Democrats’ Last Stand? or, This Ain’t the Tea Party

Image via WikipediaThe Occupy Wall Street protest, trying to become a movement, is in essence another left-wing demand for a socialist utopia. Lacking identified leaders and lacking a focus on issues, and finding a convenient scapegoat in “Wall Street,” the protests appear to be an attempt to reawaken the 1960’s protests against things in general. It is basically “juvenile rabble,” as Rich Lowry calls it, and only in a very narrow and superficial sense is it anything like the Tea Party.

Those Democrats! They’ve got no record that they can run on, so now their tactic is to stir up some of those people who are always wanting to protest something (people whom Obama’s policies have failed) and direct them toward blaming “Wall Street” for their troubles. The entire Occupy Wall Street event has been to some extent coordinated, supported, and/or financed by the usual DNC suspects: MoveOn.org, George Soros, White House advisers, etc. In supporting this reprehensible mob action, the White House, already grasping at straws for some kind of election advantage, may be holding on to their last one, for they are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel with this. Rather than simply “embracing” the OWS thing, it’s more likely that they had a hand in drawing it up and implementing it. Hopefully, American voters will see the foolishness of this whole episode.

It’s as if the protesters like what Obama has done for them so far, so much that they’re wanting four more years of his kind of “change.”

The White House continues its much-used, but false, line, with more than a hint of “Blame Bush,”

“If you’re concerned about Wall Street and our financial system, the president is standing on the side of consumers and the middle class,” senior White House adviser David Plouffe said when asked about the demonstrations during an interview today on ABC’s “Good Morning America.” “And a lot of these Republicans are basically saying, ‘You know what? Let’s go back to the same policies that led to the Great Recession in the first place.’” [Emphasis added]

No, Republicans are saying let’s not continue with those policies. They’re saying, we should stop bailouts, profligate spending, over-regulation, and basically get the government out of the way of prosperity. At least some Republicans are saying that. And Obama isn’t “standing with the middle class,” he’s destroying the middle class through harebrained economic policies designed to increase dependence upon government.

Funny, guess who some of Obama’s biggest donors are. Right. Wall Street firms. The “proposed” lists of demands, such as, cancelling all debt, free college education for all, etc., demonstrate the protesters’ profound ignorance of anything to do with actual economics. Of course, the Marxist supporters of OWS see it as a way to help bring about the downfall of capitalism, a goal shared by top leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei of Iran, who applauds the effort.


An OWS web site referred to how they stand in “solidarity” with the people of Greece, who are just lately starting to pay the price for receiving the goodies they wanted from the government: impending default, bankruptcy and poverty. But everyone is supposed to bail them out, for reasons that are very unclear. America is already on the route taken by Greece, and if these protesters have their way, the end result is chaos, then tyranny.

The OWS protesters are a mob and are proving Ann Coulter’s point in her recent book Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America. Leftists like mobs and operate through mobs, dating back at least to the French Revolution. And that was well before George Soros and Saul Alinsky.

Fox News via The Daily Caller

Eugene Robinson, token liberal columnist for Investors’ Business Daily writes,

Occupy Wall Street and its kindred protests around the country are inept, incoherent and hopelessly quixotic. God, I love 'em.

I love every little thing about these gloriously amateurish sit-ins. I love that they are spontaneous, leaderless and open-ended. I love that the protesters refuse to issue specific demands beyond a forceful call for economic justice.

Apparently he loves the fact that some of these people are defecating on police cars and the American flag, and are otherwise creating a huge mess that some other people, who actually work for a living, are going to have to clean up. And that’s even if the OWSers don’t turn violent and start burning and looting.

To compare this thing to the Tea Party is like comparing the latest Nancy Pelosi speech you’ve heard to the Gettysburg Address or Hamlet’s soliloquy. Put simply, as Ann Coulter said it: “I am not the first to note the vast differences between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers. To name three: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.”

But OWS too shall pass, and the sooner the better.

Related articles

• Herman Cain Has Some Advice For Occupy Wall Street (timesunion.com)
• Occupy Wall Street (swcrocker.wordpress.com)
• Ann Coulter Works The Room At Yale... And A Look Back At Her Other Controversial Speeches (huffingtonpost.com)

Infrastructure Bank – Another Plan That Won’t – and Can’t – Work

                      Image via WikipediaWhen you see a “jobs creation” approach that didn’t work, doesn’t work, and can never work, why urge Congress to try it again?

