What part of my citation from this story is dripping with irony? Take your time, but it should be easy to spot without too much hard work.
The president will announce a series of measures to cut down on excessive risk-taking as part of a revamp of the country’s financial regulatory system, a senior Obama official said on Wednesday.
The move could also help the White House tap into public rage over Wall Street excess after Obama’s Democratic Party was rebuffed by voters in Massachusetts, who elected Republican Scott Brown to the U.S. senate.
“The proposal will include size and complexity limits specifically on proprietary trading and the White House will work closely with the House and Senate to work this into legislation,” the official said.
Did you see it? I’m sure you did, but being the incurable know-it-all that I am, let me point it out for you anyway:
“[T]he White House will work closely with the House and Senate to work this into legislation.”
I hope this doesn’t mean that they will go about this the same way they “worked closely with the House and Senate” to get a workable health care reform bill passed. Because if that’s the case all I can see is another looming failure where certain Senators and Blue Dog Democrats hijack the process and turn the financial reforms the administration proposes into the same bowl of thin gruel that health care reform ended up as, thanks to people like Bart Stupak, Joe Lieberman, Olympia Snowe and Ben Nelson.
And that came after months of allowing the Republicans to sabotage the reform effort with endless and fruitless attempts by Obama administration officials to “work with Republicans” in a “bipartisan fashion.” Obama’s team talked a good game early on (remember Rahm insisting he would never sacrifice the public option?) but in the end they allowed the health insurance and Big Pharma lobbyists to derail any hope of even a halfway decent reform bill.
To put it mildly, they lost the ground game early and often, something I certainly didn’t expect after they way Obama ran his campaign. They alienated their base of support among the progressives, failed to corral the off message Democrats in the House and Senate, raised Ben Nelson’s Q rating, allowed Joe Lieberman to continue to back stab them (again) and let the Republicans control the message in the media.
So count me as one of the cynics who can foresee a huge manure pile of problems down the road after they get down to the real work of getting real and effective regulation of Wall Street through Congress. To say I have severe doubts as to how effective the administration will be in reeling in the banksters in light of the way they “handled” health care is an understatement of monumental proportions.
Hey, maybe they will succeed. No one (except the people profiting, of course) likes the hubris of Goldman Sachs, et alia with their billions of dollars of bonuses, and the arrogant statements from senior executives they keep spouting for public consumption like these by Goldman’s CEO, Lloyd Blankfein:
“I know I could slit my wrists and people would cheer,” he says. But then, he slowly begins to argue the case for modern banking. “We’re very important,” he says, abandoning self-flagellation. “We help companies to grow by helping them to raise capital. Companies that grow create wealth. This, in turn, allows people to have jobs that create more growth and more wealth. It’s a virtuous cycle.” To drive home his point, he makes a remarkably bold claim. “We have a social purpose.” […]
Does Blankfein not acknowledge that it is maddening for most of us to watch Goldman gobble up so much cash while we struggle? Quite the opposite. He insists we should be celebrating his bank’s success, not condemning it. “Everybody should be, frankly, happy,” he says.[…]
No calls to meet in the basement to club baby seals to death first thing in the morning to get in the mood for a hard day’s banking? “God, no,” one staffer says wryly. “We don’t club baby seals. We club babies.”
Goldman Sachs, this pillar of the free market, breeder of super-citizens, object of envy and awe will go on raking it in, getting richer than God? An impish grin spreads across Blankfein’s face. Call him a fat cat who mocks the public. Call him wicked. Call him what you will. He is, he says, just a banker “doing God’s work.”
One would think with an easy target like these guys, people who are more or less legalized criminals and con artists, it would be a simple matter to pass financial reforms that reinstate the regulatory scheme FDR and the New Dealers set in place over 70 years ago and which served us well until the Reagan Revolution began the process of dismantling it. One would think that … until you remember how many people with connections to Wall Street worked for the government, including many in the Obama administration’s economic team. Tim Geithner’s name ring a bell? Larry Summers?
But there are lesser lights also. Michael Froman is the deputy national security adviser for international economic affairs. Citigroup paid him $7.4 million in 2008. Thomas E. Donilon, who is the deputy national security advisor? He made $3.9 million for a law firm that counts Goldman Sachs as one of its clients. Neil Woilin, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury? Former senior executive of The Hartford insurance Group, and a man instrumental in drafting the legislation which deregulated the banks as the Treasury Department’s General Counsel under Bill Clinton.
