Miles Mogulescu

Miles Mogulescu

Posted: February 8, 2010 04:43 PM

Congress: The Banks Own the Place. Do They Own Obama Too?

What's Your Reaction:
"The banks--hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created--are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

That's what Democratic Senate whip Dick Durbin said last May when the Senate failed to pass a bankruptcy reform bill that would give bankruptcy judges the power to reduce the principal of homeowners' underwater mortgages, the same power bankruptcy judges have to reduce the principal on commercial mortgages like those held by Donald Trump that get in trouble. Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh, one of the banks' favorite Senators said at the time:

When I was actively involved at the moment it broke down it was my impression there were no Republicans who were willing to support it and at least a few Democrats have stated openly on the record that they were in opposition. How you get to 60 with those numbers is a mathematical problem.

The putative Democrat Bayh appeared to have few regrets that 40 Senators could block any action that would help homeowners keep banks from foreclosing on their homes. And President Obama did nothing to confront or embarrass those Senators, mostly Republicans but including several Democrats, from siding with the banks against the people.

Now The New York Times is reporting that as a result of massive bank lobbying, it's becoming increasingly likely that the Senate will reject another pro-consumer reform that would end government subsidies of private banks making student loans, would save $80 billion over the next 10 years and enable more middle class and poor students to afford college.

President Obama called the proposal a "no brainer". But that was before the banks launched a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign in Congress to kill the proposal and keep their corporate welfare. Sallie Mae, the national largest private student lender, doubled its lobbying expenditures to $8 million in 2009 and other private lenders spent millions more, according to an analysis prepared for The Times by the Center for Responsive Politics. Political action committees for the lenders made $2.1 million in political contributions in 2009, evenly split between Democrats and Republicans. In typical Washington revolving door fashion, one of the banks' top lobbyists fighting the reform is Democrat Jamie Gorelick who was the number two person in President Clinton's Justice Department before Clinton appointed her Vice Chairman of the scandal plagued Fannie Mae where she earned $24,466,834 in 5 years including $779,625 as a result of Fannie Mae fraudulently manipulating its books. Now, with the help of lobbyists like Gorelick, passage of the student loan reform, too, appears in doubt.

The question is, if relatively simple "no brainer" reforms like bankruptcy reform and student loan reform, which would save the government tens of billions of dollars and make the lives of middle class Americans better, can't make it through a Democratic controlled Congress, how will more fundamental reforms of the financial system fare?

Reports are surfacing that proposals like a consumer financial protection agency, and the so-called "Volker rules" to prevent commercial banks from gambling federally insured consumer deposits in the global financial casinos, won't even make it out of the Senate Banking Committee chaired by long-time bank friend Chris Dodd who is retiring this year under the cloud of financial scandal. It's looking increasingly likely that if any financial "reform" emerges intact from the Senate, it will be so watered down that it will do little to reign in Wall Street's most egregious practices, prevent the next bubble from developing, or mitigate the need for the federal government to again bailout the financial system when the next bubble bursts.

And just to be sure, major Wall Street banks, who have given campaign dollars to Democrats, are threatening to shift their contributions to Republicans, according to reports in Monday's New York Times. By helping electing Barack Obama--the first African American President who appeared to be an advocate of the people against the special interests--Wall Street banks may have successfully headed off a full-scale political rebellion when they were bailed out with hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer money and asked for next to nothing in return. Now that there is talk of serious reform to prevent the next financial bubble and the next taxpayer-funded bailout, they'll do everything they can to elect a Republican Congress, and threaten remaining Democrats, to be sure those reforms never happen. And the Supreme Court has just handed them a nuclear weapon to carry out their plans. They can give unlimited amounts of money to any Congressperson who will support them and threaten defeat to any Congressperson who opposes them. In fact, they don't even have to spend the money. All they have to do is have their lobbyists tell enough Senators who might otherwise support financial reform that they're prepared to spend unlimited funds to defeat him or her and the Congressperson is likely to bend to their will.

By reforming the financial system, FDR may have saved capitalism and the banking system from itself, even over the organized opposition and greed of the big banks. Among other things, FDR and a Democratic Congress instituted a bank holiday, created Federal Deposit Insurance to rekindle confidence in the banking system, formed the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate the public investment system, and passed the Glass-Steagall Act to separate federally insured commercial banks from investment banks and hedge funds. The regulatory regime created under the New Deal helped protect the American and global capitalist financial system from meltdown for over 75 years until memories faded and it was slowly eroded under the Presidencies of Ronald Reagan, two President Bushes, and Bill Clinton.

The question is, does Barack Obama have the courage and political will to follow in the footsteps of FDR and again act to protect our financial system from the next bubble which will be the inevitable result of Wall Street's unregulated greed? To do so, he will have to stop acting like he's the Senate Majority Leader looking to cut a bogus bipartisan deal that can only produce what columnist Tom Friedman has called "suboptimal solutions", and go over the heads of Congress to speak directly to the American people. Or is Obama also too bought off by Wall Street banks who helped finance his Presidential campaign and whose existence was saved by the largesse of the taxpayers?

If Obama fails to lead, may God save these United State of America. The bankers and their paid concubines in Congress sure as hell won't.

To sign a petition sponsored by the Campaign for America's Future asking your Senator to end $80 billion dollars in bank subsidies for student loans, click here.

 
 
Comments
17
Pending Comments
0
View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
FreeShaneBower   03:23 PM on 2/17/2010
Forget the Consumer Protection Agency. Forget rate caps and ATM fee reductions. I want JUSTICE! Wall Street gambled ILLEGALLY, first with our mortgages and now with our taxes and treasury dollars. Creating redundant agencies and regulating small-time lenders is an exercise in distraction and procrastination. Enforce the law on Wall Street. Obama should not squander the bailoutrage with the same intractable partisan discourse that sunk healthcare reform. If he comes down on these banks for breaking the law, not only will America support him, it will likely deter banks from trying to blow another bubble on us.
littlemissy   04:50 PM on 2/09/2010
I keep posting this in response to different articles, but I haven't gotten any responses that make me reconsider my stance.