Back in March of this year Eric Jaffe at Infrastructurist.com wrote

Democrats John Kerry and Mark Warner joined Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison to propose the BUILD Act yesterday. The bipartisan legislation would create a national infrastructure bank the senators are calling the American Infrastructure Financing Authority — the term “bank” being anathema these days. [1]

I’ve always admired Sen. Hutchison, but this may be evidence that her decision to retire from the Senate is a good one.

This proposal didn’t get anywhere at the time, but the “Infrastructure Bank” is on President Obama’s list of ideas for job creation. According to Jaffe’s article, the Federal Government would provide billions of dollars and many billions more would come from private investors (Wall Street, etc.) and these funds would be invested and applied to infrastructure projects. Wow, what an idea.

According to Jaffe, “The upside is clearly good. Less clear is whether the plan can get off the ground.” Of course it didn’t, fortunately, at the time.

Conn Carroll at The Washington Examiner (08/14/2011), has a better evaluation of the idea: it’s just another “stimulus.”

The first thing to note about this proposal is that it's not really a bank. Banks use deposits from some customers to fund loans to other customers, and they make money by charging interest to borrowers at higher rates than they offer to depositors.

Obama would run his bank a little differently. Instead of forcing borrowers to pay money back, Obama's National Infrastructure Innovation and Finance Fund would “directly provide resources for projects through grants, loans, or a blend of both.” Another word for “grant” is “gift,” so basically Obama's infrastructure bank would be just giving money away.

But then how would Obama's bank stay in business? Simple. Congress would give it $5 billion to spend every year…. [2]

Tackling those “shovel ready” jobs, I suppose.

Carroll mentions other similar failed measures associated with “stimulus” projects. The article is well worth reading.

It’s clear that Keynesian spending will not bring about the desired recovery, but will likely put us back into recession. The August jobs figures (zero net jobs added, prior month revised downward, nominal unemployment rate still 9.1%) suggest that nothing being done now is helping much at all. And more billions added to the debt? As Victor Davis Hanson observes, the ever-present Keynesian excuse is that we haven’t spent enough.

But how much would be enough? We already have so much debt it will never be paid back except through massive inflation.

The entire approach of government intervention, and Federal Reserve intervention in the free market not only doesn’t help the situation, but promotes the false idea that somehow the free market has failed. In fact, the entire financial crisis and the current economic downturn are the fault of government and the Fed. Private sector blame consists of failing to adequately protest bad government policies, creating bad securities, and, understandably, accepting the bailouts when bankruptcy was deserved, which would have liquidated the debts rather than sticking the taxpayers with them.

But Keynesianism, as currently practiced, knows no real limit of spending to try to stimulate the economy. See how it has stimulated things so far.

[1] Eric Jaffe, “Kerry, Hutchison Propose National Infrastructure Bank,” 03/16/2011, Infrastructurist.com.


[2] Conn Carroll, “Infrastructure bank is just another stimulus boondoggle,” 08/14/2011, The Washington Examiner.

Related articles

• Infrastructure bank could be part of jobs package (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• Back to Big Government-Spending as Usual (papundits.wordpress.com)
• Are Infrastructure Projects the Answer to America's Jobs Problem? (usnews.com)

How’s That War on Wall Street Going?

“The government’s key policy lever should be to make sure that institutions hold enough capital to reflect the risks that they run and the threats that they pose to the rest of the financial system.” – Financial Times editorial [1]

There is broad consensus that regulatory measures should be taken in regard to Wall Street firms in order to lessen the likelihood of a financial meltdown such as we saw in 2008. There are several options ranging from tweaking to government takeover. President Barack Obama has reportedly declared war on Wall Street, and it is doubtful that this approach will end up helping the situation.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is not the front man for Mr. Obama on his reform effort. Instead, former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Paul Volcker is the spokesman. This leads us to wonder what Geithner’s role is now. Is Volcker the “reform czar”? Obama is championing the Volcker plan that would stop big banks from their proprietary trading, and set up measures to sell or merge “failing” financial institutions.

While these measures seem doubtful of approval, the stated goals are worthwhile: no more bailouts and no more institutions “too big to fail.” This should be the government’s and the Fed’s position immediately. The bailouts of 2008 should never have happened.
Christopher Dodd, Senate Banking Committee chairman, had said the Volcker plan is too ambitious. But what would it be replaced by? Something not so strong, or nothing at all?

