You go girl: Elizabeth Warren redux

The faux Elizabeth Warren in this satirical send-up is almost as awesome as the real deal!

(h/t Crooks and Liars)

It's obvious that those in the press and in the corridors of power will attempt to pressure her to pursue a milquetoast agenda, but given the way the economy is going and the profound disconnect between the ruling plutocrats and the citizens of the nation, it seems to me that any politician willing to challenge the status quo and expose the fraud mongering in congress will have the support of the majority of people across America.

The Democratic Party has learned that sending up another corporate stooge, like that of Massachusetts  AG Martha Coakley, to fight for the seat held by liberal lions such as Edward M.Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy is a losing proposal. The Hartford Informer described Coakley's loss to Scott Brown -in the most liberal state in the United States of America- as nothing less than "one of the biggest failures of a political party and a candidate in recent history."

Coakley's campaign was by all accounts pathetic.  Her arrogance in assuming that regardless of her opponents position and the national trends that the citizens of Massachusetts would elect her.  Weeks prior to the election she was slumming with corporate benefactors, instead of engaging citizens and letting them know that Kennedy's legacy and liberal vision would continue in her advocacy.

On the other hand, Elizabeth Warren has shown the country that she believes in what she preaches.  Her position at Harvard University in researching consumer bankruptcies and as the central figure most responsible for the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, provides a firm example of what intelligent, dedicated, and responsible liberalism can accomplish.

***
Additional posts by this blog on Elizabeth Warren are below:

Elizabeth Warren: TARP Watchdog
Elizabeth Warren: The banks are jerking us ALL!
Elizabeth Warren takes the reigns of the CFPB
Warren on how to save the Middle Class

Quote of the day: Taibbi on Obama

Listening to Obama talk about jobs and shared prosperity yesterday reminded me that we are back in campaign mode and Barack Obama has started doing again what he does best – play the part of a progressive. He's good at it. It sounds like he has a natural affinity for union workers and ordinary people when he makes these speeches. But his policies are crafted by representatives of corporate/financial America, who happen to entirely make up his inner circle.

I just don't believe this guy anymore, and it's become almost painful to listen to him.

- Matt Taibbi, "Obama and Jobs: Why I Don't Believe Him Anymore."

The political left which vaulted Mr. Obama into the White House has all but given up on him delivering anything remotely resembling his promises as a candidate in 2007 and 2008.  The standard argument by centrists and those still on the Democratic party kool-aid, is that he has delivered substantial results and has been hamstrung by Republican opposition in going further.  I find this argument absurd.  

A firestorm was unleashed amongst the political left when Prof. Drew Westen in an NY Times Op-ed, described Obama's failure to articulate a cogent and realistic picture of the political landscape in the dreary days of January 2009 and ask Americans for collective sacrifice. This is a man who was voted by a majority of Americans to turn the country around after eight horrible years under the Bush administration. He was a given an unequivocal mandate to enact liberal and far-reaching changes.  None of that has happened.   Instead we have seen a massive capitulation to business interests, the expansion of the Afghan war, and a constant rejection of liberal stances and policies in favour of Republican talking points, which include low-taxes, reduced regulations, slashing government jobs, and anti-growth austerity economics. Mr. Obama was willing only a month ago to increase the age of retirement and slash Medicare benefits for the elderly to appease the Republicans in the debt-ceiling debate.

The only reason much of the Democratic base hasn't completely abandoned him, is that the Republican label is so toxic and filled with so many morons, racists, homophobes, crony-capitalists, and religious nutters, that it is impossible not to prefer him over his opponents.

***
Further posts expanding and justifying my thoughts on Mr. Obama's tepidness are included below:

• My open letter to Mr. Obama last year is here
• Robert Reich's comment on Mr. Obama as a centrist leaning politician is here
• A critique of Mr. Obama's support for the Bush Administration's torture program (here and here).
• Daniel Elisberg, noted whistle blower and source of the Pentagon Papers, condemns Mr. Obama's pro-corporatist agenda here.
• Eliot Spitzer on Obama's first year is here
• Ralph Nader on Obama's early failures and capitulations (here, here, and here)

Quote of the day: Gabrielle Giffords on language

"They really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up, and, you know, even things for example, we're on Sarah Palin's targeted list, but the thing is, that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district. When people do that, you gotta realize there's consequences to that action."

- Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D, AZ), March 2010 in response to Sarah Palin's crosshairs graphic.

Sarah Palin, accomplice in mass murder!

Is this a reasonable graphic?  Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, who remains in an induced coma, didn't think so when asked about the above graphic issued by Palin, which implores Republican supporters to "reload" and keep pursuing their Democratic Party opponents.  In fact, the local Arizonan Republican candidate to oust Ms. Giffords did far more than Caribou Barbie.  He actually had a gun rally, where they said "Remove Gabrielle Giffords from office, shoot a fully automatic M-16." (ref. below)

Again, this type of inflammatory rhetoric isn't coming from fringe elements and outliers, this is coming from Party leaders, and no less than a former Vice-Presidential candidate of the USA herself.

If the above isn't sufficient to validate the depravity of these so-called Christians, consider what another Republican candidate and Tea party-backed congresswoman Michele Bachmann had to say on the subject:

Controversial Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) said this weekend that she wants residents of her state "armed and dangerous" over President Barack Obama's plan to reduce global warming "because we need to fight back."

Whether these politicians believe what they are saying or are merely ginning up the facile minded dunces of the gun-totting "kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" crowd is irrelevant to me.  They are inciting political violence to achieve political aims.  That and that alone is what the last decade has been all about: the war and struggle against violent extremism and terrorism!

