Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
Thu Nov 27, 2014, 05:05 PM Nov 2014

Wall Street Leading Washington Yet Again: What Was Obama Thinking?

As a background to this, please keep in mind that Citi spent $100 million successfully lobbying the repeal of Glass-Steagall during Clinton's tenure, & Dodd-Frank is the light version of it put in place after the financial meltdown in 2007/2008, which would never have happened if Glass-Steagall were still in place.

(Long article, I left alot out)

Wall Street Leading Washington Yet Again: What Was Obama Thinking?
11/23/2014

If you want to understand what makes Elizabeth Warren so special in American politics, consider her nervy leadership of the campaign to block President Obama's foolish nomination of one Antonio Weiss to be the top Treasury official in charge of the domestic financial system, including enforcement of the Dodd-Frank Act.

For most of his Wall Street career, Weiss has epitomized everything that reeks about financial abuses. As chief of international mergers and acquisitions for Lazard, Weiss orchestrated what are delicately known as "corporate inversions," in which a domestic corporation moves its nominal headquarters offshore, to avoid its U.S. taxes....And that's only the beginning. Many of the other deals orchestrated by Weiss resulted in operating companies being bought and sold by giant conglomerates, where the "savings" and "increased efficiency" came mainly from tax breaks and reduced worker compensation.

...So what's going on here?

In the past few weeks, Obama has demonstrated that he can challenge powerful interests when a little courage seems politically opportune. He has embraced net neutrality, over the opposition of the most powerful companies in the telecom and cable industries and that of his own Federal Commission Chairman, Tom Wheeler.

He had also issued used his executive powers to spare four to five million undocumented U.S. residents from deportation, a move that enraged Republicans, heartened Hispanics, and enabled the president to sound almost like the Obama of 2007 and 2008 who raised such hopes among progressives.

On these issues, you could say that Obama is looking to the next generation of voters, or looking to his legacy; or that these two moves were astute politics. Younger Americans overwhelmingly favor net neutrality, and his executive moves to suspend deportation handily split the Republicans.

However, when it comes to coddling Wall Street, President Obama manages to clumsily out-flank Republicans -- to the right. As Warren reminds us, for Obama this is business as usual (or if you like, it's business -- as usual.)

One top Treasury and financial official after another comes from Wall Street -- a record that would make even a Republican blush. As Warren wrote:

"Starting with former Citigroup CEO Robert Rubin, three of the last four Treasury secretaries under Democratic presidents held high-paying jobs at Citigroup either before or after serving at Treasury -- and the fourth was offered, but declined, Citigroup's CEO position. Directors of the National Economic Council and Office of Management and Budget, the current Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve and the U.S. trade representative, also pulled in millions from Citigroup."

...Elizabeth Warren's bold leadership opposing the Weiss nomination is one more reminder of the vivid contrast not just between Warren and Obama but between Warren and the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, Hillary Clinton.

Clinton's set of advisers and policy views on finance are right out of the playbook of Obama, and that of her husband, Bill: Raise a ton of money from Wall Street and then appoint top regulatory officials congenial to Wall Street.

If Democrats in 2016 are to stand for something other than the Wall Street-Washington axis, they will need to do a lot better.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/wall-street-leading-washi_b_6208908.html


We need better. I work for one of those corporations "where the "savings" and "increased efficiency" came mainly from tax breaks and reduced worker compensation." in addition to IT jobs shipped to India...

The Democratic Party needs better.









2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Wall Street Leading Washington Yet Again: What Was Obama Thinking? (Original Post) RiverLover Nov 2014 OP
kick 840high Nov 2014 #1
Here's a bleak, possibly realistic look at why Glass-Steagall will never come back~ RiverLover Nov 2014 #2

RiverLover

(7,830 posts)
2. Here's a bleak, possibly realistic look at why Glass-Steagall will never come back~
Fri Nov 28, 2014, 08:11 AM
Nov 2014
Here goes nothing. We need to reinstate Glass-Steagall.

I’ve made the argument before, so there’s no reason to repeat it at length here. The reality is that reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act has about as much chance of happening as the financial industry walking away from its $300 million a year in lobbying.

You think bankers are whining about higher capital requirements? Glass-Steagall would be the biggest threat yet to their industry, compensation and way of life. It just isn’t going to happen.

...The point: The severity of the most recent crisis was masked by government assistance.

For depositors at those banks that failed, there was the FDIC. And for Americans battered by unemployment, there are food stamps.

Perhaps the biggest change today is that opponents of reinstating Glass-Steagall claim that banking is too complicated and too global for such a simple solution. They also argue that Glass-Steagall wouldn’t have prevented the financial crisis.

A key part of that argument was that banks were already participating in the securities business when Glass-Steagall was effectively repealed by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.

That’s true. But it’s not the whole story. In the late 1980s, banks successfully argued that they should have limited participation in the securities markets. These divisions were called “Section 20s,” referring to a loophole built into the original law.

Section 20s were a crack in the wall. The 1999 law knocked it down. In essence, the 2000s became a free-for-all mix of loans, securities and derivatives.

So you can see the dilemma. The modern demise of Glass-Steagall is in part why that law can’t be resurrected. The tangle of “financial innovation” spurred by the repeal 14 years ago gave banks plausible deniability when confronted with the same allegations Pecora asked of Mr. Mitchell.

What’s more, the bailouts shielded banks and the public to the consequences of their own mistakes.

Taken together, it’s a compelling narrative of why Glass-Steagall is such a necessary law. And why it isn’t going to make a comeback.

http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/18/glass-steagall-is-necessary-but-the-argument-for-it-isnt/


Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Wall Street Leading Washi...