Atlantic has an online article by Daniel Indiviglio titled “Dodd’s Resistance To Volcker Plan Should Signal Its Death.” The article states that while Dodd is not opposed to new regulations in theory, he thinks Obama’s plan is too far-reaching and seems to step on the toes of his committee. [2]

While Geithner has reportedly been working with Wall Street executives during and following the bailouts, Obama seems to be undermining his efforts through his populist rhetoric painting Wall Street as the enemy. Obama does his best to play up the executive bonuses as “shameful” as Americans are struggling with unemployment, etc. Several banks were forced to take bailout funds in 2008 (in exchange for government equity positions), fearing this same type of government opposition, and those who wanted the bailouts should have been aware something like this was coming. Government funds equals government control, roughly in proportion to funds provided.

Now that much of the bailout money has been paid back, Obama is still not satisfied and wants to further press control. Regulation is one thing, but putting Wall Street on his enemies list is another. It’s there, along with Fox News and Las Vegas.

“‘We have to get this done,’ Obama said at the White House. ‘If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have.’” [3]

Banks Don’t Want a Fight
According to Richard Schmidt’s article of 01/27/2010, “Industry officials said they were stunned. ‘We did not know it was coming, that’s for sure,” said Scott Talbott, a lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, which represents large banks and insurance companies …’

“We don’t want to fight the administration,” said Rob Nichols, whose trade group, the Financial Services Forum, represents the chief executive officers of the largest financial companies. “We just want to sit at the table and have a productive conversation about the kinds of reforms needed to address the real causes of the recent crisis.” [4]

But after Obama’s disappointing loss of a Democratic Senate seat for Massachusetts, he’s putting increased emphasis on some of his populist villains, whom he has characterized as “fat cats.” Not exactly presidential terminology. But politics comes first.

The president has announced plans to recover the TARP bailout money through a new fee on large banks, even including those who have paid back TARP money or never received any. He wants to impose strong new regulations on them, i.e., the Volcker plan. And he wants to severely restrict executive compensation. There is strong opposition to all these plans.

Wall Street and NY Officials Will Fight Back
According to an AP article appearing at CNS News, “Financial industry officials are especially frustrated by a proposed change they see as political and punitive without doing anything to prevent future crises. They say the changes would not have prevented the largest bank failures of the crisis.” [5]

Some New York Democratic politicians are going to oppose Obama on this, recognizing that a large amount of tax revenue (state and city) normally comes from the large bonuses paid to Wall Street executives. Mayor Michael Bloomberg recognizes this, and previously voiced concerns over the state’s proposed “millionaires’ tax,” because much of New York City’s budget is provided by taxes on wealthy people, and increasing them more will motivate many to move out, potentially causing a (more) serious financial crisis for the city.

Henry Blodgett of Business Insider reports as follows: “Mayor Bloomberg said the banks and Wall Street are part of the bedrock of the city's economy, and efforts to slash their business just means less tax revenue for the city, which brings up the dreaded ‘L’ word.

“‘If that's the case then we'll have to lay off people because it will really hurt our industry,’ Bloomberg said…”

“‘Maybe we should hold back their [Congress’s] salaries for a decade or so and see whether the laws they pass work out,’ Bloomberg said.” [6]

To which Politico adds:
“‘They may be an enormous amount of money for one person,’ Bloomberg said last year when Obama proposed capping executive pay, ‘but they are how our people in the city in all industries get paid.’”

New York Governor David Paterson (D) objects to Obama’s plans to restrict Wall Street. “‘In New York, Wall Street is Main Street,’ Paterson told a receptive audience at the Museum of American Finance in December.” He is joined in his objections by Senate candidate Harold Ford, Jr., and Congressional candidate Reshma Saujani, both Democrats. [7]

Wall Street executives are reluctant to complain too much, knowing that their large bonuses don’t attract any sympathy from the public, but they are attempting to defend their interests through lobbying, possible legal actions, and even some public relations efforts. The following video is an example:



Conclusion:
No one appears to be claiming that banks’ proprietary trading caused the financial crisis. On the other hand, such trading seems to lead inevitably to conflicts of interest by undermining the interests of the banks’ customers. This does not seem to be the heart of the issue at hand, although it deserves some attention.

Banks need to be put on notice that they aren’t going to be bailed out any more, and can’t be “capitalist” with profits but “socialist” with losses. They likely have the idea, supported by government bailouts, that they are “too big to fail,” and government will bail them out again if they have big losses. Thus they have less incentive than they should to operate efficiently and safely.

There are several issues of regulatory change for the financial sector that need to be worked out. But there need not be a “war” waged for political purposes.


[1] Financial Times editorial, “A declaration of war on Wall Street,” 01/20/2010.