Neither their words nor actions have been misconstrued by anyone to be merely metaphorical.   They themselves clearly defend their stance as a violent defense against Washingtonian corruption and capitulation to liberalism.  The only question left, is when is the Department of Justice going to start applying the laws uniformly and start sending Republicans to enjoy the warm sunshine and if Dick Cheney can be believed, excellent health care, in Guantanamo, Cuba?

Why Big Business hates Obama

Obviously when the S&P 500 index has rebounded by almost 50% in the time that Obama has been president, the only thing left to do is publicly blame him for all the horrible and destructive socialist policies he is pursuing. After all, how else can someone explain that "American companies just had their best quarter ever, earning profits at an annual rate of $1.659 trillion in the third quarter." Deutsche Bank has stated that corporate profits per worker have rebounded to nearly an all-time high in the period. In addition, the banking industry, oil companies, and health insurance companies, all companies with extensive lobbying operations, are all likely to break profit records for 2010.

How this comports with the general narrative that Obama and the Democrats have created a climate of legislative uncertainty is unclear. American businesses are now as or even more profitable than they were before the start of the great recession. The only intelligent answer is that Obama's policies have greatly benefited big business, while it has done little to significantly reduce unemployment and mobilize those people whose jobs have been offshored into gaining new skills and meaningful careers.

Ritholtz on the rise of the Corporatocracy

Over the past 30-years both Republican and Democratic parties have drifted from their traditional positions towards extreme stances. Throughout this period pro-corporate policies that catered to the balance sheets of multinationals and those with enough cash to pay-to-play, have defined the legislative agendas of both federal and state politicians. Left-wing political activists, like Ralph Nader, have been calling Washington D.C. "corporate occupied territory" for the past two decades. Consider the following:

• The revolving door between corporate officers and government employees has become the norm.
• A study conducted in 2005 by Public Citizen found that from 1998, "43 percent of the 198 members of Congress who left government to join private life have registered to lobby."
• Politicians have become indentured servants to special interest groups and major lobbyists in the financial/insurance industries, the military-industrial complex, the energy/ chemicals sector, big-pharma, corporate agricultural, and the communications/ electronics industries.
• Legislation is often written directly by lobbyists and submitted to congressmen and state legislators for direct approval.  Google CEO, Eric Schmidt, told The Atlantic magazine, "The average American doesn't realize how much of the laws are written by lobbyists... It's shocking how the system actually works."
• "Corruption, in its institutional sense, denotes the degeneration of republican forms of government into despotism, and typically comes about when the private ends of a narrow faction of citizens succeed in capturing the engines of government." (Harper's, Speak, Money, Oct. 2010)
• The Brookings Institute calls "The 5-4 conservative majority decision in Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission that struck many decades of law and precedent [to] likely go down in history as one of the Supreme Court's most egregious exercises of judicial activism."  The Roberts court, "dismissed the legitimacy of laws... equated the free speech protections of individuals and corporations in spite of countless laws and precedents that insisted on meaningful differences."
• A USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken Dec. 16-18, 2005 found that 49% of American adults say they believe "most members of Congress are corrupt."
• The Republicans K-street project, was a project by now convicted former congressman Tom Delay to coerce lobbying firms to "hire Republicans in top positions, and to reward loyal GOP lobbyists with access to influential officials."
• Super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, was sentenced in 2006 for conspiracy, fraud, and tax evasion related to his lobbying efforts

Barry Ritholtz, CEO of FusionIQ (an investment firm) and primary blogger at The Big Picture tells his readers that:

In 2009 and 2010, I learned that Corporate America took over the political process via their exhaustive lobbying efforts. What was once a Democracy is now a Corporatocracy... Politicians do the bidding not for the people, but for the corporate establishment. Those people who want to blame the barking, snarling government for all the woes of the world do not want you to look further up the leash to see who is giving the commands. These corporate apologists pretend to be philosophers, but in reality they are mere Fellatrix, bought and paid for by their lords and masters.

We've reached a turning point.  When growth was evident, jobs were available, and cheap accessible credit abounded, everyone was happy and willing to keep dancing to the same tune. Now that the bill is past due and we're looking at decade of low growth or worst, investors and everyday persons on both the right and the left are seeing the system for what it is.  Ritholtz acknowledges that we were warned by the founding fathers, Eisenhower on the military-industrial complex, and countless other critics about the perils of what philosopher Sheldon Wolin has described as inverted totalitarianism.

The corporate state does not find its expression in a demagogue or charismatic leader. It is defined by the anonymity and facelessness of the corporation.

The viciousness and lawlessness of the corporatocracy knows no bounds. Like Orwell's 1984, those in control have no interest in the betterment of mankind or pursuing nationalistic agendas, they are solely interested in power for power's sake. And in the polluted materialistic cesspool that is modern existence, that power is obtained through the collection and amassment of wealth and money.

A Government for, by, and of the Corporations

Bloomberg News has an end of the year article ("Out of Lehman's Ashes Wall Street Gets Most of What It Wants") and an interview with its lead author,  Christine Harper, on the subversion of  the financial industry reform and the underlying power of the banks over Washington DC's political class.

The past two years have seen the worst economic turn down in the American economy since the Great Depression.  The origins of this downturn emanate nearly exclusively from America's financial industry, which manipulated legislators in the 1990's to abandon historic safeguards and firewalls and then engineered novel methods to expand and grow their balance sheets.  The result was a global recession that destroyed trillions of dollars worth of capital, reduced nations like Iceland, Ireland, and Latvia into economic wastelands, and has crippled growth across the Western world. However, in that same period, the same institutions that caused so much damage and harm to the world have grown richer than ever.

