GOP Lawmakers Slow to Embrace Social Security Plan

By Charles Babington

Washington Post Staff Writer

Treasury Secretary John W. Snow said yesterday that the Bush administration has yet to sell American voters on its plan to revise Social Security, but a substantial number of Republican lawmakers are refusing to help -- either sitting on the sidelines or actively criticizing the plan.

It wasn't even close.

I'd suggest that anyone who hasn't done it yet should find a small bank and move their accounts. Clearly, the people we elected aren't going to do anything about these monster banks:

A move to break up major Wall Street banks failed Thursday night by a vote of 61 to 33.

Three Republicans, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma and John Ensign of Nevada, voted with 30 Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, in support of the provision. The author of the pending overall financial reform bill in the Senate, Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, voted against it. (See the full roll call.)

The amendment, sponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.), would have required megabanks to be broken down in size and capped so that their individual failure would not bring down the entire system.

Under Brown-Kaufman, no bank could hold more than 10 percent of the total amount of insured deposits, and a limit would have been placed on liabilities of a single bank to two percent of GDP.

In practice, the amendment required the six biggest banks -- Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley -- to significantly scale down their size. It was touted as a way to end Too Big To Fail.

Though top Obama administration officials have not publicly opposed the amendment, its leading economists have opposed ending Too Big To Fail simply by breaking up the nation's financial behemoths. Austan Goolsbee and Larry Summers have both fought back against this idea, as has Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

"This is certainly a defeat for those who are concerned about the dangers of financial concentration in this country," Kaufman said in a statement after the vote. "Some causes are worth fighting for, and for me, the concern about the risks 'too big to fail' banks pose to the American economy and people is deep and profound given the economic tragedy millions of American have endured. I believe the debate itself -- though failing to gain a majority of votes -- has helped to change attitudes about the degree of financial concentration and power these megabanks now represent."

The President is heading to NYC on Thursday to tout the new financial reform bill which is still being worked on while the Maine Twins are at it again.

Susan Collins flatly rejected it after meeting with Geithner and said she will filibuster it.

Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) announced after meeting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Monday that she will vote to filibuster a Democratic Wall Street reform bill.

Her announcement hurts Democratic chances of moving financial reform legislation through the Senate this week.

--

Collins said she and Geithner found common ground on many areas of financial regulatory reform and urged Democrats to spend several more weeks negotiating the measure. Collins said it was unlikely that her concerns could be addressed within the next few days so that Reid could stick to his schedule...read on.

Meanwhile, Queen Olympia Snowe says that she doesn't mind being the only Republican vote if they work out their differences.

It would be going too far to say Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) is a shoe-in to vote for the Democrats' financial regulatory reform bill. But after a meeting with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner this afternoon, she sounded much more optimistic about the prospects for a swift bipartisan vote on a slightly modified package than she did last week--and that's even if she's the only Republican who ends up voting with the Democrats.

"I'm optimistic that maybe the Democrats won't go forward with the bill as it is," Snowe told reporters outside her office. "Over the next few days, hopefully, something will change to make that possible. I don't see why it would be impossible because frankly I think that there isn't that much of a gap."

Will the Obama Administration trust Snowe again after what she did on HCR? The administration already caved to Mitch McConnell on the 50 billion dollar liquidation fund that would be paid for by Wall Street and he balked anyway. As is the Luntz way, he wants to start all over again. Will Snowe break the filibuster? Good luck with that.

I continue to worry that at some point, Wall Street will convince the administration that it would be a great psychological ploy to cut off unemployment compensation to convince the market there's a recovery.

And if they do that, all hell will break loose:

March 16 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. employers won’t hire enough workers this year to lower the jobless rate much below the level of 9.7 percent reached in February, three Obama administration economic officials said today.

The proportion of Americans who can’t find work is likely to “remain elevated for an extended period,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, White House budget director Peter Orszag and Christina Romer, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, said in a joint statement. The officials said unemployment may even rise “slightly” over the next few months as discouraged workers start job-hunting again.

“We do not expect further declines in unemployment this year,” the officials said in testimony prepared for the House Appropriations Committee. They predicted the economy would add about 100,000 jobs a month on average -- not enough to bring the jobless rate down substantially.

Today’s projections are in line with the 10 percent average unemployment forecast for this year in last month’s budget plan. Christopher Rupkey, chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. in New York, said the administration’s language risks damping expectations for a recovery.

