldn’t look at it as an economic matter. It’s a humanitarian matter. You’ve got people who are out of work who can’t find work, you want to help them out. Families need help. That’s why you provide it. You don’t do it because it’s going to stimulate the economy.’”
Chris Weignant suggests how Democrats should respond to Jon Kyl: “Democrats have a wonderful opportunity here to hoist Republicans on their own petard. Any time a Republican starts talking about tax cuts, the first thing out of a Democrats’ mouth in response should be: ‘Well, how are you going to pay for these tax cuts so they don’t hike the deficit?’ Republicans are already on the record opposing a relatively modest unemployment benefit extension, for the sole reason that ‘it adds to the deficit.’ So they’ve laid down the rules they’re supposed to be standing up for. Meaning it is entirely fair game to ask them “How will you pay for your proposed tax cuts?” Since they never have an answer to this question — other than the widely-discredited and thoroughly-debunked ‘tax cuts pay for themselves’ nonsense — this immediately leads to framing the issue as: ‘You’re OK with adding seven hundred billion dollars to our debt to give wealthy taxpayers an enormous Christmas present in the form of tax cuts — without even pretending to pay for it — but you howl when we try to keep millions of out-of-work Americans from financial ruin for a fraction of the same price?’ In fact, Democrats really should go completely on the offensive on this issue. I know the “family budget” metaphor is both overused and oversimplified to begin with, but it seems to be the one that has taken hold among the public, so this might be the way to go.”
BP is ready to test a new cap on it’s runaway oil well: “BP prepared on Tuesday to test a new cap on its runaway well, arresting the flow of oil which has been gushing into the Gulf of Mexico for the last 12 weeks. As the oil giant prepared for a potential turning point in the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, it also said its plans to sell non-core assets, which will help pay for a $20 billion clean-up fund, were moving forward. ‘We are in discussions with a number of companies about a number of assets. Talks are going well,’ spokeswoman Sheila Williams said in London, declining to give details. In Dubai, Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahayan said the emirate was considering an investment in BP.”
NYT reports on BP’s “History of Boldness and Costly Blunders”: “From its base in London, the company struck bold deals in politically volatile areas like Angola and Azerbaijan and pushed technology to the limit in the remotest reaches of Alaska and the deepest waters of the Gulf of Mexico — ‘the tough stuff that others cannot or choose not to do,’ as its chief executive, Tony Hayward, once put it. The company also led an industry wave of cost-cutting and consolidation. It took over American competitors like Amoco and Atlantic Richfield and eliminated tens of thousands of jobs in several rounds, streamlining management but forcing the company to rely more heavily on outside contractors. For a long time, BP’s strategy seemed to pay off. But on April 20, the nightmare situation occurred: the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig exploded, killing 11 workers and sending millions of gallons of oil gushing from BP’s Macondo well like so much black poison. Although the accident is still under investigation, preliminary findings by Congressional investigators indicate that BP made a series of decisions that compounded the chances of disaster.”
The BP spill or leak, or whatever you want to call it, is a true disaster on a number of levels, many not easily seen or realized by most Americans: “In terms of the big picture, the BP disaster marks the beginning of the real decline of America as an empire and a world power. Make no mistake that people in many parts of the world today openly mock our nation for its near-complete inability to truly rally as a people and to show a true spirit of nationalism in the face of adversity. It’s summer, and countless numbers of high school and college students are jobless, not to mention millions of jobless workers, yet nobody considers hiring any of these people for disaster clean up. We are told that the BP disaster is a national problem and a national emergency, if not an international one, yet there is no real sense of urgency anywhere, except perhaps for the pressing problem of immigration in Arizona. It’s too bad fish and water mammals and sea birds don’t vote. If they did, this disaster would have been behind us weeks ago.”
Interior Sec. Ken Salazar has issued a revised ban on deep-water oil drilling: “U.S. Interior Secretary Kenneth Salazar issued a revised ban on deep-water oil drilling that he said may allow new wells if the industry shows it has raised safety standards. The policy announced today may let some deep-water operations resume earlier than the six-month pause ordered by the Obama administration May 27, according to an e-mailed statement today from the Interior Department. A federal judge rejected the initial moratorium, imposed in response to the BP Plc oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. ‘I remain open to modifying the new deepwater drilling suspensions based on new information,’ Salazar said in the statement. ‘But industry must raise the bar on its practices and answer fundamental questions about deepwater safety, blowout prevention and containment, and oil spill response.’”