The last two years have been the best ever for combined investment-banking and trading revenue at Bank of America Corp., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Citigroup, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Morgan Stanley, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein, 56, and his top deputies are in line to collect more than $100 million in delayed 2007 bonuses -- six months after paying $550 million to settle a fraud lawsuit related to the firm’s behavior that year. Citigroup, the bank that needed more taxpayer support than any other, has a balance sheet 14 percent bigger than it was four years ago.

The article elaborates on how the Obama administration, from its very inception, was uninterested in challenging the banks. The inclusion of former Clinton era deregulatory stalwarts, like Lawrence Summers, and persons directly responsible for the financial crisis, such as former president of the Federal Reserve bank of NY, Timothy Geithner, lead Simon Johnson, former chief economist at the IMF, to conclude “that the banks were going to get a free pass." Reformers were politely ignored and persons that significantly challenged the status quo "were dismissed as unrealistic, misinformed, advancing ulterior motives or damaging to U.S. competitiveness."

The too big to fail (TBTF) banks are now even bigger and the legislation crafted by congress is incapable of deterring these monopolies from engaging in even more disastrous swindles.  Meaningful changes, such as the re-introduction of Glass-Steagall or even what became known as the Volcker Rule, which would "ban proprietary trading at regulated banks and prohibit them from owning hedge funds and private equity funds" was water-downed, gutted, and then abandoned altogether.

Attempts to reign in the excessive salaries and bonus structures at the big banks were immediately defeated by representatives from both the corrupt Republican and Democratic parties. 

71 percent of Americans said big bonuses should be banned this year at Wall Street firms that took taxpayer bailouts, and 17 percent said bonuses above $400,000 should be subject to a one-time 50 percent tax. Only 7 percent of the respondents said they consider bonuses a reflection of Wall Street’s return to health and an appropriate incentive.

Even though a clear majority of citizens wanted the plutocrats pay to be cut for their egregious mishandling of the economy, congress in collusion with the robber-barons would have none of it.

To ensure that none of their paid whores in congress would go off message or engage in populist pandering, lobbying efforts during the 2010 election period were thrown into overdrive.

The biggest financial companies increased their spending on lobbying in the first nine months of 2010 as they sought to influence the legislative outcome, according to Senate records. JPMorgan’s advocacy spending grew 35 percent, to $5.8 million from $4.3 million, while Goldman Sachs’s jumped 71 percent to $3.6 million.

The Dodd-Frank Act for financial industry reform was eventually passed, but:

The law won’t prevent lenders with federally guaranteed deposits from gambling in the derivatives markets, though it will place restrictions on some types of contracts and require more transparent trading and central clearing. It does little to solve the danger posed by leveraged firms reliant on fickle markets for funding.

Two decades of legislative changes have given the banks and the financial industry everything they wanted; yet that was not enough.  Today every American citizen, through the generosity of their political representatives in Washington, is forced to subsidize the incompetence and greed of the bankers.  In return you, joe-public, are given a moribund economy, marginal economic growth, reduced benefits, no retirement, a society with high structural unemployment, and the comforting thought that all those rich motherfuckers on Wall St. are enjoying their vacations in the Hamptons on your dime.

Matt Taibbi explains the Financial sector's hold on Democrats

I personally think the reason Rick Sanchez got cut from CNN was that he rubbed some of the MSM top honchos the wrong way during his time at the anchor desk.  Populism is fine for the plutocrats when it works to their advantage, as in the case of the ignorant and deranged Tea Party advocates.  However, when discussions of the collusion between those at the top of the economic pyramid (i.e. the banks) and government officials begin, which leads to the magnification of the nexus of institutional corruption, the grand-poobahs get antsy. 

Consider the above video with Sanchez and Rolling Stone magazine contributor and author Matt Taibbi, where the discussion veers into understanding the basis of the 2009 financial sector bailout pursued by the Obama administration. In it, Sanchez makes the connection that Washington DC is effectively corporate controlled territory. He notes that Goldman Sachs and other bankers wield inordinate levels of power over the legislative and executive branches and control the system through campaign contributions to both parties and the installation of their people into key government portfolios. There was no requirement for Obama to bring people like Larry Summers, who had been an architect of the deregulatory fiasco of the 1990's that lead to this current economic malaise, into the fold.  There was no requirement to appoint Tim Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury or to re-appoint Ben Bernanke, other than it appeased the poobahs on Wall Street.

For all the talk of change, the Obama administration made sure that corporate America knew that the new sheriff in town was going to be the same as the old one.  They let it be known that "Greed was still good," and regardless of how the economy reacted, all the merry sociopaths, looking down at us little people from the glass towers in the Financial District, would still get all their bonuses that would allow them to feed their insatiable want for coke, hookers, and good times.

All this nonsensical talk that Obama is somehow a socialist is the musings of truly stupid people.  The facts are plain to see that this administration is not terribly different than any of its Republican or Democratic predecessors.  The facts are also clear that it is the greedheads at the top of the financial food chain who have been the winners for the past 30 years.  When the next economic calamity arises in the near future, we'll see who gets saved again and who the ignorant masses will blame for it.

Glenn Greenwald on why the Democrats lost

With that strategy, the Democratic Party now reaps what it has sown.  Its message and identity are profoundly muddled, incoherent, unclear, uninspiring, and self-negating.  Worse, its policies are mishmashes of inept half-measures that, with a handful of exceptions, produce little good for anyone (other than Wall Street, the Pentagon and other corporate interests).  They are perceived as -- and are -- beholden to Wall Street, special interests, and the corporations they vowed to confront.  They are without any ability to confront the massive unemployment crisis and financial decline the country faces.  And as a result of all of that, they lay in shambles.  Anyone who can survey all of that and cheer for the strategy which Democrats have been pursuing -- let's build our majorities by relying on GOP-replicating corporatist Blue Dogs -- or who thinks that this election loss happened because "Democrats are too liberal," resides in a world that has very little to do with reality.  And that's true no matter how many times they repeat the simplistic snippets of exit polls to which they've obsessively attached themselves.