“They need to work on the message, and right now the message is that there is not a lot to be hopeful about,” Rupkey said. “Warning about a slow jobless recovery can help make it a reality.”

This whole thing is depressing as hell. Wall Street's Masters of the Universe devastate the entire world economy, and all the House of Lords (aka the Senate) can think about is not making the bankers mad at them. Imagine how bad it is that their attempts at reform are only making the problem worse. Krugman spells it all out:

So here’s the situation. We’ve been through the second-worst financial crisis in the history of the world, and we’ve barely begun to recover: 29 million Americans either can’t find jobs or can’t find full-time work. Yet all momentum for serious banking reform has been lost. The question now seems to be whether we’ll get a watered-down bill or no bill at all. And I hate to say this, but the second option is starting to look preferable.

[...] There’s no question that consumers need much better protection. The late Edward Gramlich — a Federal Reserve official who tried in vain to get Alan Greenspan to act against predatory lending — summarized the case perfectly back in 2007: “Why are the most risky loan products sold to the least sophisticated borrowers? The question answers itself — the least sophisticated borrowers are probably duped into taking these products.”

Is it important that this protection be provided by an independent agency? It must be, or lobbyists wouldn’t be campaigning so hard to prevent that agency’s creation.

And it’s not hard to see why. Some have argued that the job of protecting consumers can and should be done either by the Fed or — as in one compromise that at this point seems unlikely — by a unit within the Treasury Department. But remember, not that long ago Mr. Greenspan was Fed chairman and John Snow was Treasury secretary. Case closed. The only way consumers will be protected under future antiregulation administrations — and believe me, given the power of the financial lobby, there will be such administrations — is if there’s an agency whose whole reason for being is to police bank abuses.

In summary, then, it’s time to draw a line in the sand. No reform, coupled with a campaign to name and shame the people responsible, is better than a cosmetic reform that just covers up failure to act.

The acid test for me will be: What does Elizabeth Warren think? It's probably a good idea because the story quotes a "senior administration" as expressing "concern" about reducing the Fed’s powers any further and said it was "really critical" that the Fed maintain direct supervision of the large financial firms.

Which could be Rahm, Summers or Geithner, and if they told me the sky was blue, I'd have to double check:

WASHINGTON — The Senate and the Obama administration are nearing agreement on forming a council of regulators, led by the Treasury secretary, to identify systemic risk to the nation’s financial system, officials said Wednesday.

The issue is one of the most fundamental in the contentious effort to overhaul regulation after the financial crisis, and addresses one of the primary lessons of the near debacle: that no one had been assigned to ensure the stability of the system as a whole and detect the kinds of excessive risk-taking and imbalances that could rock an entire economy.

Assigning the Treasury Department the job of spotting incipient trouble and addressing it quickly has support among senators from both parties, though several important provisions, including whether the council would have the ability to bypass existing banking regulators and impose its own rules on huge financial firms, remain to be worked out.

The effect would be to diminish the authority of the Federal Reserve, whose regulation of banks has been criticized for failing to head off the problems.

Talk about understatment. Considering that the boys at the Fed were in on the con game, you can see why Rahm, Larry and Timmy might be concerned about them losing control. Matt Taibbi:

Con artists have a word for the inability of their victims to accept that they've been scammed. They call it the "True Believer Syndrome." That's sort of where we are, in a state of nagging disbelief about the real problem on Wall Street. It isn't so much that we have inadequate rules or incompetent regulators, although both of these things are certainly true. The real problem is that it doesn't matter what regulations are in place if the people running the economy are rip-off artists. The system assumes a certain minimum level of ethical behavior and civic instinct over and above what is spelled out by the regulations. If those ethics are absent — well, this thing isn't going to work, no matter what we do. Sure, mugging old ladies is against the law, but it's also easy. To prevent it, we depend, for the most part, not on cops but on people making the conscious decision not to do it.

That's why the biggest gift the bankers got in the bailout was not fiscal but psychological. "The most valuable part of the bailout," says Rep. Sherman, "was the implicit guarantee that they're Too Big to Fail." Instead of liquidating and prosecuting the insolvent institutions that took us all down with them in a giant Ponzi scheme, we have showered them with money and guarantees and all sorts of other enabling gestures. And what should really freak everyone out is the fact that Wall Street immediately started skimming off its own rescue money. If the bailouts validated anew the crooked psychology of the bubble, the recent profit and bonus numbers show that the same psychology is back, thriving, and looking for new disasters to create. "It's evidence," says Rep. Kanjorski, "that they still don't get it."