So pardon me if I think this bold new announcement promising to reel in our out of control, casino style financial institutions is just another half-assed rushed effort to reform Wall Street which is doomed to fall far short of its goals, at best, or a cynical public relations ploy, at worst. As I always say, I hope to be proven wrong.
Hey, what about “Hope?” Wasn’t that a campaign theme back in 2008 for a certain charismatic Presidential candidate? It’s so hard to recall anymore, what with my advancing age, health problems, and suddenly bitter disposition. Maybe someone here can help me out. Who was that guy promising a new dawning of hope for America, and where did he go?
You’re objecting to working closely with the House and Senate to pass legislation? What’s the alternative? Ignoring them? Telling them, “pass this, or else!”
I know it’s frustrating, but you should really should recognize that Congress does exist and have the power to legislate.
It’s more about the how he worked closely with them than the who he works closely with if you get my meaning.
I started reading the pronouncement and I got a buzzing in my ears. No, it wasn’t a wax buildup. Or a fly.
The DLC Democrats (Clinton et al) helped to move the ball across the goal line for all those trade deals and for banking deregulation back in the 90s. It used to be that this crap was passed by a coalition of Republicans, blue dogs and Clinton. Now the situation has changed so that the Republicans don’t have to do anything. Yuck.
Actually, I think the plan is to take whatever he was opposed to during the campaign and inplement it. That’s how HCR ended up.
Goldman has carved out a racket like none other. No one firm should be able to do asset management, trades, and investment banking at the same time. But, on the other hand, it never ceases to amuse me how much Americans revere capitalism and how much they revile those who are really good at it.
Goldman is good at capitalism as long as you grant that the “other people’s money” it is working with includes government funds provided by the taxpayer. It was clever the way that they successfully laundered their participation in TARP.
Also, your verb “revere” is instructive as it shows that 70 years of propaganda has put “Godly capitalism” up against “godless communism”. We’re in the realm of America’s true religion here, and Blankfein is a minor bishop. Who’s pope? You need to ask? Of course, it’s Donald Trump. Like I said, the realm of religion.
I think Blankfein’s explanation of the financial disaster is informative.
So Blankfein’s excuse is: “Everyone else was doing it .. so we had to as well”? … but you are right .. I wonder what Barry Ritholtz or Yves Smith has to say about this
well, sort of.
But Goldman hedged against a downturn in the housing market, and thus lost less than two billion dollars from their direct portfolio while many banks were losing tens of billions.
They did get a break on their liability with AIG, but they were one of the only firms standing for a reason. And the reason was that they were smarter than their competitors.
I thank that the real question here is “What part of that citation is not dripping with irony?”
And how will it enforce those measures?
Gonna send a few of those “excessive risk-takers” to jail?
Why not start with Geithner?
Oh.
Nevermind.
Riiiight….
“Help the White House tap into public rage” about anything.
Lemme see…
Where could they start?
How about…
Oh.
I know!!!
How about investigating…and publicizing…the financial dealings of the CIA for the last 50+ years?
Right.
Nevermind squared.
Mmmm hmmmm…
As if the House and Senate would “work closely” with what is rapidly appearing to be a lame duck administration.
The hype is on.
As usual.
Man does not rule by hype alone.
Where is the iron fist inside of that polyester glove?
Nevermind…
Yore friend,
Emily Litella
Steven wrote this piece.
Oh.
Nevermind.
When i get home at 3AM and get up at 8…I’m my own Emily Litella.
Sorry…
You have edit power, don’tcha?
Feel free to change the names.
To protect the innocent.
Later…
Ag
Just watched a quick interview on MSNBC with Ed Schultz of the daily “Ed Show”. He was responding to a question as to how President Obama should react to the Massachusetts Senatorial election giving Scott Brown Kennedy’s Democratic seat. Also he was commenting on how the Democrats should handle health care reform in light of Brown’s victory.
Ed said that the main principles in HCR must be preserved; control of the insurance companies, no denial for pre-existing conditions, and coverage for all Americans. Regarding Obama’s failure to deliver on his original campaign promises he said Obama MUST get new ADVISORS as soon as possible. He said his former campaign people (Axlerod, etc..) and Rahm Emanual have been giving the president bad political advice and need to be replaced. Ed then named some candidates that he would choose. Ed also said Obama should do a review of the jobs situation in the country and if it has not improved, he should replace all of his economic advisors.
However, I would counsel Obama to totally clean house and replace all of his current advisors political and economic and DO IT NOW. Voters are ready to bring their pitchforks to the voting booth so the time for action is NOW.