Glenn Greenwald in a blog post at Salon.com, takes on MSNBC commentator Lawerence O'Donnell in his assertion that the Democrats lost because they are too "liberal" and the country simply prefers "conservative" candidates and governance.

Over the past decade, I too have excoriated those who babble about the fundamental divide between philosophical and political liberalism and conservatism in America.  The terms in themselves are inexhaustibly used incorrectly by both sides to impugn their opponents and distort the overall discussion.  Virtually no credible conservative government has existed at the federal level in the past forty years in America.  Ronald Reagan, G.H.W. Bush, and Dubya were pro-corporatist presidents who advanced statist agendas.  Government under each of these men was widely expanded; the national debt ballooned; war and the invasion of numerous countries in violation of international law was conducted; treaties were maligned and rejected at whim; established precedents in US constitutional law were regularly dismissed and abrogated with presidential approval; corporate take over of the executive and legislative branches was perfected under Republican rule over these decades.  At what point did the fanatics of conservative causes rally against these changes?

The pro-corporatist Democrats have always used the excuse that they could not execute a liberal agenda, that was and is favored by a majority, because of the stalking horse of conservatism amongst the population.  People now realize that because of gerrymandering, corporate donations and special interest meddling, and a two-party system that invalidates third party politics, that there is very little that they themselves can do to upend and change a system.  America has for the past decade not been a democracy, but  a plutocracy governed by people who are servants, not to the constitution or the people, but to multinational corporations: including bankers, insurance companies, the military-industrial complex, oil companies, and a bevy of special interests that are more than willing to bribe politicians into executing their agenda.

O'Donnell represents the liberal version of a cultural manager; a person who nonchalantly bemoans the tyranny of the left-wing of the Democratic party, but refuses to address the perennial failure and Pavlovian response of the Democratic party hierarchy in pursuing Republican-light policies once they are elected.  Clinton was elected to improve the economy, introduce health care, and end the brutal twelve years of Republican mismanagement.  Instead, he pursed a strategy of triangulation and capitulated to conservative policies of energy and financial deregulation, which has left the American economy broken and on unsound footing.  Obama in the face of aggressive citizen support has sought legislative capitulation to the banks, big oil, big-pharma, insurance companies, and the Military-Security state.  Obama's claims which he made during the 2008 election, of attacking special interests and the oligarchs appear little more than pleasant lies told to naive children.

Open Advice to President Obama

Dear Barack,

I know you don't care what I think, with all those high-paid clowns dispensing all that brilliant strategy to you on how to piss-off those loser hippies who funded, supported, and fought for you across America in 2008, but here it is.

You're a bit like Bubba, in that despite all those flowery speeches about hope or being from a place called hope (who can get it straight anymore) you've given over the past few years, we really don't know what you believe.  I mean, the nihilists and brain-dead masses think you're a Marxist Fascist with ties to Kenyan revolutionaries.  I don't know what that means either, other than interpreting it as an odd way to just call you a nigger.  I've never really thought you were the second coming of FDR, but you were a better option than the Queen corporatist Madam Clinton.  People liked what you had to say and what you represented, but back then it mostly was about voting against eight hard and dismal years under the Bush junta.  However, you waffled and instead of steamrolling what remained of the right wing yahoo's and pushing through a progressive and liberal agenda, you coddled and capitulated to their bizarre demands.  Let's recap:

• Did exactly what Bush said he would do in ending the Iraq war; that being leaving 50K troops to babysit the Shia thugocracy in Baghdad.
• Escalated the Afghan war, which everyone has already admitted is lost.
• Caved into special interests in the health care bill, by eliminating the public option and preventing the  importation of drugs from Canada.
• Created a health care bill that would force individuals to purchase lame health care coverage and subsidise the crooked insurance companies.
• Pushed through a special debt committee, filled with right-wing ideologues and hacks demanding that Social Security be privatized under the guise of bi-partisanship.
• Bailed out your friends and big-donor buddies in the banks, but left the rest of the nation submerged with debt and ever-expanding (and now illegal) foreclosures
• Failed to prosecute any of the major players in the Bush junta for war crimes, crimes against humanity, violations of the Constitution, and numerous illegal acts and unethical behavior
• Advanced the post-911 security-surveillance state to new levels
• Advanced the military-industrial complex in the face of mounting debts and limited resources
• Let Israel make a complete mockery of you, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and your entire administration relating to the Palestinian issue
• Allowed the minority blue dog Democrats to dictate the terms of major legislation, so they could retain their congressional seats (which as every poll indicates, they won't)
• Put in charge Ken Salazar as Secretary of the Interior, effectively creating what others have referred to as Bush's 3rd term with respect to governmental regulation and resource management of public assets
• Colluded with BP to lie to the public on the scope and severity of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.

People who voted for you, in the deluded belief that government could mend it ways, are looking at a moribund economy, a Democratic Party that is incapable of defending themselves against corrupt Republican and Tea Party slander, and a crypto-fascist uprising funded by the same assholes whose jobs and balance sheets you saved from complete Armageddon.  A lot of people said early on that you were playing three-dimensional chess and were way smarter than the rest of the dolts on the Hill.  It's pretty clear that not only don't you have game, but you're really not as bright as those Harvard and Columbia degrees might imply.

So Barack, if you want to do something meaningful, do yourself a favor and grow a couple, because this nonsense you've been pedalling for the past 21-months is getting tired and no one is going to vote for you if you keep selling the same recycled shit that Bush left behind on the White House's going-out of business sale in November 2008.

Fuck-you very much.

The Lifer.