More to the point, the fact that we haven't done much of anything to change the rules and behavior of Wall Street shows that we still don't get it. Instituting a bailout policy that stressed recapitalizing bad banks was like the addict coming back to the con man to get his lost money back. Ask yourself how well that ever works out. And then get ready for the reload.

Men on Football...not necessarily safe for work

Okay, we got beer chilling, the margarita mix standing by, some of my husband's incredible queso dip and chips and barbecued pulled pork sandwiches ready to go, HDTV fired up...it's SUPER BOWL TIME!!!!! Naturally, it's taking a little more than normal concentration to look at what's happening Sunday morning with the anticipation of getting together with friends and family to enjoy the Super Bowl. Nevertheless, concentrate we must, because it's a wide array of bobbleheads this morning, from new State of the Union host Candy Crowley with Hillary Clinton to temporary This Week host Jake Tapper with Timothy Geithner to sell out Fox News Sunday host Mike Wallace with Sarah Palin. Let the games begin.

ABC's "This Week" - Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

CBS' "Face the Nation" - NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

NBC's "Meet the Press" - John Brennan, President Barack Obama's top counterterrorism adviser; former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson; former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan; Ed Gillespie, former Bush White House counselor; Dee Dee Myers, former press secretary for President Bill Clinton.

NBC's "The Chris Matthews Show" - Panel: Kathleen Parker, Andrew Ross Sorkin, Michael Duffy, Norah O'Donnell. Topics: How President Obama Plans to Recapture His Momentum; Obama's Advice: Ignore the 24/7 Cable and Blogosphere Trash Talk.

CNN's "State of the Union" - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton

CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" - Is peace in the Middle East still an option? King Abdullah II of Jordan gives Fareed a rare and exclusive interview. Plus, Fareed sits down with (John Yoo,) the man who wrote the infamous "torture memos" for President Bush. It will be a fascinating discussion on terrorism, Guantanamo, and Presidential power.

CNN's "Amanpour" - Veiled Hatred? As France moves closer to a partial ban on the burqa, a leading European lawmaker declared Wednesday that the full Muslim veil is a symbol of political Islam and has no place in Europe. New Global Threat: former US National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski talks about the US and others turning their focus to defending interests of "public spaces."

"Fox News Sunday" - Former Gov. Sarah Palin, R-Alaska; Mark Skoda, a talk radio host who helped organize the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville, Tenn.

So, what's catching your eye this morning?

Tim Geithener testified yesterday morning in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and I still don't know why we should give Geithner the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn't question him because we don't know how much worse it would be if he hadn't done all these things, right?

WASHINGTON — In heated questioning that at times took on the air of a cross-examination, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner on Wednesday defended his role and the government’s actions in bailing out the American International Group, saying Washington did what was necessary to prevent “a second Great Depression.”

But Mr. Geithner, who led the New York Federal Reserve Bank at the time, said he was not involved in the decision not to release information about deals that sent billions of taxpayer dollars from the bailout of A.I.G., the insurance giant, to big banks.

“I withdrew from monetary policy decisions,” Mr. Geithner said, “and day-to-day management of the New York Fed.”

The committee called Mr. Geithner, former Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. and other officials to explain, once again, the confounding results of an $85 billion rescue loan made to A.I.G. in September 2008. The loan sheltered big banks from any losses, but saddled A.I.G. with a debt so crushing that the Treasury soon had to step in and provide even more rescue money.

The questions aimed at Mr. Geithner focused almost immediately on his role in the A.I.G. bailout and why those negotiating on behalf of the taxpayers did not push the banks to make concessions, like returning the collateral to A.I.G. or accepting less than full value for their contracts with the insurer.

Throughout the morning, Mr. Geithner tried to persuade lawmakers that the government acted “in the best interests of the American people,” and not in the interests of big banks, in particular, as many lawmakers asserted, Goldman Sachs. Mr. Geithner, while keeping his composure throughout the questions, was forceful in his defense.

