More Congressional Sleaze: Boehner and Cantor own stock in Goldman Sachs

Seth Cline of Open Secrets Blog reports some extremely disturbing connections between Congressional leaders and Goldman Sachs.  I think it’s time for a law that places congressional investment accounts into a blind trust.

According to research by the Center for Responsive Politics, 19 current members of Congress reported holdings in Goldman Sachs during 2010. Whether by coincidence or not, most of these 19 Goldman Sachs investors in Congress are more powerful or more wealthy than their peers, or both.

Nine of them sit on either the most powerful committee in their chamber or committees charged with regulating the Wall Street giant. Moreover, seven of them are among the 25 wealthiest members of their respective chambers, according to the Center’s research.

And of the six lawmakers who fall into neither category, two are the most influential Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives: House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.).

Altogether, the 19 had at least $480,000 and as much as $1.1 million invested in Goldman Sachs in 2010, the most recent year personal finance data are available. That’s an average of about $812,900 for these 19 lawmakers’ holdings combined.

Lawmakers are only required to report their personal assets and liabilities in broad ranges, meaning it’s impossible to know the precise value of these holdings. The Center uses the minimum and maximum values listed on the filings to calculate an average value for each asset and liability.

But these financial interests are not a one-way street: Goldman Sachs employees and its political action committee have contributed about $124,000, combined, to a dozen of the lawmakers who reported holdings in the company in 2010, according to the Center’s research. This includes all money given during the 2010 election cycle and thus far in 2011.

So, not only do Boehner and Cantor get donations from Goldman Sachs, they are also stock holders.  No wonder they want to get rid of the Volcker Rule.  Looks like Paul Ryan is an investor also.

In the leadership category are names such as Boehner and Cantor, each of whom has an average $32,500 invested in Goldman.

Goldman Sachs’ employees, meanwhile, have also contributed heavily to Boehner and Cantor.

Boehner has received $29,500, and Cantor $48,000, from them since 2009, according to the Center’s research.

Other Goldman investors with this kind of power include two members of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, better known as the debt supercommittee.

The first, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), reported $1,177 invested in Goldman in 2010, and, as minority whip, is the second highest ranking Republican in the Senate.

And not only is Kyl a member of the supercommittee and party leadership, he also sits on the Senate Finance Committee, which regulates Goldman Sachs and its peers on Wall Street.

Another one of Kyl’s colleagues on the supercommittee, Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), is also a Goldman investor.

Upton had an average of $8,000 invested in the company in 2010, according to the Center’s research.

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), is another influential Goldman shareholder in Congress.

Ryan sits on two very important House committees: the Budget Committee, which he chairs, and the Ways and Means Committee.

Ryan reported an average of $8,000 invested in Goldman and has received $5,800 from the company’s employees so far this year after receiving $10,000 from them during the 2010 cycle, according to the Center’s research.

One of Goldman Sachs’ most valuable congressional investors is Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas), whose average of $550,000 in investments in the company is far and away the most in Congress.

Additionally Neugebauer sits on the House Financial Services Committee, which oversees Wall Street and the securities and investment industry of which Goldman is a part.

That also helps explain the $9,500 Goldman Sachs employees have contributed to Neugebauer since January 2009 through the company’s political action committee.

Rep. Gary Peters (R-Mich.) is another Goldman Sachs investor on the Financial Services committee. He has an average of $8,000 invested and has received $4,500 from the company this year from its PAC.

There’s a substantial list of Republicans listed that I didn’t include in the list above..  Democrats holding GS stock include  Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).   The details are on a spreadsheet here.

