I could talk about a lot of things that were included in the State of the Union address. There were parts that I loved and parts that I hated. The following excerpt, however, addressed something I have been begging the administration to address. Last Wednesday, I reacted to another insider trading prosecution with the following observation:
…I think everyone would like to see some aggressive and creative legal thinking with the purpose of getting accountability for the financial collapse. Because the truth is that every time I see an announcement about another insider trading case, I think to myself, “That’s nice, but all the really big criminals are still untouched.”
Tonight, the president said this:
And I will not go back to the days when Wall Street was allowed to play by its own set of rules. The new rules we passed restore what should be any financial system’s core purpose: Getting funding to entrepreneurs with the best ideas, and getting loans to responsible families who want to buy a home, start a business, or send a kid to college.
So if you’re a big bank or financial institution, you are no longer allowed to make risky bets with your customers’ deposits. You’re required to write out a “living will” that details exactly how you’ll pay the bills if you fail – because the rest of us aren’t bailing you out ever again. And if you’re a mortgage lender or a payday lender or a credit card company, the days of signing people up for products they can’t afford with confusing forms and deceptive practices are over. Today, American consumers finally have a watchdog in Richard Cordray with one job: To look out for them.
We will also establish a Financial Crimes Unit of highly trained investigators to crack down on large-scale fraud and protect people’s investments. Some financial firms violate major anti-fraud laws because there’s no real penalty for being a repeat offender. That’s bad for consumers, and it’s bad for the vast majority of bankers and financial service professionals who do the right thing. So pass legislation that makes the penalties for fraud count.
And tonight, I am asking my Attorney General to create a special unit of federal prosecutors and leading state attorneys general to expand our investigations into the abusive lending and packaging of risky mortgages that led to the housing crisis. This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners, and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans.
Sam Stein of the Huffington Post reported that this special unit will be led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. If you’ve been following the negotiations between the big banks, the attorneys general, and the federal government, you know that Eric Schneiderman has been one of the strongest opponents of a slap-on-the-wrist approach to settling the case against the banks for their role in creating the financial crisis. He appears to have won the argument. Here’s a statement from his office:
I would like to thank President Obama for his leadership in the creation of a coordinated investigation that marshals state and federal resources to bring justice for the victims of the misconduct that caused the mortgage crisis.
In coordination with our federal partners, our office will continue its steadfast commitment to holding those responsible for the economic crisis accountable, providing meaningful relief for homeowners commensurate with the scale of the misconduct, and getting our economy moving again.The American people deserve a robust and comprehensive investigation into the global financial meltdown to ensure nothing like it ever happens again, and today’s announcement is a major step in the right direction.
There has been tremendous skepticism and criticism of the administration for pushing for a deal that would provide immunity to the banks in return for a paltry settlement. It would seem that that criticism was unfair. But it is possible that the criticism was convincing. Maybe it stung enough to convince the administration to get rough with the criminals that ruined the global economy and almost caused a second Great Depression. Maybe they were planning to get rough all along.
In any case, whether the administration followed its own instincts or was convinced by its harshest progressive critics or was persuaded by the pleas of friendlier voices like my own, they appear to be doing the right thing.
Priority number one was standing the financial sector back on its feet. Justice had to be delayed. But it couldn’t be deferred indefinitely. Some rich assholes need to go to jail.
Prolly the only part I liked. But I’m just skeptical that anything can really be done. This isn’t a knock at the admin either. On this issue I’ve been a lot more forgiving because as you’ve been saying…technically, a lot of what they did wasn’t illegal, and the stuff that was illegal is very hard to put in court.
Hopefully I’m wrong.
Most, but not all, of it was technically legal. There are some people who broke the law and committed fraud. They will now face scrutiny.
And plenty of the illegal stuff is still going on. Paying fines is a cost of doing business.
Yeah, I’ll be surprised if people like Joseph Cassano or the Greenbergs are charged with anything. They have had some success with insider trading cases but a lot of the Wall Street crap wasn’t really illegal.
This is the issue that really gets under my skin and I can’t be alone on this. I suspect that a fairly large percentage of the population is still waiting to see some justice applied to our economic system.
To hear Obama give a speech where he stresses that everyone needs to play by the same set of rules – general fairness in the markets – without seeing any rich fraudsters on Wall Street and crooked mortgage originators on Main Street being frog-marched off to prison… It just rings hollow.
And he can’t blame the congress for this. He doesn’t need new legislation, just the will to turn the Justice Department loose on this stuff. They have been investigating this fraud for years but have been prevented from prosecuting any of it by the real owners of Washington – The rich fraudsters on Wall Street.
I’ll believe it when I see it.
I wonder if this is how it felt to be a progressive in yesteryear, dealing with a government under the thumb of the railroad barons.
In a word, yes. In Jack Beatty’s “Age of Betrayal”, a scathing history of late 19th century America, he points out that at one time all nine Supreme Court justices were former corporate attorneys for railroad companies. That’s how important railroads were to the economy, and how pervasive their political influence was. Not unlike Wall Street’s influence in our economy over the last 30 years.
.
