Showing posts with label Wall Street deregulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wall Street deregulation. Show all posts

Friday, February 18, 2011

Government of the fat-cats, by the fat-cats, and for the fat-cats?

This is the United States of America, founded on the principle that there's both a wrong way and a "more perfect" way for government to act.

We have regulations controlling immigration, restricting tobacco and alcohol sales, establishing speed limits, and prohibiting the use of dangerous materials such as lead paint. We embrace regulations about what can’t be in our drinking water, and insuring we have the freedom to practice religion unfettered by the preferences of government agencies or the whims of men.

Not every decision is clear and simple. Our constitution was built deliberately to allow for clarifications and changes over time by wise men who had some notion of the limits on their own forecasting abilities. We've been trying to make good laws - good government regulations - and improve the bad ones ever since.

We have laws about everything from voter registration to verifying the safety & efficacy of drugs because we know we can’t simply trust everybody to do the right thing if there’s no judge or referee. Somehow the GOP has been persuaded to slow down the process of reforming Wall Street’s greedy, self-serving behaviors.

Goldman Sachs protest: Financial Reform Now!We know what happened when we let them call the shots; deregulation served a few very well indeed, while what trickled down to the rest of us was unemployment, foreclosures, and the destruction of the value of the largest asset most working Americans have, their home -- after we'd been encouraged to use it as a way to get credit to fuel corporate profits.

GOP strategists are now stalling reforms in the Senate, by asserting that we need economic analysis before "rushed rule-making." Where were they before the financial crisis in the late summer of 2008 and the resulting recession? I can tell you one thing, they weren't listening to the then-junior Senator from Illinois, who had written letters to the powers that be about what he saw as the looming mortgage lending crisis, but their hindsight may have factored that in.

Enough is enough. Wall Street needs reform if it's to create wealth for the nation instead of for itself. Congress may not get the new laws perfect on the first pass, but that's not news. If all the GOP has is questions, if they can't grasp the risks in leaving the system broken, I say let them step back; it's time to stop spouting sound bites while impeding progress and solutions.
Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community, who incidentally stands in solidarity with the citizens and workers in Wisconsin refusing to let their Governor's self-created budget "crisis" and new spending priorities be re-cast as a reason to undermine contractual obligations and collective bargaining agreements.
You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Debunking the "regulations burden business" argument

In a discussion of the provocative Wall Street Journal headline “Study: Strict Derivatives Regulation Could Cost 130,000 Jobs” John Parsons and Antonio Mello point out, "It’s always possible to ignore the system-wide purpose of a regulation and claim it is costly due to the burden it imposes..."

Not everybody cares about the Dodd-Frank reform of financial derivatives markets, but we've seen what happens without regulation(s): the markets crashed, foreclosures destroyed home values, and millions of our friends and neighbors are unemployed.

It's costly to control immigration, to restrict alcohol sales, enforce speed limits, verify the safety & efficacy of drugs, and register voters, but we choose to do all these things because we know we can't simply trust everybody to do the right thing.

Why should you care? How much is at stake in this smoke and mirrors game of derivatives trading? $600 trillion. Compare that to the debt-ceiling, or the budget for the entire U.S. Government. $600 trillion is in play. That's why the players, and the Chamber of Commerce, are lobbying so hard to be left alone, and trying to scare us with more jobs lost.
"...there is 'no upside' to imposing margin requirements on end users, said David Hirschmann, who heads the U.S. Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness."
Victoria McGrane
Wall Street Journal February 13, 2011
Recovering our standing as the world leader in agriculture and industry, and creating the millions of jobs our country needs, won't be enough to keep Wall Street greed from ruining our economy. Can the financial markets "create prosperity" beyond Wall Street? It's hard to prove, lately; it's hard to see any upside in leaving those with the most to gain in charge of regulating themselves when they've already abused the system, or trust the tired old assertions about "burdens on business" so quickly, thoroughly debunked by simple logic.