Can you really believe that they’re acting in our best interest when their wealth is vested in stopping GS from doing suspect things like selling lemons to clients and placing side bets that the lemons lose?  I sure don’t.  The Volker Rule places trading restrictions on institutions like GS. It controls the types of transactions that GS can do in its proprietary trading like the example I just gave you. They settled fraud charges in the US with the SEC and are under investigation in the UK and some of Europe.  You may recall the unit and testimony before congress.  The US settlement came in 2010.  That’s the same year that these holdings were found by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The FSA opened its investigation into the bank in April after the SEC charged Goldman with misleading investors in a complex mortgage-backed security known as Abacus. The SEC claimed that Goldman had failed to disclose that a hedge fund that was betting against the security had selected some of the mortgage loans included in the portfolio, costing investors as much as $1bn.

The largest fine handed down by the UK regulator came three months ago, when JPMorgan paid a £33.3m for failing to keep client money in separate accounts.

Goldman, the world’s best-known investment bank, has seen its reputation tarnished in recent months as questions continue to swirl over whether it favoured the interests of some clients at the expense of others during the financial crisis.

The bank’s business model is also under pressure amid volatile markets and regulatory reforms that have forced it to shut some of its highly profitable “proprietary” trading operations.

No wonder we don’t see perp walks.  These folks have skin in GS.  We are so f’d.


Vegas Gambling vs Wall Street Gambling

One of the things that has always struck me about folks that treat the financial sector like any other business venture is the lack of understanding of what the finance sector really does.  There are several basic functions if you read the literature.  The banking industry originally evolved from goldsmiths that would safekeep gold for people.  This eliminated the need for every one to keep a small army with them at all times to stop robbers from stealing all their gold.  Goldsmiths eventually learned that a fairly sizable chunk of that gold never left their premises and found out they could lend some of it out for a return and not be caught short.  That eventually lead them from being gold babysitters to lenders.  Then, we eventually got around to trying to find some financial contracts that would help us if the worst happened by buying insurance.  From these sets of agreements, we now have exotic derivatives, financial innovations, credit default swaps, and a host of other banking services.  The basics things that the banking sector does is help you save or store up future purchasing power, borrow or lend purchasing power, and help move money around from place to place via the payment systems.  That would be check clearing and ATMs and things like that.  The Federal Reserve Bank was set up to handle that latter function but most of that function has been privatized since regional banks now clear checks and there are private clearing houses for Automated Payments.  The Fed’s role is now fairly small.  It still pushes cash from the US Mint/Treasury into the banking system and its FedWire system still handles a huge number of wire transfers between banks.  If banks won’t lend to each other via the Fed Funds market, it is also available to lend money at the discount window.  That used to be only available to member banks but it’s now open to a lot more institutions.

Bankers usually make money by charging fees on their services, interest rates on their loans, and then they make arbitrage profits if they invest.  For years, that last function wasn’t a big deal for bankers because laws stopped them from investing in anything very creative.  Laws have changed a lot over the last 10-20 years and even if commercial banks can’t make risky investments, they are likely to be part of a bank holding company that owns some subsidiary that can.  Allowing banks–who basically still have the role of “safekeeping”–to gamble has been a huge mistake.  Besides the lax laws, they have had a lot of cheap cash available because of Greenspan’s relatively lose monetary policy during the last years of his tenure and they’ve been able to reduce their risk by having deposit insurance which covers their deposits in case of default.  There has also been an increase in “financial innovations” and techniques which serve as pseudo insurance but generally come in the form of very hard-to-price assets so they can be risky. Many banks don’t use them just for hedging which is this risk management approach to their use.  A lot of banks just plan gamble.  We’ve definitely seen banks misjudge risk and rely heavily on what I would consider gambling activities.

So, I’ve worked back of the house at a casino and I’ve worked in banking and of course, I’m a financial economist so I’ve got a little knowledge and experience on all fronts.  The one thing that I will say about gambling in a casino is that a good time is had by all, every one understands it’s gambling, and the gambling industry hires a lot of people in the process that do fairly straightforward jobs.  They only get tips if the customers say so.  Bonuses for random wins are de rigueur in the finance sector.  Silly thing is that most financiers think they’ve actually earned those bonuses for doing some miracle.  There’s a few good reads to let you know exactly how misguided they are on their opinions of their skills.  The first is anything by Nassim Nicholas Taleb who is a practitioner of financial mathematics and a former Wall Street trader. His book “Fooled by Randomness” is just full of examples of the fallacies that drive Wall Street Bankers into thinking too highly of themselves and paying themselves based on gambling and randomly hitting the jackpot.   You can also read anything by Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman.   Actually, you can watch them both talk about these things in a video at Edge in a program called Reflections on  a Crisis.