Problem is, these fraud cases are very complicated and difficult to prove in court. The US government doesn’t have the assets in place i.e. manpower to make a difference. The assets of the culprits are unlimited as is the level of defense lawyers. Put in safeguards, reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
.
No, don’t call it data mining, the Obama campaign team is listening to your hopes and will rewrite the issues.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
I’m worried that he’s doing to Schneiderman what he did to Huntsman — hiring him so he can neutralize him, in this case neutralize him as a critic from the left rather than as a potential GOP opponent. I’m not trying to be a Firebagger here, but on matters to do with Wall Street, I’m very skeptical of Obama’s commitment to reform. Obama’s trying to get certain matters settled with the banks and Schneiderman is getting in his way of a nice group sing of “Kumbaya.” I worry that he just wants Schneiderman inside the tent pissing out rather than the other way around.
Yves Smith is thinking what I’m thinking.
And it seems awfully plausible that the aim of getting Schneiderman on board with an Administration “investigation” is to undermine the effort by 15 Democrat attorneys general to devise their own strategy for dealing with mortgage abuses. We’ve heard reports privately that some of the defecting AGs are in a panic.
I’d like to see a settlement. Putting people in jail feels good but doesn’t do much. But the settlement should be, like the tobacco settlements, extensive (mammoth, perhaps a trillion dollars) and potentially spread out over a considerable period of time. It should help states and municipalities.
That’s why people oppose a settlement…it’s been for measly scraps.
Insider trading in Congress. That’s what he will use to push Congress to act. Expect to see specific cases investigated by DOJ, whether through existing investigative efforts or the new task force.
And expect to see a repeated demand that Congress pass laws that effectively prohibit it.
In exchange he gave the GOP a strategy for avoided a Constitutional amendment undoing Citizens United. I don’t think Republicans will go for the limitations on campaign finance that he proposed. And that will make campaign finance one of the signature issues this year.
Insider trading in Congress, yes! but
please explain what you mean he gave GOP a strategy to avoid a Constitutional amendment undoing Citizens United?
By focusing on separating money bundlers from lobbyists, Congress can do something about campaign finance without doing what needs to be done–constitutionally defining corporations as some legal entity other than persons and making it clear that money is property not speech.
He has given them this out. My guess is that they are too dumb or hate-obsessed to take it.
thanks
Insider trading by Congress members is legal – what would the DOJ investigate?
dude, they ruined our scrapple news with that announcement about the banks, and frankly I am delighted they did.
When we did the shoot yesterday the conventional wisdom was that a deal was coming with the banks, a sweetheart deal that let’s ’em off, no investigations.
Then around 9:30 PM last night, that’s old, inoperative news.
Man, I hope some motherfuckers go to jail. Credit where credit is due: I was surprised and elated to hear that they’re gonna go after the banks.
On the other hand, he endorsed fracking. And I can’t behind that.
On the other hand, he endorsed fracking. And I can’t behind that.
Fracking is what will get us off coal. Natural gas power plants produce half the GHG of coal-fired plants per units of energy (and no poisonous ash to deposit), and getting the coal does much more environmental damage than getting the gas.
Until we can scale up alternatives, our choices are to keep burning coal or to replace it with gas and nuclear. The reality of climate change makes fracking necessary.
I seriously doubt it. Fracking may allow us to export that much more coal to China and India, but I don’t think coal mining, be it for fuel or for steel, is going anywhere anytime soon. It’s just another way of further pushing environmental damage beyond reach of cleaning up when it finally becomes obvious that we have absolutely no other choice.
Some rich assholes need to go to jail.
truer words were never written
.
Hostage raid Somalia succesful – Obama to Panetta: “Good job tonight”
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
It really sucked that we had to treat these people with kid gloves for a few years, but we did. They had wormed their way into a position where they actually were too big to be allowed to fail. That wasn’t just a political description, but an economic one. If Citi and BoA and GS and the rest had been allowed to go down, it would have been the Great Depression all over again.
But now that things are picking up, and we’ve been able to shore up, and make them shore up, the system, it’s time to get some justice.
If Citi and BoA and GS and the rest had been allowed to go down, it would have been the Great Depression all over again.
Your proof for this is where? Why not follow what Sweden did? It was certainly possible. And we bailed them out and what did we get? Or do all the unemployed, and people thrown out of their homes, not count?
My proof that the collapse of the banking system causes depressions? Um, how about, every single depressions in American history, up to and including the Great Depression.
Why not follow what Sweden did? It was certainly possible.
No, it wasn’t. The scale of the problem was completely different. The obligations of the American banks were much too large – it would have ended up costing the taxpayer several times annual GDP, not the more-of-less-break-even cost of TARP.
And we bailed them out and what did we get? Millions of people who remained employed and kept their homes who would have otherwise been ruined. Oh, and the money paid back.
Or do all the unemployed, and people thrown out of their homes, not count?
Your solution would have thrown many, many millions more out, but that’s ok because it would have given you a sensation of revolutionary zeal. Whoopie.
From the speech:
I would like to see the details of this plan, because coming about 3 sentences before his ‘no bailouts, no handouts, no copouts’ line, this sure as heck sounds like a giant backdoor bailout to me.
.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."