Monday, April 13, 2015

OBOF TYMHM & MORE Vol 15 No 9


OPINOINS  BASED  ON FACTS (OBOF)

THINGS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED (TYMHM)

YEAR ONE

YEAR TWO

YEAR THREE

YEAR FOUR

YEAR FIVE

 

OBOF YEAR FIVE INDEX
 
OBOF TYMHM
Jan. 07, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 1
Jan. 19, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 2
Feb.  03, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 3
Feb.  23, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 4
Mar.  02, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 5
Mar.  06, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 6
Mar.  13, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 7
Mar.   23, 2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 8
Mar.  28,  2015
OBOF TYMHM Vol 15 - No 9
Apr.  13,  2015

 

Agenda


 


1.  Thoughts from Floyd.


2.  Now we know why TPP has been


               kept from the public.


3.  Loyalty to Country over loyalty to Government.


4.  Big bank bad boys bully our country and blow it.


 


 


THOUGHTS  FROM


FLOYD


 


First, as you may have assumed due to timing of posts, I have been having a bit of a rough time physically and emotionally.  Long story short, in addition to regular aches and pain, which I just live with, as many of you do, I have developed some serious blood circulation problems in my legs.


 


Speaking of talking with all of you, I want to sincerely thank you for signing on even when I miss some posting times.


 


Second, our Country, as I am sure you know, is continuing to be in a real mess and getting worse.  I am a Democrat, as most of you know, and I have been a strong supporter of the President, BUT I am totally disappointed in him.  I can not imagine


what he is trying to do for this county.  It seems that we are now starting to see the "real President Obama Stand up.


 