Never mind this November. Eyes are already on the 2012 race. And Sarah Palin has emerged as the million dollar woman: “Sarah Palin’s political action arm raised more than $865,000 in recent months, and now has more than $1 million on hand to give to favored candidates in the run-up to the fall midterm elections. That’s quite a cash cushion. And in politics, donations – especially donations made as a vote nears – are favors that can produce return favors, with interest, in years to come. ‘We’re going to really help a lot of Republican candidates get a chance to win,’ said SarahPAC treasurer Tim Crawford.”
Newt Gingrigh says he’s “never been this serious” about running for President: “Gingrich, 67, told The Associated Press that he would focus on helping Republican candidates through the midterm elections in November, then decide in February or March whether to seek the GOP nomination. ‘I’ve never been this serious,’ Gingrich said. ‘It’s fair to say that by February the groundwork will have been laid to consider seriously whether or not to run,’ he said. Gingrich, in Des Moines for a fundraiser and workshop for local Republican candidates, predicted President Barack Obama would be a one-term president. Obama’s poll numbers have dropped below 50 percent, and Gingrich predicted they would continue to fall, making him vulnerable in 2012.”
E.J. Dionne writes that the left needs a “right brain”: “Passion counts in politics. It motivates a movement’s most fervent followers but can also carry moderates attracted to those who promise change and profess great certainty about how to achieve it. Barack Obama got himself elected president by understanding this. Passion may come especially hard to Democrats this year, and even in the best of times it can be difficult to muster among liberals. …On paper, Democrats have a rational solution to their political math problem. They must still find the passion that executing it will require.”
Meanwhile, polls show that confidence in President Obama has reached an all-time low: “Public confidence in President Obama has hit a new low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll. Four months before midterm elections that will define the second half of his term, nearly six in 10 voters say they lack faith in the president to make the right decisions for the country, and a clear majority once again disapproves of how he is dealing with the economy. Regard for Obama is still higher than it is for members of Congress, but the gap has narrowed. About seven in 10 registered voters say they lack confidence in Democratic lawmakers and a similar proportion say so of Republican lawmakers. Overall, more than a third of voters polled — 36 percent — say they have no confidence or only some confidence in the president, congressional Democrats and congressional Republicans. Among independents, this disillusionment is higher still. About two-thirds of all voters say they are dissatisfied with or angry about the way the federal government is working.”
Terrance Heath is the Online Producer at Campaign for America’s Future. Prior to his current position he worked as a Blogging and Social Media Consultant for a number of organizations and agencies, as an outgrowth of his work as Blogmaster for EchoDitto, Inc. He stumbled into blogging and social media after starting his own blog, The Republic of T., but cut his teeth as an activist working on LGBT equality and HIV/AIDS issues. In that capacity he worked for the Human Rights Campaign and the National Minority AIDS Council. Terrance has kindly allowed Evans Liberal Politics to publish his works on an ongoing basis. He sums himself up: Black. Gay. Father. Vegetarian. Buddhist. Liberal.
In the News: NAACP to condemn ‘racist elements’ in ‘tea party’ movement, L.A. Times, July 12, 2010, by Kathleen Hennessey and Michael A. Memoli.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!

*****
Did I get your attention? Here at Evans Liberal Politics we sometimes forget to mention that our bread is buttered with our website design work. Ever want to put yourself out there on the web? Have a hobby and feel now that you need to make some money with it? We’d really like to help. We’re a reseller for GoDaddy, the world’s largest web host, and we’ve designed a few sites now, as well as keeping Evans Liberal Politics running since late 2008. Times are tough, and it’s hard to know who to trust: trust us! We’ll never rip you off, and we’ll design your site for less than you’ll find anywhere else. Plus, our design fee includes a year’s maintenance as part of the contract. And we’ve edited 12 books, so you know we can help you express yourself.
If you are interested, please phone me at 330-202-7661 or email me. My cell phone is 330-317-9331. I just know we can work something out, and I know in my heart, before God, you’ll never find anyone else who will try as hard for you as I will. ~ Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans.
Taking Your Message to the World
Evans Liberal Politics, June 7, 2010, by Robert Kuttner and Danny Schecter, with Commentary by Paul Evans.
Financial reform is making it’s way through Congress in what is touted as the biggest overhaul since the Great Depression. In the worst economic turndown since that time, bipartisanship has found it’s voice as both parties are eager to be seen as favoring reform. But while the Obama administration publicly has taken on a strong voice for reform, behind the scenes the administration has worked to kill off progressive amendments and substantive reform is lacking.
![]() |
|---|
See From Wall Street To The Gulf Coast: When Will Obama Get In The Ring And Fight For Real Reforms?, AlterNet, June 2, 2010, by Robert Kuttner, excerpt quoted verbatim:
Imagine how much more reform we could get if Obama clearly weighed in on behalf of David rather than Goliath.
