Now that the ideological defense of Wall Street behavior has collapsed, brought down by the wreckage of deregulation, bankers and lobbyists are pursuing a new strategy: fighting the democratic process itself. They're suggesting that this issue is a little too complicated for public scrutiny, and that what's really needed is for wiser heads to sort things out in private. We've seen what happens when deals are made in the back room. What we really need is the opposite: A live, televised debate before the American people.
The "adult supervision" theme was struck in JPMorganChase's recent "analyst report," where gratuitous insults directed at "ignorant Senators" were followed by this comment: "(With) the financial reform debate... in the final innings, it's time for the grownups to step in." And now the Washington Post reports that lobbyists are worried about the messy, unpredictable nature of democracy. Here's the bankers' fear, as described by the Post:
[Bank lobbyists] were counting on Senate committee hearings and backroom negotiations among key lawmakers to remove or soften what the financial industry considers most objectionable in the bill. That hasn't happened. And now, as early as Tuesday, the Senate will begin to consider populist amendments that spell even more heartburn for the banks.
It's always so much easier to cut deals in the backroom, isn't it? That way politicians don't have to be held accountable for their actions. Instead they can say things like "it wasn't politically feasible" or "we've forged a bipartisan compromise," comfortable in the knowledge that their Wall Street contributors still feel they're getting their money's worth.
Here's the bank lobby's vision of governance, as reported by the Post: "They've got to get this thing off the [Senate] floor and into a reasonable, behind the scenes (situation). Let's have a few wise fathers sit around the table in some quiet room."
"Wise fathers" (no mothers, apparently) presumably means Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, and the other deregulation mavens who bear so much responsibility for our current woes. These are the comfortable words of an oligarch, bringing to mind J. Pierpont Morgan's famous remark to Teddy Roosevelt: "If we have done anything wrong, send your man to my man and they can fix it up."
As with the Chase "report," contempt for the political process remains the order of the day. "I think some of this stuff is going to get totally irrational," said one of many lobbyists (in the Post article) ... "Every amendment you hear about is emotionally driven... The Senate has turned from a deliberative body into an emotional reactor." Yet greed -- the driving force behind past colloquys of salons and "wise fathers" -- is an emotion, too.
A table in a quiet room? We need the exact opposite. We need a live TV broadcast of the debates and the votes (C-SPAN will do) surrounding each key amendment, starting with the Kaufman/Brown SAFE Act that breaks up the "too big to fail" institutions. Why start there? Because, while there are a number of excellent and important amendments before the Senate, "too big to fail" is a key part of our systemic risk problem. Most importantly, it's where the greatest political hypocrisy is taking place. That's where the white light of television cameras can exert its most cleansing effect. Without it, politicians will keep fulminating about "too big to fail" while privately opposing any steps that would eliminate it.
Simon Johnson is pessimistic about the possibility of a "too big to fail" vote. He believes we're seeing a "fake debate" before an insider deal is cut that protects these risky institutions. But a source in Sen. Kaufman's office told me yesterday that they remain optimistic about their chances. What's more, Sen. Dick Durbin (Assistant Majority Leader and a strong voice for reform) came out strongly in favor of the measure yesterday. Durbin said this on the floor yesterday: "(Of) all the major amendments which will be offered, this is clearly a game changer... I am supportive of this amendment."
Durbin added: "What they're talking (about) is dealing with the concentration of wealth and the concentration of economic power to a level which can literally bring the economy down... that's what led to the massive taxpayer bailout, and that's what the Brown-Kaufman Amendment addresses foursquare."
Gee... I don't know. That doesn't sound emotional to me.
The bank lobby is clearly frightened of the democratic process ... and it should be. The continued existence of "too big to fail" is clearly not in the public's interests, and the public wants to see it stopped. There is also overwhelming support for ending the exploitative consumer practices and shady deals rampant on Wall Street. The best outcome for the banks would be a cozy backroom deal forged by the people they call the "wise fathers"... but the rest of us now consider the "usual suspects." The last thing in the world they or their political servant class want is a public debate of the issues.
That's exactly what we need. Voters should demand the right to see where their representatives stand, live and in-person, the way they're supposed to in a democracy. The Senate must vote on the Brown/Kaufman amendment.
_______________________
Richard Eskow, a consultant and writer (and former insurance/finance executive), is a Senior Fellow with the Campaign for America's Future. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard also blogs at A Night Light.
He can be reached at "rjeskow@ourfuture.org."
Website: Eskow and Associates
Follow Richard (RJ) Eskow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rjeskow
Our future well-being depends more on people like Steve Jobs who invent real products that can improve our lives, than it does on people like Jamie Dimon who invent financial products that do little other than threaten our economy.
Loading comments…
Really? Can they sometimes be scared?
Sometimes I thought they are confused themselves with GOD, who is omniscent, omnipotent, can solve anything with money.
I wish them to shift their jobs from the lobbying industry to more productive industries in this country, or go offshore ! These are the jobs really worthy to be exported to foreign countries and nobody will be upset about the loss!
Great Idea! In bright spot light, in front of public eyes, few politicians can play the tricky game of officially supporting the public's interest, but inofficially helping big banks at public's costs.
Orrrrr, can they still do?
Why don't we name these politicians of dual faces as "Political Bisexuals" ! Sounds good?
It's time for a little more light to be shined on the processes government uses to create law. Men of good conscience can debate any issue in total transparency. It's only when someone has something to hide that the conversation must be held out of public view.
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have... a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean the characters and conduct of their rulers." (John Adams)
What would get an elected thrown out of office at the country level is biz as usual in Washington. And in Washington, what they do actually matters....
NO back room meetings ever between lobbyists and anyone in congress. Never ever.
There's one Senator you didn't mention here who deserves the lion's share of the credit for the fact that Kaufman and Brown almost certainly are going to get a floor vote on their amendment, in their turn.
That Senator is CHRIS DODD, who's worked like a slave to bring this bill to the floor for GENUINE debate and amending, by doggedly withstanding the finger-pointing and posturing of Senators from both parties more interested in partisan warfare than in legislating.
It took awhile to drag the Senate back to its purpose-for-being on this bill, but so far, so good, with regard to the votes on substantive Democratic and Republican amendments that took place today (all passed). That process is scheduled to continue tomorrow starting at about 10 a.m.
I know it's popular to bad-mouth Dodd, and it's understandable that Simon Johnson (who's a bit at sea when analyzing the legislative process, I think) is having a hard time believing that any real debate and amending will happen, given the Senate's recent history under Harry Reid. But Dodd is sincere and straight-up about wanting to DEMOCRATICALLY put together the best bill possible for this nation as a whole, and I'd say that both Johnson and you can safely start to show a little faith in Dodd, and hopefully help him maintain the vital "democratic process" of this Senate debate - which, notably, the WHITE HOUSE probably fears as much as the lobbyists.