I cannot understand his actions regarding TPP and Social Security and wanting to give SS to Mexico, as well as other matters.  I hate to say it, but it begins to look as though he is more and more getting in bed with the Corporate group. Might be good for the future, for him that is.


~~~


Now We Know Why Huge TPP Trade Deal Is Kept Secret from the Public


 

Authors: Dave Johnson


Published: March 28, 2015

 

 

 

FROM FLOYD:

 

I have been giving you a number of articles in the past couple of months about The Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP).  Why, because this, so called, trade agreement, is so much more and is so damaging to our country. 

 

To begin with, what little we do know about it is that it has more than 1,000 pages and of that 1,000 only 36 pages refer to trade agreements.  Now, while there is even some problems in the trade agreement portion, the rest of the agreement is really scary.  For example, any of the 11 countries involved can sue any                                                                                                                                                                                        companies or individuals in our country and the hearings would be held in a new universal court, or Tribunal, if you will.  Our laws can be set aside and even our constitution can be declared null and void.       Our sovereignty is truly in the balance .

 

There is another trade agreement in the works that, so far, we haven't heard a much about.  This agreement is with the European countries.  Apparently, they want to get TPP in the bag first.

 

From what I know about these agreements, I feel it is important to keep telling you about them and as often as you can, let your Senators and Representative know how you feel about them.  Right now, the Obama administration is pushing to Fast Track TPP through Congress.  That would mean for it to be brought up for a yes/no vote with no opportunity for discussion or amendments.

~

 

A key section of the secret Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade agreement has been leaked to the public. The New York Times has a major story on the contents of the leaked chapter and it’s as bad as many of us feared.

 

Now we know why the corporations and the Obama administration want TPP, a huge “trade” agreement being negotiated between the United States and 11 other countries, kept secret from the public until it’s too late to stop it.

 

The section of TPP that has leakedis the “Investment” chapter that includes Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) clauses. WikiLeaks has the text and analysis, and the Times has the story, in “Trans-Pacific Partnership Seen as Door for Foreign Suits Against U.S.“:

 
An ambitious 12-nation trade accord pushed by President Obama would allow foreign corporations to sue the United States government for actions that undermine their investment “expectations” and hurt their business, according to a classified document.
 
The Trans-Pacific Partnership — a cornerstone of Mr. Obama’s remaining economic agenda — would grant broad powers to multinational companies operating in North America, South America and Asia. Under the accord, still under negotiation but nearing completion, companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, st                                             ate or local — before tribunals organized under the World Bank or the United Nations.

 

The WikiLeaks analysis explains this lets firms “sue” governments to obtain taxpayer compensation for loss of “expected future profits.”

 

Let that sink in for a moment. “..companies and investors would be empowered to challenge regulations, rules, government actions and court rulings — federal, state or local — before tribunals…” And they can collect not just for lost property or seized assets, they can collect if laws or regulations interfere with these giant companies collecting what they claim are “expected future profits”.

 

The Times’ report explains this clause also “… giv[es] greater priority to protecting corporate interests than promoting free trade and competition that benefits consumers.”

The tribunals that adjudicate these cases will be made up of private sector (i.e. “corporate”) attorneys. These attorneys will rotate between serving on the tribunals and representing corporations that bring cases to be heard by the tribunals. This is a conflict of interest because the attorneys serving on the tribunals will have tremendous incentive to rule for the corporations if they want to continue to get lucrative corporate business.

 

The Corporate Influence Over the TPP

Largely ignored by the media – until now.

 

TPP has been in a negotiation process for more than five years. The TPP has 29 “chapters” covering various issues, but only five of the7se chapters cover what would normally be considered “trade.” It is a “docking” agreement, which means that any country in the region (i.e. China) can add themselves to the agreement just by signing on.

 

These negotiations have been conducted in secret, but more than 500 corporate “trade advisors” have access to text of the agreement. Many of the negotiators themselves are past (and/or likely expect to be future) corporate attorneys or executives. U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman, for example, “received over $4 million as part of multiple exit payments when he left Citigroup to join the Obama administration,” according to a report, “Obama Admin’s TPP Trade Officials Received Hefty Bonuses From Big Banks” by investigative journalist Lee Fang.

 

This one-sided process has been causing concern among representatives of many of the key “stakeholder” groups that have been excluded from the negotiating process. Labor unions, environmental groups, consumer groups, health groups, food-safety groups, as well as LGBT, democracy, faith, and other “stakeholders” who have been denied a seat at the TPP negotiating table have feared that the process would produce an agreement that tilts the democracy/plutocracy power balance even further in the direction of corporations and billionaires than it is now.

 

ISDS Tilts Playing Field To Corporations

 

AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka, speaking March 18 at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, compared the extraordinary ability of corporations to sue governments to the lack of redress when labor organizers are murdered to explain how ISDS tilts the playing field to corporations over other stakeholders:

 
ISDS is just a fancy way to give corporations a special legal system that circumvents democratically accountable laws and courts.
 
ISDS allows corporations to directly challenge almost any law or regulation based on ill-defined concepts such as “fair and equitable treatment.”  In contrast, all provisions for enforcing labor rights in TPP require action by member governments—neither workers nor unions can enforce the labor rights provisions on their own even by suing in national courts.
 