Another Poisoned Prescription: Novartis Fined $422 Million for Fraud

Another year and another multi-million dollar fine and settlement from another Big Pharma corporation.  Novartis, which is headquartered in Switzerland, has agreed to pay $422.5 million, in order to settle criminal and civil investigations arising from the marketing of the antiseizure medicine Trileptal and five other drugs. 

The NY Times summarizes the billion dollar payouts that Big Pharma has agreed to in regards to criminal investigations conducted over the past decade:

Novartis joins a growing list of pharmaceutical companies that have settled government investigations into health care fraud in the last few years, including Pfizer, which paid $2.3 billion; Eli Lilly, $1.4 billion; Allergan, $600 million; AstraZeneca, $520 million; Bristol-Myers Squibb, $515 million; and Forest Laboratories, $313 million. Pfizer, Lilly, Allergan and Forest pleaded guilty to crimes in the cases.

Earlier this year I outlined in a previous blog entry the business practices and criminal endeavours pursued by Big Pharma and the medical community on an annual basis against consumers.  The above settlement list validates the fact that when the world's largest corporations are found engaging in criminal activities, little more than nuisance fines are levied against these multi-national predators.  The profits elicited from pushing either unproven or detrimental pharmaceuticals, via morally compromised physicians, far outweighs any financial fine that the US government is prepared to impose.

Andy Wyss, president of Novartis Pharmaceuticals, said that Novaritis would “continue its commitment to high standards of ethical business conduct and regulatory compliance in the sale and marketing of our products.”  For industry watchers, the current press release is a familiar issuance from the fraud-mongers in the pharmaceutical industry.

Erik Gordon, an assistant professor at the University of Michigan school of business who follows the drug industry, said it was “easy to stifle a chuckle” when the company announced a guilty plea and, in the same news release, promised to continue ethical conduct.

Prosecutors said top management at Novartis had approved illegal marketing from July 2000 to June 2004. No individual, however, was named or charged.

Given the unscrupulous and illegal behavior of these companies, it is only further telling that both Republicans and Democrats fall over themselves to placate and support these corporate criminals.  Instead of allowing Americans to purchase drugs from Canadian manufacturers, the spineless Obama administration blocked Americans from cross-border shopping and individual state governments from engaging in bulk purchases to reduce costs.  If the US Department of Justice was sincerely interested in preventing these recalcitrant criminals, whether in Big Pharma or Wall St., from repeating their actions, hundreds of corporate managers and board members would be forced to defend their actions in court.  Once the cost-benefit equation is shifted, only then will these miserable crony-capitalists be effectively dealt with.

Elizabeth Warren Takes the Reigns of CFPB

There has been an enormous amount of talk regarding the appointment, by President Obama, of Prof. Elizabeth Warren towards the establishment of the Consumer Financial and Protection Bureau (CFPB).  The new agency will have a budget in excess of $400 million annually and its policies will not be subject to presidential oversight.  The appointment bypasses the contentious issue of having her stand at the sidelines waiting for Republican opponents to permit her audience and confirmation within their royal chambers.
 
The crony-capitalists, financial sector lobbyists, and the banks have for the past year been leveling aspersions about Prof. Warren and her scathing criticisms of their business practices. The US Chamber of Commerce engaged in a multi-million dollar campaign last year to scuttle the idea of a CFPB from being even discussed in Congress. Indentured corporate servant Sen. Gregg Judd (R-NH) recently stated that it was his, "concern... that she would use the agency for the purpose of promoting social justice." The crony-capitalists and belligerents who were midwives to the great recession, refuse to cede any ground, even on the scorched earth they created.

Progressives and liberals on the other hand, have been touting her sensible, people-first approach to finance and banking regulations and as an ideal candidate to run the newly minted CFPB. The NY Times ran a piece in their business section underlying the grassroots feelings about Ms. Warren:

“The best way to explain it is that she speaks truth to power,” Ms. Abaunza continued. “She speaks about how people have been ripped off in a way that everybody understands. Although she is a Harvard professor, she doesn’t speak in an elitist way. She is a grandmother. She is from Oklahoma. I like the fact that she says ‘golly.’ She engenders this trust immediately. Because she is very honest.”

Paul Krugman outlined the underlying political landscape regarding the Warren appointment in his NY Times opinion piece :

The debate over financial reform, in which the G.O.P. has taken the side of the bad guys, should be a political winner for Democrats. Much of the reform, however, is deeply technical...

But protecting consumers, ensuring that they aren’t the victims of predatory financial practices, is something voters can relate to. And choosing a high-profile consumer advocate to lead the agency providing that protection ... is the natural move, both substantively and politically.

Simon Johnson, former IMF Chief Economist, also believes that there is enormous long-term value to Prof. Warren's appointment for the Obama administration:

the president finally has an adviser who understands the financial sector and who has healthy skepticism about its intentions and actions.  As we documented at length in 13 Bankers, too many top policy people – both in this administration and all its recent predecessors – have been overly inclined to accommodate the interests of finance, particularly the big banks.  In this regard, putting Ms. Warren directly into the White House with the highest possible level of access is exactly the right thing to do – much better, for example, than making her purely a Treasury appointment.

This is truly one of the more intelligent decisions the Obama Administration has made in a long time.  Consumers, average citizens, and a vast number of people -on both sides of the political divide- who are fed-up with the crony-capitalists manipulating the legislative process to their explicit benefit, all consider this to be a sound decision.   Hopefully, this is more than a token attempt to placate the Democratic Party's liberal base.   Given the departure of the Larry Summers, the Obama administration will have the opportunity to jettison its Clintonesqe neo-liberal policies and engage in sensible and progressive practices that will be in the interest of all Americans and not just the folks on Wall St.