Question of the Day: What do the oil catastrophe and the Wall Street collapse have in common?
In both cases, a powerful, politically protected industry invented something that could not easily be repaired when it broke. We seem to be entering an age when complex technologies, whether financial or physical, sometimes literally have no solutions when they go haywire in unanticipated ways. We thought this might happen with nuclear power (and it still could); but for now deepwater drilling is the bigger menace.
Secondly, in both cases the proverbial ounce of prevention was not applied. Had existing laws been enforced, and had the political process not corrupted the regulatory process, these man-made calamities didn’t need to happen.
In the case of the oil disaster, which is fast becoming the worst single environmental catastrophe ever, America’s long-term failure to move away from dependence on carbon fuels combined with pure short-run political capture. By now, we should have been at the point of energy conversion where high risk, mile-deep undersea wells were not used at all. But even so, this blowout would have been averted had existing laws been enforced.
It’s the same story with the financial collapse. We didn’t need these exotic, doomsday financial instruments. And had the regulators not been in bed with the industry, the crisis would have been headed off at any of several earlier stages.
But the worst common element is this: both crises are teachable moments that our president could be using to transform public opinion. Yet despite these gifts from the progressive gods, President Obama seems congenitally unable to rise to the occasion.
Read the full article here
Back on May 28th, Danny Schecter was taking a much grimmer view:
See Obama Talks a Lot of Game About Taking on Wall St, While Killing off Reforms in the Shadows, AlterNet, May 28, 2010, by Danny Schecter:
In several high profile speeches, Obama lashed out at Wall Street for its greed and mendacity, proposing financial reforms that appeared to be hard hitting if only because of the way the lobbyists for the financial services industry squealed about them.
But even as he was feinting left, he and his main economic operative, Tim Geithner, were moving right to kill off amendments that the bankers hated like Senator Bernie Sanders’s proposal for a deep audit of the Federal Reserve Bank and the Brown-Kaufman Amendment that would have broken up the six biggest banks in America.”
As John Heilman explained in New York Magazine, “Geithner’s team spent much of its time during the debate over the Senate bill helping Senate Banking Committee chair Chris Dodd kill off or modify amendments being offered by more-progressive Democrats.”
He used an old trick: embracing reform publicly while modifying its toughest provisions privately.
No wonder bank stocks went up when the bill passed.
Click the pretty lady |
|---|
Commentary by Evans Liberal Politics owner Paul Evans: In political parlance, according to Schecter, that’s called “talking left and moving right”. No wonder we have got, in this tough election climate, bipartisan support for this bill. In the final analysis, what’s left really isn’t all that progressive. Republicans would embrace it wholeheartedly if they didn’t have to campaign against Democrats. The Senate and House versions of the financial reform bill are now being reconciled, and the Obama administration is pushing hard for it. There won’t be any problem passing this bill, because it doesn’t really reform the system. Reform in the bills being considered by both houses of Congress is in other words quantitative rather than qualitative. Details are being tweaked but the system remains basically the same.
Now both Democrats and some Republicans can campaign on having worked hard for financial reform. Nobody wanted to be on the record as being against financial reform after what happened. But we still have complex and risky investment banking not separated from banking itself, we still have basically unregulated derivatives made up of worthless junk mortgage bonds and packaged as AAA investments for the unwary, and we still have Wall Street rampant and triumphant, with Goldman Sachs only paying out about 1 percent of it’s income last year in taxes.
The more things change in this “biggest financial reform since the Great Depression”, the more they stay the same. Should we have expected anything different than that with Summers, Geithner and Bernanke running Obama’s economic team?
Yes, the President is for regulatory reform of our financial system. But only in the details, not in terms of the fundamentals. One can only hope that now, with a competent and more honest group of regulators in place (as opposed to Hank Paulson’s wrecking crew during the Bush years), tweaking the system will be enough to avert future catastrophes.
Comment on this article at Daily Kos, by mojada:
Summers, Wolin, Sperling, Gensler, Geithner
These were Robert Rubin’s fixers during the Clinton administration, a filthy gang of corporate front-men and swindlers who lit the fuse that triggered phase one of the economic implosion. It was Rubin, Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, who first devised the deranged scheme to unshackle the Wall St. beast and free the monster from its regulatory cage.
Under Rubin, Neal Wolin became the point man responsible for the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the corporatist wet dream that repealed Glass-Steagall and greenlighted the merger of commercial banks holding insured deposits with investment banks, brokerage firms, and insurance companies, giving birth to the financial Frankensteins that became “Too Big to Fail”.
Neal Wolin was confirmed as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury on May 19, 2009, by President Obama.
Derivatives, you say? Gary Gensler was instrumental in the deregulation of derivatives under Bill Clinton. He’s now in charge of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under President Obama.