I’m not just talking theory here. In the first three years of the Labor Action Plan in Colombia, 73 trade unionists were murdered for trying to organize workers.  These are men and women just like you and me who were killed for trying to exercise their rights under the law and speak in a collective voice. That’s terrible, and yet these trade deals have been completely ineffective in addressing this injustice. And the U.S. government has taken no official “trade” action in response.  Anyone with a lick of common sense can tell you that not only are these killings bvg a human rights catastrophe, they are driving down wages and workplace standards in Colombia—and in every country that trades with Colombia.
 
But here’s the thing: unlike the clunky labor provisions, which require workers to wait for government action, these ISDS provisions can be used immediately by multinational firms to challenge efforts by TPP member countries to develop a modern regulatory state in key areas. ISDS tilts the playing field away from democracy, from workers and consumers, and toward big business and multinational investors.

 

In sum, if corporations feel they have been denied “expected” profits by a government regulation, ISDS lets them circumvent a country’s courts and go to an international corporate tribunal with their grievance. But if labor organizers are murdered, workers and their families have nowhere to go.

 

This shows the extent to which the playing field gets tilted.  The same imbalance exists between corporate interests and the interests represented by environmental groups, consumer groups and all other non-corporate stakeholders: a special channel for corporations, a brick wall for the interests of the rest of us.

 

Advantage: Foreign Firms

 

While ISDS would give American multinational corporations tremendous powers over other governments, it places non-U.S. corporations (and, of course, non-U.S. subsidiaries of American multinational corporations) at a tremendous advantage over U.S. firms by giving only them – not U.S.-based firms – this right to challenge U.S. laws and regulations.

 

Global Trade Watch explains this advantage:

 
The TPP would grant foreign investors and firms operating here expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to U.S. firms under U.S. law, allowing foreign firms to demand compensation for the costs of complying with U.S. policies, court orders and government actions that apply equally to domestic and foreign firms.  The text allows foreign investors to demand compensation for claims of “indirect
expropriation” that apply to much wider categories of property than those to which similar rights apply in U.S. law.

 

TPP is the largest trade agreement in history, involving more than 40 per cent of the world’s GDP. One way President Obama and the Chamber of Commerce sell TPP is by saying it will change everything and will rewrite the rules for doing business for the 21st century.  This leak shows us that they are right about TPP changing everything and rewriting the rules.  But the leak shows that the people and organizations opposing TPP were right, too, because the changes give corporations vast new powers to overrule democratic governments.

 

Origins  Of  ISDS

 

This ISDS mechanism originates from a time when 441investors in wealthy, developed countries wanted to invest in projects in unstable “third-world,” “banana-republic”-style countries, but worried that dictators or revolutionary governments could decide to seize their property – a refinery, railroad or a factory, leaving them with no recourse.

 

So before investing, the target country agrees that in the case of disputes a tribunal is set up outside of and beyond the reach of the country’s justice system (courts where the judge is a brother or other crony of the dictator, for example), providing recourse in the event of unjust seizure of property. This would make investment less risky.

 

However, under agreements like TPP, these provisions apply to and override the laws of modern, stable, developed countries with democratic governance and fair court systems. The corporate representatives negotiating modern trade agreements see such democratically-run governments as “burdensome” and chaotic, introducing “uncertainties” and “interfering” or “meddling” with the corporate order. As one supporter of these ISDS provisions put it, they protect corporations from “the waves of madness that occasionally flit through the population.”

Secret And Rushed

 

It is understandable that the giant, multinational corporations want TPP kept secret, and want Congress to pass “fast track” trade promotion authority that requires Congress to pass TPP within 90 “session” days after the agreement is made public. Fast track sets up a rushed process that does not give the public time to read, understand, analyze and consider the ramifications of it – never mind time to effectively organize opposition.  This is because, as Sen. Elizabeth Warren pointed out, “supporters of the deal say to me, ‘They have to be secret, because if the American people knew what was actually in them, they would be opposed.’ ”

 

Warren continued:

 
 

“Think about that. Real people, people whose jobs are at stake, small-business owners who don’t want to compete with overseas companies that dump their waste in rivers and hire workers for a dollar a day—those people, people without an army of lobbyists—they would be opposed. I believe if people this country would be opposed to a particular trade agreement, then maybe that trade agreement should not happen.”

Fast track also prevents members of Congress from amending (i.e. “fixing”) flaws that might be found in the agreement even in the limited time available to comprehend and analyze the agreement. With the expected massive corporate public relations campaign that will occur as the agreement comes up for a vote, this sets up a rushed process where the Congress becomes more concerned with not “killing the whole agreement” with getting it right.

 
 

 

Reaction

 

Larry Cohen, president of the Communications Workers of America (CWA), says the leak shows that TPP is “worse than imagined”:

 
“The 56 pages of the Investor chapter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership are worse than imagined and must be a wake up call for our nation.  Amazingly, this chapter is sealed for four years after either adoption or rejection of the TPP.  Everything we read and learn makes “Fast Track” authority unimaginable.
 
It’s secrecy on top of secrecy.
 
The TPP is shaping up to be an exercise in words about citizen rights that are not enforceable versus expanded corporate rights to sue governments for supposed diminishment of corporate profits. Section B of the leaked chapter documents new provisions of Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), the secret tribunal process that is above national law or courts.

 

Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown released the following statement:

 