[2] Daniel Indiviglio, “Dodd’s Resistance To Volcker Plan Should Signal Its Death,” 02/03/2010, Atlantic.

[3] Philip Elliott and Daniel Wagner, Associated Press, “Obama Says He’s Ready for a Fight With Wall Street Firms, As He Calls for New Regulations,” 01/22/2010, CNS News.com.

[4] Robert Schmidt, Bloomberg, “Wall Street Firms Don’t Want to Wage War on Obama,” 01/27/2010, Business Week.

[5] Elliott and Wagner, see [3].

[6] Henry Blodgett, “Bloomberg Blasts Obama's War On Wall Street, Says Congress Salaries Should Be Held In Escrow For 10 Years Until We See How Their Laws Worked Out,” 01/22/2010, Business Insider.

[7] Ben Smith, “N. Y. insurgents stand up for Wall St.,” 01/30/2010, at Politico.

Photo: Dreamstime.com

Bankers Try To Respond to Government’s Mixed Signals

Let’s convince everyone that unemployment is due to fat cat bankers stubbornly refusing to lend money to small business, and also that their deliberately excessive lending is what caused the financial crisis – that and the policies of the Bush Administration. That seems to be part of Obama’s economic strategy. They’ve succeeded in getting many people to think that “fat cat bankers” are the main problem:



Obama didn’t run for office to help out “a bunch of fat cat bankers on Wall Street,” he says, but that is precisely what he did by supporting the TARP bailouts. He enabled banks that wanted to pursue risky behavior by ameliorating their risk. In other words, as some have noted, allowed them to be “capitalist” with profits, but “socialist” with losses.

Big bankers, looking to position themselves for maximum advantage in whatever the government decides, are making noises to indicate, “Yes, we’re on board with ‘stepping up’ to help with the lending slowdown,” but also, in response to government warnings and what they astutely perceive as threats, they are being very cautious about making any kind of risky loans. They are keeping more reserves, meaning that less money is available to lend. So, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

As video at Wall Street Journal online notes, the President has a style that could create awkwardness, planning a big meeting with bankers so he and they can “work together,” after lambasting them on a 60 Minutes broadcast the previous evening. Some of the bankers probably felt like giving Mr. Obama a less than courteous reply. But, as mentioned, they want to be in an advantageous position somehow.

The “pay czar” is going to see to it that banks that still owe TARP money are going to keep bonuses to a minimum, and those who don’t owe money are to some degree restraining their bonuses. This large reduction in bonuses has hit hard in New York (state and city), since a great deal of tax revenue results from these bonuses. Unintended consequences…

The government wants new financial industry regulations to tell banks how to manage their business when the government’s management of its own financial business is out of control and getting worse. The House has passed a version of a regulatory bill, expanding government power (the theme of the Obama presidency) over risky or failing organizations. In the name of preventing bubbles and meltdowns, they actually will prevent a lot of prosperity by suppressing risk. And they wonder why banks aren’t on board with this.

“Large banks, from J.P. Morgan Chase to Citigroup Inc., lobbied against parts of the measure. They said the bill would penalize them for being large, through tougher capital requirements and higher fees, and would give the government greater authority to either seize large companies or order them to decrease their size.” [1]

American Banking News states:
“But as those in the banking industry rightly say, you have the White House speaking out of one side of its mouth while regulators are speaking out of the other side of their mouths.

“Regulators are telling the banks to strengthen their capital ratios and to be on the lookout for default trends going forward. In those cases the regulators are advising the banks to cut back on lending.

“But we already know that the big hit the banks are going to take on commercial lending hasn’t even arrived yet, and is going to kick in during the second half of 2010. So Obama attempting to pressure them to lend in order to try to get the economy back on track is ignorant at best, and terrible as far as business operations go.” [2]

So, which is it? Be cautious and don’t take risks with your bank’s money, or be open to more risk, possibly leading to more of the mortgage problems that led to the financial crisis? It seems the government wants to be able to blame bankers for whatever economic problems they can blame them for. Just so long as they can deflect criticism from their own policies.


[1] Elizabeth Williamson, “Obama Slams ‘Fat Cat’ Bankers,” 12/14/2009, The Wall Street Journal online, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126073152465089651.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

[2] Gary Bourgeault, “Obama Administration Clueless on Banking Issues, Sending Mixed Messages to the Industry,” American Banking News.com, 12/10/2009, at http://www.americanbankingnews.com/2009/12/10/obama-administration-clueless-on-banking-issues-sending-mixed-messages-to-the-industry/

Photo: Dreamstime.com