***

Additional blog entries and links on Elizabeth Warren can be found below:

• Warren discussing with Rachel Maddow, the benefits of a CFPB: here
• Warren analyzing problems with the US economy and the banking sector: here, here, and here.
• Warren sparring with CNBC hosts and Jack Welch on the virtues of the CFPB: here

Quote of the Day: Roubini on Financial Regulations

Unless we make these radical [financial system] reforms, new Gordon Gekkos – and Charles Ponzis – will emerge. For each chastised and born-again Gekko – as the Gekko in the new Wall Street [movie by Oliver Stone] is – hundreds of meaner and greedier ones will be born.

- Nouriel Roubini, Gordon Gekko is Reborn, Project Syndicate

What Roubini is expounding, is that all the ethics and certification programs that have been touted for MBA students, will amount to nothing, unless the prime motivators for excessive risk and greed generation are curtailed.  He suggests four areas that must be effectively dealt with:

1. Compensation schemes for individuals must be realigned so that, "bonuses based on medium-term results of risky trades and investments must supplant bonuses based on short-term outcomes."
2. Reconstituting Glass-Steagall like regulations -which the watered down Volcker rule did not achieve in the recent financial system reform legislation- to separate the commercial banks, investment banks, and the institutions engaged in hedge fund-like casino capitalism.
3. The enormous conflict of interest that currently exists between financial firms and markets, needs to be resolved, permitting greater transparency to reign and allowing confidence in the overall market to be established.
4. Allowing all businesses, including their employees and shareholders, to understand that the government -that being the people's money- will not go towards bailing out their poor decisions; i.e. there should not exist too big too fail.

Since, the US government has not engaged in any meaningful regulatory scheme to ensure that the above occurs, and has in fact gone in the opposite direction in relation to some of these points, we can only assume that the concept of regulatory capture can now be extended to the US Congress as a whole and the office of the President of the United States.  The financial industry alone has spent $251 million this past year to manipulate the legislative process in their favor.  Collectively, they spent more than any other industry group between the months of April and June ($126 million).  Goldman Sachs and  JP Morgan Chase alone, spent in the first half of 2010 as much as they spent all last year (2009) chasing down congressmen, senators, and those involved in regulatory decision making.

The game is rigged folks.  If you think any of these rich, pretentious assholes in the corner office of these banks or in the House of Representatives care about the little people on the street or democracy, you probably still think voting for Democrats or Republicans will make a difference.  It won't.

Nader Interviews Judge Andrew Napolitano

I encourage everyone to watch and understand the vast scope of criticisms leveled by conservative legal authority Judge Andrew Napolitano.  Despite his affiliation with Fox News and the less than lucid histrionics of his comrades at Fox, the above interview with Ralph Nader -conducted for CSPAN- consolidated the fact that there are issues that are beyond the false media symmetries of right and left or conservative and liberal.

The interview outlines a vast scope of criminality, violations of the constitution, and historically unprecedented actions committed by the Bush White House against American citizens and in many cases perpetuated by the Obama White House.

Napolitano declares that:

1. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney should be indicted and prosecuted for torture, domestic spying, and the illegal arrest and confinement of both American citizens and non-American citizens.
2. Questions the legality and morality of the Obama Administration's use of extra-judicial killing of American citizens while outside American territory.
3. Discusses the failure of persons within the Bush WH, such as Jay Bybee, to provide sound legal advice relating to the use of torture.
4. Asks where is this generation's Thurgood Marshall, the venerated Supreme Court Justice who attacked Jim Crow laws as a civil rights litigator.  Despite there being more lawyers than ever in the history of the USA, there remains very few entities (outside the ACLU, CCR, and human rights organizations) or persons willing to challenge the egregious criminality of the American president.

That Strange Concept Called Accountability!

Something remarkable happened last month that the press seems to have thoroughly overlooked here in the Americas.  The newly formed Conservative-Liberal Democrats coalition government in Britain told the country that they were going to reform civil liberties that had been badly diminished under Labour and equally, hold the previous government accountable their years of participating in the kidnapping, rendition, and torture of persons across the globe.

Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime-Minister, made a speech declaring that the coming changes would be the biggest shake-up in UK democracy since 1832.  He railed against a litany of previous Labour government policies that formed the basis of Britain's surveillance state:

• ID Card schemes
• national identity registers
• biometric passports
• the storing of Internet and email records
• DNA databases
• proliferating security cameras
• repressive restrictions on free speech and assembly rights

Mr. Clegg's party before the election didn't mince words.  The Liberal-Democrats stated in their party platform that, "The Government believes the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused fundamental human rights and historic civil liberties."  He further inveighed against the current criminal justice system which imprisons too many citizens without improving public safety, and "pledged radical reform to empower citizens" over entrenched and wealthy interests.

William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, announced that an independent judge will investigate whether the British government was complicit in the torture of terror suspects.  The Guardian summarizes:

The judicial inquiry announced by the foreign secretary into Britain's role in torture and rendition since September 2001 is poised to shed extraordinary light on one of the darkest episodes in the country's recent history.

It is expected to expose not only details of the activities of the security and intelligence officials alleged to have colluded in torture since 9/11, but also the identities of the senior figures in government who authorised those activities. . . . Those who have been most bitterly resisting an inquiry -- including a number of senior figures in the last government -- may have been dismayed to see the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition formed, as this maximised the chances of a judicial inquiry being established.

Glenn Greenwald describes the mindset of Barack Obama, who claimed during the 2008 election that it was his desire to hold the Bush junta to account for their crimes.  To date the Obama administration has held none of the fiends who lied and took America to war on bogus premises, engaged in wholesale torture across the globe, and violated the Geneva conventions.  George W. Bush has already admitted that he knew his top national security advisers discussed and approved specific details of the CIA's use of torture.  Earlier this month, he further admitted that "Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was waterboarded by the US, and said he would do it again 'to save lives'." This is consistent with Dick Cheney's bold statement to the world, back in February,where he announced that he was a "big supporter of waterboarding."