Article says "Senate failed to pass a bankruptcy reform bill that would give bankruptcy judges the power to reduce the principal of homeowners' underwater mortgages"

I don't think it is just the banks that have a problem with writing down the principal. I think there would be major public outrage over the unfairness inherent in this. I am a liberal and I know people need help, but I'd be very upset about this if it played out as follows in the example below.

You and I both bought a home for $250K before the bubble burst. I put down $100K and you put down $0. Now the bubble has burst and the homes are worth $150K. I still owe about $100K and you still owe about $250K. If your principal is written down to $150K (the current value of the home) because you are underwater, aren't you getting rewarded for putting $0 down and I'm getting penalized for putting $100K down?”
Hellooo   03:22 PM on 2/09/2010
Ben Nelson is not a Democrat. So the number of democratic senators is 56. Even so, if we can't figure out how to get our programs approved with 56 senators, we don't deserve to sit in those seats. At best, we need to get rid of the present group and replace them with people who will inact our ideas.
photo
Gatormouth   12:22 PM on 2/09/2010
“K Street bagmen, many operating under the direction of International Corporations and the U.S Chamber of Commerce. And our courts have even been bought. What could be more American? Or, do these guys get their ideas elsewhere? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamber_of­_Fasci_and­_Corporati­ons”
freelyb   12:15 PM on 2/09/2010
Obama took a conscious abrupt right-hand swerve immediately after the election -- before recalcitrant old turtles even poked their heads from their shells, before it was even necessary. It's all about the corporate favor and corporate money, nothing more, but nothing less.
Countess   12:00 PM on 2/09/2010
Perhaps only people without a sense of American history could believe that democrats are any less corrupt than republicans and this administration is quite comfortable not only with the corruption but is obsessed with cooperating with the right wing southern dominated republican thugs to keep America a backwater of democracy.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Miles Mogulescu   12:17 PM on 2/09/2010
To add some more historical perspective, the sponsors of the Glass-Steagall act were Sen. Carter Glass of Virginia and Rep. Henry Stegall of Alabama who were both Southern dixiecrats, staunch segregationists, and generally conservative on economic and other matters. At a time when conservative white Democrats dominated southern politics, their general orientation was not that different from modern Republicans. But FDR was able to garner their support for fundamentally reforming the banking system and protecting it against itself. Quite a contrast to Obama's leadership to date. and of Glass' and Steagall's modern equivalents in the Party of No.
Discomustachio   11:45 AM on 2/09/2010
We have two options:

1) Vote in 3rd party candidates

2) Violence against the Federal Government

I prefer 3rd party candidates.
kfreed   08:01 AM on 2/10/2010
Or... in the next election, conduct a preliminary tail check. If your favored donkey appears to have its tail tucked between its legs, find a new donkey.
xilduq   10:58 PM on 2/08/2010
"The Banks Own the Place. Do They Own Obama Too?"

Obviously a rhetorical question.
photo
DeWayne   08:27 PM on 2/08/2010
To speculate on the degree of corruption within our government is meaningles, if this is not perfectly understood as permeating our entire government any and all dialog is otherwise a waste of time.

This being no longer an issue of debate, then it behoves every citizen within this United States to vote every last member of both DEM and GOP out of Office, no matter how long this cleansing takes. It is clearly evident today no branch of our government has been left out in the selling out of America.

Certainly only Third Party radically dedicated to the need of cleaning out every vestage of corruption from (our) government, is now needed to return a Constitutional government of Law absent now for many decades. Certainly this is the only chance common citizen being the vast-majority have in resolving the calamities we now face because of this 'Organized Crime' we call government.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vlm1948   01:06 PM on 2/09/2010
Exactly right and they should be voted out in the primaries.
Hellooo   03:17 PM on 2/09/2010
No matter how much money a coorporation gives, it has not a single vote. If individual voters go to the poll and vote against a senator or representative who hasnot represented our best interest that senator and representative will lose his job. Vote.

Howard Dean said it best. We have the power.
photo
jw   08:08 PM on 2/08/2010
The simple answer to the question is yes, all politicians are owned by corporations.
photo
audadvnc   07:18 PM on 2/08/2010
From Wikipedia:

Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption, is an act implying money or gift given that alters the behavior of the recipient. Bribery constitutes a crime and is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.

Does this definition not exactly describe the interaction of Corporate America and our government? I think we're screwed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MalleusMaleficarum   06:38 PM on 2/08/2010
With Wall Street Insider Rahm Emanuel as the political pilot of the White House - there is little serious hope that the Obama administration will produce anything nearly as meaningful as the New Deal. Get rid of Emanuel, bring in a more popular and progressive staff and political agenda - and the game could change. Otherwise, just totter along with the status quo and retire in January, 2013, when the new bank and corporate president takes the oath of office - then retire to board meetings and an income of circa $50-60 million per year.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Manx   05:16 PM on 2/08/2010
Rahm Emanuel set up the money pipeline from Wall St. to Obama's campaign. As long as Timothy Geithner, Larry Summers and Rahm Emanuel are his advisers, Obama will not take on the banks in earnest. Just last September, in an interview with Bloomberg News, Obama was defending the bankers' big bonuses and salaries. Now, he's putting on a big show of outrage against them.

I've been a Democrat all my life but I'm embarassed that the party is now identified with Wall St. and war.

Twitter Edition