Gene Sperling was part of the crew that demolishished Glass-Steagall. He’s now an advisor to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
Geithner, of course, was the Big Cheese at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and faithful disciple of Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers in the Clinton Treasury Department from ’99 to ’01.
And finally, Summers was named head of the National Economic Council by…you guessed it…President Barack Obama.
So there we have it. A team of criminal con-artists, the living symbols of a debunked economic theory that delivered a catastrophic financial failure, are Obama’s go-to guys in the quest for “reform”.
Call me crazy, but I’m not optimistic.
On the other hand, at Daily Kos, dvogel001 comments:
Or maybe he is killing off amendments that would effectively kill the chances for the passage of the bill in the Senate…just a thought…
Or we can have all sorts of great liberal amendments that have a snowball’s chance in hell of actually becoming law…
But is Obama using “the art of the possible” as an excuse not to intervene on behalf of truly liberal reform? To say “it couldn’t pass the Senate” is meaningless when the White House never pushes hard for progressive provisions. We saw the same thing on the health care reform bill when the final version introduced by the White House lacked a public option and Obama never pushed for that. It’s easy to simply dismiss actual reform saying “it can’t pass” but here Robert Kuttner’s caveat applies:
“Imagine how much more reform we could get if Obama clearly weighed in on behalf of David rather than Goliath.”
Finally, here are two news articles which shouldn’t be missed:
See Matt Taibbi: Obama’s Big Sellout, Naked Captialism, December 11, 2009, by Edward Harrison of Credit Writedowns.
and
See No One is Going to Save You Fools, Daily Kos, December 16, 2009, by thereisnospoon.
All the signs have been here for many months.
See Robert Reich: Why Wall Street’s Political Poison is Still Catnip for Many Incumbents, Robert Reich.org on Evans Liberal Politics, May 26, 2010, by Robert Reich.
See Elizabeth Warren:
“I am Afraid of What I See in the Real Economy”, Bob Swern on Evans Liberal Politics, March 7, 2010, with commentary by Paul Evans.
See Congress Begins the Final Push on Financial Regulation, Truthout and McClatchy Newspapers on Evans Liberal Politics, June 1, 2010, by David Lightman and Kevin G. Hall.
See Commentary – Wall Street Reform Begins with Obama: Leading from James K. Galbraith, Evans Liberal Politics, May 15, 2010, by James K. Galbraith and others and commentary by Paul Evans.
And see Wall Street’s War, Rolling Stone, May 26, 2010, by Matt Taibbi.
A little good news: Bank of America to Pay $108 Million in Countrywide Case, The New York Times, June 7, 2010, by Associated Press.
Check out 111 hot rock, pop and electronic tracks for your listening pleasure, rated #1 by Google, on Evans Liberal Politics.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top.
Please Share Evans Liberal Politics with Friends!
Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up for July 21, 2010
Evans Liberal Politics
July 21, 2010
Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up for July 21, 2010
Your Abbreviated Pundit Round-up for July 21, 2010, Daily Kos, July 21, 2010, by DemFromCT, used with permission, quoted verbatim:
Wednesday (and a little Tuesday) punditry.
Nate Silver:
First of All, Welcome to
Evans Liberal Politics!
Click the Puppy to be
Greeted Properly
(He doesn’t bite, you know.)
(LINK to download viewer, if necessary)
Mary Brown, David Willis and Arthur Jaffe:
Chris Cillizza:
Bennett had to get through a caucus, very different than a primary, it’s not like his is the 60th vote and 2014 is a long way away. But teabaggers like to make loud noises.
LA Times:
Vaccines save lives, a topic I’m discussing at Netroots Nation on Thursday morning.
Eugene Robinson:
Michael Lind:
*****
DemFromCT is a longtime member of the Daily Kos community with interests ranging from polling to Iraq to bird flu, and has graciously agreed to allow us here at Evans Liberal Politics to publish his articles on an ongoing basis. He is a founding editor of Flu Wiki (www.fluwikie.com) and its sister site, the Flu Wiki Forum (www.newfluwiki2.com). Since its inception in June 2005, Flu Wiki has grown into an international clearinghouse of pandemic influenza information and links.
You can view his diaries at Daily Kos, here. DemFromCT is a featured writer at Daily Kos, and you can read more about him here. You are invited to email DemFromCT.
*****
To make a Word or .pdf document of an article, or share or email it, simply load the individual article by clicking the dark blue title at the very top, or use the icons beneath the article.
We’re Counting on You!
Tell Your Friends About Evans Liberal Politics!
Listen to 150 Rock and Pop Tracks
#1 Rated by Google
[Translate]