Andrew Sullivan and Scott Horton have both said that president Obama and his AG are now obligated to prosecute both Messrs Bush and Cheney.

[T]he attorney general of the United States is legally obliged to prosecute someone who has openly admitted such a war crime or be in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention on Torture. For Eric Holder to ignore this duty subjects him too to prosecution. If the US government fails to enforce the provision against torture, the UN or a foreign court can initiate an investigation and prosecution.... Cheney himself just set in motion a chain of events that the civilized world must see to its conclusion or cease to be the civilized world. For such a high official to escape the clear letter of these treaties and conventions, and to openly brag of it, renders such treaties and conventions meaningless.

How far down the rabbit hole have we all gone, where the Conservatives of Britain are willing to hold their people to account, while the Obama administration gives the worst government in the history of the American republic another "get-out of jail" card and the press doesn't bother talking about any of it?

US Banks Forced to Limit Debt Card Fees

According to the NY Times, legislation was passed by the US Senate several days ago to "impose price controls on debit transactions over the furious objections of the beleaguered banking industry."

The Durbin amendment gives the Federal Reserve new authority to regulate and limit the fees that businesses pay to card companies. It specifically addresses payments processed through the Visa and MasterCard networks. American Express and Discover cards are not covered by the bill...
 
The legislation directs the Fed to cap those fees at a level that is “reasonable and proportional” to the cost of processing transactions. The Nilson Report estimated that last year, fees averaged 1.63 percent of the transaction amount.

A second set of provisions applies to both credit and debit card transactions. Visa and MasterCard impose an all-or-nothing requirement on businesses, requiring them to accept cards even on small transactions, and prohibiting businesses from offering discounts based on the method of payment. The amendment strikes those rules.

Despite the narrative of the Times article, the change in rates is not necessarily a victory for consumers, but  rather a win for businesses (including some very large ones like Amazon.com, Home Depot, and Walmart) over the much reviled banks.   This was a contest between lobbyists for the banks versus lobbyists for retail businesses utilizing debt cards. 

Earlier last year, consumers did achieve a decisive victory through the Credit Card Accountability Responsibility and Disclosure Act of 2009, which includes the following:

• Cardholders Deserve Protections against Arbitrary Interest Rate Increases
• Cardholders Who Pay on Time Should Not Be Penalized.
• Cardholders Should Be Protected from Due Date Gimmicks.
• Cardholders Should Be Protected from Misleading Terms.
• Cardholders Deserve the Right to Set Limits on Their Credit.
• Card Companies Should Fairly Credit and Allocate Payments.
• Card Companies Should Not Impose Excessive Fees on Cardholders.
• Vulnerable Consumers Should Be Protected From Fee-Heavy Subprime Credit Cards.
• Congress Should Provide Better Oversight of the Credit Card Industry.

Overall, these two pieces of legislation firmly limit some of the excessive and predatory actions conducted by the banks upon both consumers and retail operations alike.

Federal Reserve to be Audited

The worm has turned several times in the effort to audit the US Federal Reserve and reclaim some democratic  accountability of the secretive machinations of this institution.  Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel recipient in economics, has called the Fed a corrupt institution.  Many on both sides of the political spectrum, like Congressmen Ron Paul (R-Tx) and Alan Grayson (D-Fl), have questioned the basis and decision making structure of the Fed and demanded that more transparency be provided.

On the other hand, many Democrats, Republicans, and status quo defenders of Fed have attempted to defeat any legislation that would review and address the gross failings of the Fed, which directly lead to the Great Recession.  The arguments offered by these groups have varied from the supine to the ridiculous.  For example, claims were made that American capitalism itself would be imperiled (unlike the current situation) if politicians were given the ability to review the monetary policies of the Fed.  The sacred independence of the Fed would be lost and monetary policy would be subject to the whims of politicians, who are subject to short-term re-election thinking; thus potentially pushing the country into a Zimbabwe-like economic collapse.  However, the problem isn't so much congress' meddling in monetary policy, but the Fed's persistent habit of defining fiscal policy, which is clearly the purview of the elected representatives in Congress and the executive.  During the past recession, the Fed shifted its position from being the lender of last resort to the investor of last resort.  In practice this meant that the Federal Reserve, under Ben Bernanke, has been picking the winners and losers in the US market by defining who would be protected by the state if their businesses faltered.   That is the definition of crony-capitalism.

Last week, 11 May 2010, the US Senate voted 96-0 for the Government Accountability Office to audit the "Fed's activities since the outbreak of financial turmoil in 2007."   Unlike in the past where the Federal Reserve and its Chairman were given "deference and near-reverence" by members of Congress, populist anger at all branches of government have forced politicians to respond.

The chief backers of the audit idea are a political odd couple, Rep. Ron Paul (R) of Texas in the House and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont. On the right, Representative Paul is a libertarian who sees the audit as a step to help the public conclude that the Fed should not exist at all. On the left, Senator Sanders is known as a "democratic socialist" crusading against an institution that critics say is closely allied with powerful Wall Street bankers.

The recipients of all those trillions of dollars, which to date the Fed has refused to provide, and the underlying rationals for providing these parties with such grandiose sums, will now be open to public inspection.  As Senator Sanders said, "We also need to know what possible conflicts of interest exist involving the heads of large financial institutions."

Deepwater Horizon: Spill, baby, Spill...