“It appears that the investor state provision being considered as part of TPP will still amount to a corporate handout at the expense of consumers despite the assurances of our negotiators.  We need strong language to prevent multinational corporations – like Big Tobacco – from using trade agreements to challenge health and safety laws.
 
“It’s telling when Members of Congress and their staff have an easier time accessing national security documents than proposed trade deals, but if I were negotiating this deal I suppose I wouldn’t want people to see it either.  Trade agreements should lift American workers and their counterparts abroad, rather than creating a race to the bottom.”

From the Wikileaks statement:

 
Julian Assange, WikiLeaks editor said:
 
“The TPP has developed in secret an unaccountable supranational court for multinationals to sue states. This system is a challenge to parliam                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               W23       ews000entary and judicial sovereignty.  Similar tribunals have already been shown to chill the adoption of sane environmental protection, public health and public transport policies.”
 

Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch has this Analysis of Leaked Trans-Pacific Partnership Investment Text

 
“The leaked text provides stark warnings about the dangers of ‘trade’ negotiations occurring without press, public or policymaker oversight. It reveals that TPP negotiators already have agreed to many radical terms that would give foreign investors expansive new substantive and procedural rights and privileges not available to domestic firms under domestic law.”

 

Authors

 

 


Bio: Dave has more than 20 years of technology industry experience. His earlier career included technical positions, including video game design at Atari and Imagic.  He was a pioneer in design and development of productivity and educational applications of personal computers.  More recently he helped co-found a company developing desktop systems to validate carbon trading in the US.

 
Loyalty to Country Must Always Prevail Over Loyalty to Government

 

Authors: Michael Payne


Published: March 22, 2015

 

Some Americans think that country and government are one in the same but that is simply not the case. The Founding Fathers created this government and charged it with the responsibility to govern the country according to the provisions of the Constitution and the will of the people.

 

The U.S. Constitution is the bedrock, the solid foundation upon which this nation was built, based on these principles; separation of powers, limited government, checks and balances and individual rights.  We might add ethics, fairness and justice.

 

An organizational chart would show the government reporting directly to the country and the people of America.  The government’s job, therefore, is to follow those principles in advancing the interests of this country and the American people.

 

But here’s the problem.  While the Founders may have had the best of intentions of creating the best government possible there was no way that they could possibly guarantee that future governments would adhere to those principles or follow the will of the people.  Today, we are painfully becoming aware of that reality as this government has clearly become an oligarchy that openly serves the interests of the rich and powerful.

 

There have been times in this nation’s history when the government, the country and the people have been in sync and on the same frequency; where there was a close bond between the people and those who govern the nation; when the government was very responsive to the needs and interests of the people, above all else.  That’s when government understood that it must listen to the people and largely base its objectives accordingly.

 

When one sees this government engaged in actions that violate this country’s Constitution as well as the principles of ethics and morals, then there is no question that a person must not accept and condone them but must do what is right for the country.  The Founding Fathers were very clear on that point; when citizens find their government committing unacceptable acts then they must strongly speak out against them.  That’s a responsibility that comes with being a citizen of this country.

 

 Carl Schurz, Union Army General, later US Senator, and, still later, US Secretary of the Interior said: “The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.”                    In one sense I say so too.  My country; and my country is the great American Republic.  My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

 

So, we the people have the responsibility to “set it right” whenever that is necessary and do everything in our power, using peaceful dissent to protest against abuses.  When the Founding Fathers were faced with an oppressive government that stifled the will of the people, they refused to bend to its dictates.  They declared this country’s independence; they then created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and gave birth to a new nation.

 

The vast majority of Americans love their country but, increasingly, do not feel that same love for their government.  They see it as a bloated bureaucracy, heavily corrupted, and plagued with deceitful politicians; many have lost all trust in it.

 

Can someone tell me even one major initiative or important piece of legislation produced by this Congress in the past 14 years?  Something is terribly wrong when we have 535 supposed representatives of the people who each make $174,000 annually, and their leaders even more, and then, collectively, do absolutely nothing. Some Americans think that country and government are one in the same but that is simply not the case.  The Founding Fathers created this government and charged it with the responsibility to govern the country according to the provisions of the Constitution and the will of the people.

 

The U.S. Constitution is the bedrock, the solid foundation upon which this nation was built, based on these principles; separation of powers, limited government, checks and balances and individual rights.  We might add ethics, fairness, and justice.

 

An organizational chart would show the government reporting directly to the country and the people of America.  The government’s job, therefore, is to follow those principles in advancing the interests of this country and the American people.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

But, here’s the problem.  While the Founders may have had the best of intentions of creating the best government possible there was no way they could possibly guarantee that future governments would adhere to those principles or follow the will of the people.  Today, we are painfully becoming aware of that reality as this government has clearly become an oligarchy that openly serves the interests of the rich and powerful.

 

So, there have been times in this nation’s history when the government, the country and the people have been in sync and on the same frequency; where there was a close bond between the people and those who govern the nation; when the government was very responsive to the needs and interests of the people, above all else.  That’s when government understood that it must listen to the people and largely base its objectives accordingly.

 