Thomas Hayes is an entrepreneur, former Congressional Campaign Manager, strategist, journalist, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.
You can follow him as @kabiu on twitter.


Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Palin proves TIMING is EVERYTHING - again.

Sarah Palin burst into the national consciousness almost two years ago, and for a short while news services could talk of nothing else, and following the VP candidates debate pundits said she'd won because she didn't completely blow it. By November the bump Palin provided McCain's ratings faded as the country learned more about his new running-mate, and U.S. voters elected the Illinois Senator with the "funny name and big ears." It wasn't so long after Obama's night in Grant Park that Palin calculated her title as Governor of Alaska was more of a hindrance to her career than a help, remember?

Most of the pundits assure us that Tea Party activists (or at least coverage of them on TV) bolstered by Palin's photogenic smile tipped the balance against incumbent Utah Senator Robert Bennett when he failed to secure his party's nomination at a state convention.

Naturally, Palin has bestowed her Tea Party blessing on John "Complete the Danged Fence" McCain, yet by all accounts McCain is in danger of being upset in a primary. There's no question Arizona is currently the focus of the immigration storm in the U.S., but it's shaping up as the epicenter of the anti-incumbent earthquake since McCain's well-documented "toughening" of his rhetoric on that issue hasn't staved off the challenge from former congressman/talk show radio host J.D. Hayworth.

Like former President Bush, as recently as 2007 mavericky Senator McCain had championed less-extreme solutions to immigration reform before consulting the tea leaves and getting his position right. Unlike Pennsylvania's Arlen Specter, McCain's not in a primary today, but he may wish he was as Hayworth continues to make inroads in McCain's lead. By the time the late August Arizona primary happens the Palin endorsement will be ancient history, and McCain's staff will be struggling to dominate the news cycle much the way Specter's struggled to be "bigger news" than Joe Sestak.

The "re-assignment" of Campaign Manager Shiree Verdone and Aide Mike Hellon reveals just how precarious McCain's situation really is -- and that demonstrates how little impact Palin's early endorsement had. Given her own notoriety it's hard to say if Michelle Bachmann is getting any boost from her connection to Palin, but she's already worried about the Democratic front runner, State Senator Tarryl Clark, who hasn't even secured her place on the November ballot yet (MN primary: August 10th.)

Palin's endorsement may not be enough to preserve McCain's power. Specter's calculated change of parties hasn't looked very effective. Bachmann's running negative ads before her own presumed challenger has even won the primary. Meanwhile the Obama administration is moving forward fast on Wall Street reform, and the unholy trinity of BP, Haliburton, and Transocean squandered that same administration's willingness to let off-shore exploration move ahead.

Drill, baby, drill? Timing is everything.


Thomas Hayes
is an entrepreneur, journalist, political staffer, and photographer who contributes regularly to a host of web sites on topics ranging from economics and politics to culture and community.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

Are men allowed at "Women for Obama" meetings?

Absolutely, as the blog-post at this link documents. Pictures and video from a recent "Women for Obama" get-together near the Twin Cities (in Northfield, the home of late Senator Paul Wellstone) - the speaker of the Minnesota State House of Representatives, Margaret Anderson Kelliher, even called in.


More than just "Women for Obama."

I hope the name never keeps anybody from attending. Look at the pictures... there were children present. This was literally dozens of people, lots of energy, lots of ideas, lots of commitment, synergy, and even though it was mostly women, there were a few men, too.

Minnesotans for Obama

Conversation ranged from Wall Street deregulation and more general tax and economy topics to health care issues, community service, how to help Emily, the Obama Field organizer, cope with her long list of tasks in the office and on the phones and how to persuade the mainstream, commercial media to reform their tendencies by covering issues and facts during this election cycle rather than echoing talking points, which reinforces the effect of divisive old-school attack politics. (" 'Cause when they own the information, they can bend it how they want.")
The supply of beverages and treats seemed never-ending...