"Every asshole who ever chanted 'Drill baby drill' should have to report to the Gulf coast today for cleanup duty." - Bill Maher

On April 20th 2010 the Deepwater Horizon, an offshore drilling platform located approximately 80 kilometres off the Louisiana coast, was critically damaged by an explosion.   Eleven workers were lost at sea and are presumed dead.  Initial estimates provided by operators of the platform stated that the rig may have had as much as 700,000 gallons of diesel on board and 1,000 barrels a day of petroleum were leaking out of the broken wellhead.

Two days after the initial explosion the entire platform sunk.   New assessments indicate that the amount of petroleum leaking out of the ruptured wellhead is approximately 5,000 barrels a day; five times the original estimate.  At least six million litres of petroleum have spilled so far, according to U.S. Coast Guard, making this incident the worst U.S. oil spill since the infamous Exxon Valdez.  In addition, millions of animals, including 1.8 million migratory waterfowl, are at risk.  The potential environmental/economic damage extends across the entire aquatic zone adjacent to the Louisiana coast, which is abundant in shrimp, oysters and other marine life.  The state's aquaculture industry, the largest in the lower 48 states, is worth $1.8-billion annually.

News reports are emerging that BP (the facility’s operator) de-emphasized the risk of a catastrophe in risk analysis’ it submitted to the U.S. government as recently as last year.  BP claimed that it was
"unlikely that an accidental surface or subsurface oil spill would occur" and in the event of such an unlikely situation, "due to the distance to shore and the response capabilities that would be implemented, no significant adverse impacts are expected."  As of today, the oil mass has already reached the Louisiana shoreline and substantial levels of heavy oil contained within a 1,500 square kilometer oil slick is anticipated to wash ashore in Mississippi on Saturday, before reaching Alabama on Sunday, and Florida on Monday.

According to the federal Minerals Management Service, since 2001 there have been 69 offshore deaths, 1,349 injuries, and 858 fires and explosions in the American controlled Gulf of Mexico.   Occupational health and safety management under the previous Bush administration was neutered.  Republican hacks, corporate yes-men, and people who had spent their entire careers fighting OSHA were placed in positions of authority.  Policies were then created to allow industries to set their own standards of compliance.   A culture of indifference to human life and the environment, which was the trademark of the "toxic Texan", became the national standard.

With the actual consequences of Mr. Bush’s deregulatory framework and anti-environment policies becoming clearer, the dunces of the Republican Party, who made "Drill baby drill" their call to arms during the 2008 federal election, have suddenly gone silent on this issue.  The Wasilla whack-job (Ms. Palin) has yet to provide an intelligent response to the catastrophic risk she demanded Americans accept so that they could drive their Hummers and fat-asses to their anti-tax and anti-government Tea Party rallies.

Mr. Obama on the other hand, who during his election campaign vigorously defended the position that no offshore drilling should be permitted on America’s coastlines, reversed himself several weeks earlier and allowed Atlantic drilling to proceed in an attempt to garner the support of Republicans for the passage of a global warming bill.  The hypocrisy and sheer spinelessness of this president to abandon the principles for which he was elected to execute is staggering.  Unlike the daft feces-throwing monkeys of the Republican Party, Mr. Obama promised America he would deliver real change and not simply continue on with the policies of the most hated administration in the history of the nation.

The damage is now done.  Millions of litres of toxic sludge will continue to contaminate the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the shorelines of the Southern states.  Wildlife will die, ecosystems will be destroyed, and the lives and welfare of those people and communities that depend on these commons will be decimated.

Banks Concerned about Populist Demands

The NY Times (1-Feb. '10) has an article, titled "Curveball Alters Talks on Wall St. Reform," that describes the current state of affairs amongst Democratic and Republican Senators tasked with crafting necessary financial regulatory legislation.  In it is a paragraph that really underscores the dirty secret that everyone knows:

But industry representatives and Democratic Congressional aides say the president’s new proposals have already provoked a sharp increase in the volume and energy of the lobbying on regulatory reform, with more chief executives stepping over their government relations staff to request personal meetings with lawmakers. The big banks, the lobbyists say, have become increasingly alarmed that the legislative process may move in unexpected directions outside their control.

Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) stated in the same article, "populism doesn’t give you either good regulatory activity or strong markets."  The faux-populism of both parties always reveals itself in the end.  But it's good to know which end of the pitchforks politicians would like to be on, if and when  the whole economic charade that is the US economy comes falling apart.

Eliot Spitzer on Obama's First Year

Spitzer who knows a thing or two about taking on established power, points out in the above video and in his 26-Jan. 2010 State article how Mr. Obama can re-assert the progressive liberal agenda in which he was elected to enact and save the Democrats from electoral defeat in the 2010 midterm elections.

In the article he basically calls Rahm Emanuel (WH Chief of Staff), Larry Summers (Director of the National Economic Council), and Tim Geithner (US Secretary of the Treasury) incompetent political operatives who are a liability to both the Obama presidency and the nation as a whole.

He also contends that the president's working model is useless and Obama needs to aggressively control the legislative process, rather than ceding it to congressional weaklings.

It is time for President Obama to imitate Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt: define the progressive agenda and impose party discipline, use the 59 votes in the Senate—still an overwhelming majority—and an equally robust majority in the House to make every effort to pass the critical pieces of the Democratic agenda and then let the Republicans try to counter.

Mr. Obama has failed repeatedly over the past year to heed the criticisms of those on his left-flank.  As a result, both him and the Democrats, by underwhelming and playing footsie with K-Street, are posed to lose massively in the 2010 midterm elections to the Republicans; whose only solution to America's problems is more war and less taxes.  If he wants the Democrats to continue being an appendage of the corporate state, then he should prepare himself to vacate the White House in 2012, because few who voted for a reformist agenda, to correct the extravagances of the Bush junta, will bother to do so again with the present course of action.