When one sees this government engaged in actions that violate this country’s Constitution as well as the principles of ethics and morals, then there is no question that a person must not accept and condone them but must do what is right for the country.  The Founding Fathers were very clear on that point; when citizens find their government committing unacceptable acts then they must strongly speak out against them. That’s a responsibility that comes with being a citizen of this country.

 

Carl Schurz, Union Army General, later US Senator, and, still later, US Secretary of the Interior said: “The Senator from Wisconsin cannot frighten me by exclaiming, “My country, right or wrong.”  In one sense I say so too.  My country; and my country is the great American Republic.  My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right.”

 

So we the people have the responsibility to “set it right” whenever that is necessary and do everything in our power, using peaceful dissent to protest against abuses.  When the Founding Fathers were faced with an oppressive government that stifled the will of the people, they refused to bend to its dictates.  They declared this country’s independence; they then created the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and gave birth to a new nation.

 

The vast majority of Americans love their country but, increasingly, do not feel that same love for their government.  They see it as a bloated bureaucracy, heavily corrupted, and plagued with deceitful politicians; many have lost all trust in it.

 

Can someone tell me even one major initiative or important piece of legislation produced by this Congress in the past 14 years?  Something is terribly wrong when we have 535 supposed representatives of the people who each make $174,000 annually, and their leaders even more, and then, collectively, do absolutely nothing to earn that money.  We might as well throw it down a black hole.

 

This is a dark period in America’s history.  It’s as if a perpetual dark cloud hangs over Washington D.C. Wouldn’t it be great if we had a government that was positive, constructive, with vision for the future?  Sad to say, we don’t. This is no longer government of, by and for the people, it is one that serves the interests of a small element of this population; it has become an oligarchy.

 

I won’t go into great detail over all the many failures and shortcomings of this government and why it no longer is doing what is right for its country and people.  However, the following synopsis will highlight the reasons why we need to put the loyalty to this country above that of the government.

 

From the president to the Congress to the State Department to the Pentagon, an agenda of military hubris continues to spread across the world.  Wars, invasions, occupations, and interference in the internal affairs of other countries have become a primary objective.

 

This government has, in effect, “declared its independence” from the people of America and has aligned itself with the masters of Corporatism?  The objectives of these corporations have now become major objectives of this government.

 

We have a Congress divided in half with members of the opposing parties entirely incapable of working together on this nation’s critical problems.  It’s like East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet.  It is heavily corrupted, answering only to special interests.

 

Our education system and the national infrastructure should be top priorities for funding; they are not. Our manufacturing system and workforce have been decimated, and with it, the middle class.  Congress has no intention of doing anything to stop the bleeding.

 

Government agencies, the NSA and the DEA in particular, are spying on the American people.  Our privacy is being invaded in many ways; we have Big Brother constantly looking over our shoulders.

 

We must reduce our huge dependency on petroleum and develop solar power and other alternate energy; but nothing is being done because of the grip that the oil corporations have on this Congress.

 

Climate change and global warming are threats to this country’s future and that of the planet.  They are being ignored and given no attention.

 

The inequality of wealth and income is more and more problematic as the standard of living for the average American is rapidly being eroded.

 

We have a president that promised change and “Yes we can” but we’ve seen no evidence of any of it.  He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but his foreign policies and actions indicate that this was a very questionable choice.

 

The Supreme Court is not a champion of the U.S. Constitution but is a very strong advocate for advancing the rights and privileges of the masters of Corporatism.

 

The Justice Department has watched as the white collar criminals on Wall Street have broken laws and bent regulations to enrich themselves at the expense of the American people and has not prosecuted even one of them.

 

So, is that how this government shows its loyalty and dedication to this country and its people?

 

Now what about the many Americans who are watching this government’s many questionable and often disastrous policies and actions?  What do they think, how are they reacting to its many failures? Well, I would divide the American people into three general categories to answer that question:

 

Those who, no matter how egregious the actions of the government might be, accept and condone them and strongly deny that their government would ever do anything wrong.  That’s called blind loyalty.

 

Those who are fully aware of such egregious actions, but who feel that they have to be loyal and obedient to their government no matter what it does.  They might consider themselves as patriots but that’s not what true patriots do.

 

Those who love their country and respect their government but who, when aware that the government is taking this country in the exact wrong direction, refuse to accept and condone those actions and will do everything in their power to reverse this direction.

 

The vast majority of Americans can be found in categories 1 and 2 and far too few in category 3.

So the lesson to be learned by the American people can be found in these words of wisdom from Mark Twain: “Loyalty to country ALWAYS, loyalty to government, when it deserves it.”

 

Michael Payne


 

Michael Payne is an independent progressive activist. His writings deal with social, economic, political and foreign policy issues; and especially with the great dangers involved with the proliferation of perpetual war, the associated defense industry, and the massive control that Corporate America holds over this government and our election process;  all which are leading this nation down the road to eventual financial ruin if the conditions are not reversed.  He is a graduate of Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois and a U.S. Army veteran.