“I think the commitment to Goldman Sachs trumped the responsibility that our officials had to the American people,” Representative Stephen F. Lynch, Democrat of Massachusetts, told Mr. Geithner. His voice rising, his finger pointed at Mr. Geithner, Mr. Lynch expressed his frustration at the financial bailouts, and the bonuses now being paid by banks. “It stinks to the high heavens what happened here,” Mr. Lynch said. “I don’t like the obfuscation. And to top it all off, the disclosure was not there.”

In his comments, Mr. Geithner called for better controls on risk-taking by large financial institutions, and pointed out that more than a year after the near-collapse of A.I.G., the government still had no systems in place to cope with such failures. At times, the hearing took on a scolding, even berating, tone. One lawmaker, Representative John L. Mica, Republican of Florida, called upon Mr. Geithner to resign.

“I believe either you made a bad decision there, or there was the attempt to cover up one of the biggest bailouts, backdoor bailouts, in history,” Mr. Mica said. “Now, you’ve tried to frame it as you did it in the interest of the people and the failure of the system, I’m telling you, these are lame excuses. You were in the charge and did the wrong thing, or participated in the wrong thing.”

Continue reading »

Republicans blaming the Obama administration for this horrendous recession is like an arsonist blaming the fire department - and yet, there's a certain usefulness to their attacks. After all, liberals complaining about the administration's economic policies got us nowhere. Maybe they'll actually listen when Republicans do it!

Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration.

Episodes in both houses of Congress exposed the raw nerves of lawmakers flooded with stories of unemployment and economic hardship back home. They also underscored the stiff headwinds that the administration faces as it pushes to enact sweeping changes to the financial regulatory system while also trying to create jobs for ordinary Americans.

President Obama's allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, exasperated by the administration's handling of the economy, unexpectedly blocked one of his top priorities, using a legislative maneuver to postpone the approval of financial reform legislation by a key House committee.

Two buildings away, at a session of the Joint Economic Committee, Republicans escalated their attacks on Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, including a call for his resignation.

"Conservatives agree that as point person, you failed. Liberals are growing in that consensus as well," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.). "For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?"

Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.) took a different tack. "I don't think that you should be fired," he told Geithner. "I thought you should have never been hired."

The Democrats are also fed up with the president's economic policies. Rep. Pete DeFazio, progressive:

"I have had a number of people say to me, 'I feel the same way you do but I'm not going to say it.' People are worried it will rub off on the president who still enjoys popularity," he said. "I tell them I still support the president. I just think he is being poorly served by his economic team."

"The truth of the matter," DeFazio added, "is that we have not changed the way the money is being used. It is not being used for the purpose it was supposed to be used for. We are not creating jobs and we have not aggressively taken on the culture of Wall Street."

Continue reading »

I just don't know what the best options are here, but I'm not feeling reassured that the people advising Geithner were making so much money from the people they're supposed to be regulating:

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.

The advisers include Gene Sperling, who last year took in $887,727 from Goldman Sachs and $158,000 for speeches mostly to financial companies, including the firm run by accused Ponzi scheme mastermind R. Allen Stanford. Another top aide, Lee Sachs, reported more than $3 million in salary and partnership income from Mariner Investment Group, a New York hedge fund.

As part of Geithner’s kitchen cabinet, Sperling and Sachs wield influence behind the scenes at the Treasury Department, where they help oversee the $700 billion banking rescue and craft executive pay rules and the revamp of financial regulations. Yet they haven’t faced the public scrutiny given to Senate-confirmed appointees, nor are they compelled to testify in Congress to defend or explain the Treasury’s policies.

“These people are incredibly smart, they’re incredibly talented and they bring knowledge,” said Bill Brown, a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law and former managing director at Morgan Stanley. “The risk is they will further exacerbate the problem of our regulators identifying with Wall Street.”

Gee, ya think?

[...] Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the department needs people with a deep understanding of markets and the financial system, especially as it works to fend off the worst recession in half a century.

“The secretary thought that the best way to utilize their talents was to allow these individuals to provide advice to the secretary on policy issues through appointments as counselor,” Williams said.

All of Geithner’s counselors are subject to federal ethics rules, including a pledge to avoid contact with their former firms for at least a year, Williams added.

Most officials at the Treasury who have been approved by Congress come from academic, legal or non-Wall Street backgrounds.