~~~

Big-Bank Bad Guys Bully Democracy

&

 Blow It

 

Authors: Richard Eskow


Published: March 31, 2015

 

For so-called “masters of the universe,” Wall Street executives sure seem touchy about criticism. It seems they don’t like being painted as the bad guys.

 

But if they don’t like being criticized, why do so many of them keep behaving like B-movie villains?  That’s exactly what executives from Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America looked after an article appeared last week detailing their coordinated attempt to intimidate Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and other Democrats who want to fix the mess on Wall Street.

 

They’ve cheated customers and defrauded investors. Now they want to use our legalized system of campaign-cash corruption to protect themselves from the very government which rescued them.

 

Dark Matters

 

According to a well-reported recent Reuters article, “Big Wall Street banks are so upset with U.S. Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren’s call for them to be broken up that some have discussed withholding campaign donations to Senate Democrats in symbolic protest.”

 

“Symbolic protest”?  

 

“Heavy-handed threat” is more like it.  That sentence suggests that they’re seeking not only to punish Warren and her allies, but all Senate Democrats – presumably until they reduce or eliminate her influence within the party.

 

Although the Reuters piece cites only “a maximum of $15,000” in potentially withheld contributions per bank, the threat is considerably greater than that. That maximum only applies to political party contributions from a PAC.   (PACs can also contribute up to $5,000 to each individual candidate.)

 

But PACs aren’t where the action is.  It turns out that the campaign contribution game isn’t all that different from Wall Street’s other financial activities: in both cases the real money’s in “innovative instruments.”

 

“Super PACs,” for example, can raise unlimited sums of money.  They can then “spend unlimited sums to overtly advocate for or against political candidates,” as OpenSecrets.org explains.  The list of 2014’s top 100 donors to these outside spending groups includes a number of Wall Streeters.

 

Bankers also contribute as individuals.  When JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon testified before the Senate Banking Committee about his bank’s “London Whale” fraud, for example, The Nation’s George Zornick pointed out that only two of the 22 senators facing him had not received campaign contributions from his bank’s employees.

 

As if to underscore the power of his connections, Dimon wore outsized cufflinks emblazoned with the presidential seal while giving his Senate testimony that day.  (Apparently that’s a favored way for Dimon to signal his power to lesser mortals.  As his bank was negotiating its way out of the foreclosure fraud scandal, he reportedly wore cufflinks featuring the FBI logo to Davos.)  Unsurprisingly, the senators were largely indulgent toward Dimon.

 

Then there are the “bundlers,” high-net-worth individuals who assemble large “bundles” of contributions from their peers and subordinates. They’re responsible for major cash infusions to campaigns from both parties.

 

Top bundlers for the 2012 Obama campaign included 92 people from the securities and investment community,according to a study   by the Center for Responsive Politics.  They included executives from such scandal-plagued institutions as Barclays, Citigroup, and Goldman Sachs. (The Romney campaign failed to voluntarily provide a full list of bundlers, but CRP identified a number fffffof bankers as well as 69 registered lobbyists.)

 

Spending is also skyrocketing for “dark money” groups, which are not required to disclose their donors. The banking industry is presumably well-represented there as well, although the veil of darkness surrounding these mountains of cash makes it impossible to know for sure.

 

We might have known, had the Securities and Exchange Commission followed through on plans to require publicly traded companies to disclose their political spending.  But the SEC changed its mind, which may have been inevitable once prosecutor-turned-Wall-Street-lawyer Mary Jo White was selected to run it.  President Obama, who appointed White to that position, could do a lot to fix the dark money problem. As Lee Fang points out in The Nation, Obama could expose most of it with a stroke of the pen by requiring government contractors to disclose their contributions.

 

He should.  The Brennan Center studied dark money in 13 of last year’s toss-up congressional races. It found that dark money dominated outside spending in those campaigns, and that dark money constituted virtually all outside spending in seven of those races.

 

Shakedown Street

 

The Reuters article named four banks in last week’s not-so-subtle shakedown attempt: Citigroup, JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Bank of America.  Each of these banks has been deeply implicated in a variety of massive, well-documented, multibillion-dollar frauds. Bankers at each institution were able to settle their fraud cases with shareholder cash – without facing jail time.  And each bank took billions in government bailout money.

 

Readers may well wonder whether these banks are even permitted to band together for the purpose of blackmailing a political party.  They are – campaign cash is “speech,” remember?  But then, bankers collude with one another even when it’s not legal.

 

And why wouldn’t bankers engage in unlawful conspiracy and fraud?  It’s not like any of them have gone to prison for it.

 

Does campaign cash correlate with good outcomes for Wall Street?  Consider this: The “Citigroup amendment” to last year’s “Cromnibus” budget deal – so named because Citigroup lobbyists literally wrote much of the bill’s language – served the top five banks (including the four who so crudely threatened Democrats last week) very well.

 

Democrats who voted for that deal received twice as much in campaign contributions from the financial industry as those who voted against it.

 

Given all this, it’s not hard to see why Wall Streeters would target Warren and Democratic colleagues like Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).  (Sen. Bernie Sanders wasn’t mentioned, presumably because he’s not a Democrat.)

 

The rise of the Democrats’ “Warren wing” is a serious threat to the financial industry’s interests. It has enjoyed considerable influence over the party under Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, and the Warren wing poses a very real threat to that influence.

 

The Showdown

 

With the 2016 campaign coming up, this is a critical moment in the struggle for the Democratic Party. Venture capitalist Alan Patricof, described last year as a “longtime Hillary Clinton friend and bundler,” was asked in January whether “deep Democratic pockets” were enthusiastic about contributing to her campaign.  Patricof said they’re “tripping over themselves” to contribute. He also said that Clinton is “very sensitive to … Elizabeth Warren trying to paint her as being identified with Wall Street.”  Bankers would presumably be far more comfortable investing in candidates who aren’t facing that kind of pressure.

 

In his defense, Patricof invests in actual businesses, ventures which are part of the productive economy rather than the ephemeral financial sphere.  The four banks that threatened the Democratic Party last week are far more dependent on the Federal government – a government that allowed them to become too big to fail, bailed them out when they collapsed from their own fraud and mismanagement, and has since allowed them to become bigger than ever.

 

The last thing these bankers want is a debate within the Democratic Party about reforming Wall Street and breaking up their too-big-to-fail                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               institutions – a debate that could energize the “Warren wing” and leave finance-friendlier Dems on the defensive.

 

For her part, Warren was unfazed, describing the threat as “warning shot … a showy way to tell Democrats across the country to be scared of speaking out, to be timid about standing up, and to stay away from fighting for what’s right.”

Added Warren: “Ok, they have taken their shot, but it will not work.”

 

Warren has it exactly right.  Warren and her peers have started a conversation Wall Street doesn’t want us to have.  She is to be commended for resisting the big banks’ undemocratic (and ungrateful) attack on the very system which saved them.

 

One thing is clear: This wasn’t just a threat against a few senators, or a Democratic Party faction. It was a naked attempt to crush public debate with campaign cash.  That makes it an attack on democracy itself.  If the big banks weren’t unpopular already, this undertaking would certainly help turn public opinion against them.  They have made the case more convincingly than their critics ever could: We need to get money out of politics – and break up the big banks.

 

Warren and her allies clearly have public opinion on their side.  79 percent of voters have an unfavorable view of Wall Street. 80 percent of voters                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   in last year’s battleground states agreed that politicians do too much to support Wall Street and not enough for the middle class.  60 percent favor stricter regulation of Wall Street.

 

But then, we’ve known it since the days of the B-movies: Americans hate to see the bad guys win.

 


 

Bio: Richard (RJ) Eskow is a writer, a former Wall Street executive and a radio journalist.  He has experience in health insurance and economics, occupational health, risk management, finance, and IT

~~~

If the good Lord is willing and the creek don't rise, I'll talk with you again at the end of this week, hopefully, on Friday.  I know it has been a long time since the last posting and I'll keep trying to improve.

 

Just a short note, here at the end.  I have a number of health problems, but the worst has shown up as a bad circulation problem in my legs.  It is a little touch and go as to whether I'll be able to keep my legs.  That could be the end.  Two months and I'll be 91.

 

God Bless You All

&

God Bless the United States of America

& help us all to save her.

Floyd

 

No comments:

Post a Comment