Kahneman explains why there are bubbles in the financial markets, even though everyone knows that they eventually burst. The researchers used the comparison with the weather: If there is little rain for three years, people begin to believe that this is the normal situation. If over the years stocks only increase, people can’t imagine a break in this trend.

Taleb speaks out sharply against the bankers. The people in control of taxpayer’s money are spending billions of dollars. “I want those responsible for the crisis gone today, today and not tomorrow,” he says, leaning forward vigorously. The risk models of banks are a plague, he says, the bankers are charlatans.

It is nonsense to think that we can assess risks and thus protect against a crash. Taleb has become famous with his theory of the black swan described in his eponymous bestsellers described. Black swans, which are events that are not previously seen–not even with the best model. “People will never be able to control a coincidence,” he says.

Okay, so that’s actually the background to something I want to point you to  on VOXEU called “What is the contribution of the financial sector?” by Andrew Haldane.  I think it’s a good thing to look at because we need to establish some basic knowledge and laws that separate the speculative activities from the banking activities that actually may provide value. (Although I still could argue that privatizing the payments system may prove risky and foolish some day, there are some things that banks do that are useful.)  This way we can see the damage done when so many politicians essentially empower the gambling aspects.  Another offshoot is our tax policy which favorably treats capital gains without any reference to the source of the profit.  People that run businesses that enhance economic welfare of every one are taxed at the same favorable rate as those that basically gamble resources away.  That’s a very bad incentive system.  Haldane points out the difference between managing risk of financial contracts and risk-taking that is basically gambling and how much of the Western nation’s financial sector has morphed more into a gambling sector than a financial services provider.

But crisis experience has challenged this narrative. High pre-crisis returns in the financial sector proved temporary. The return on tangible equity in UK banking fell from levels of 25%+ in 2006 to – 29% in 2008. Many financial institutions around the world found themselves calling on the authorities, in enormous size, to help manage their solvency and liquidity risk. That fall from grace, and the resulting ballooning of risk, sits uneasily with a pre-crisis story of a shift in the technological frontier of banks’ risk management.

In fact, high pre-crisis returns to banking had a much more mundane explanation. They reflected simply increased risk-taking across the sector. This was not an outward shift in the portfolio possibility set of finance. Instead, it was a traverse up the high-wire of risk and return. This hire-wire act involved, on the asset side, rapid credit expansion, often through the development of poorly understood financial instruments. On the liability side, this ballooning balance sheet was financed using risky leverage, often at short maturities.

This is an important statement because not only did political institutions loosen laws or not put in place laws to stop this from happening, but when it happened, we all paid and they’ve ignored how costly this was to every one else.  Plus, they keep wanting us to sacrifice instead of the people that broke the economic growth machine. The basic narrative is that these folks gambled with others’ money and the government had to pay the house.  This is wrong in every sense of what is and isn’t moral.  Haldane argues that risk-taking is not a value-added activity for banks and backs it up with empirical evidence.

The financial system provides a number of services to the wider economy, including payment and transaction services to depositors and borrowers; intermediation services by transforming deposits into funding for households, companies or governments; and risk transfer and insurance services. In doing so, financial intermediaries take on risk. For example, when they finance long-term loans to companies using short-term deposits from households, banks assume liquidity risk. And when they extend mortgages to households, they take on credit risk.

But bearing risk is not, by itself, a productive activity. The act of investing capital in a risky asset is a fundamental feature of capital markets. For example, a retail investor that purchases bonds issued by a company is bearing risk, but not contributing so much as a cent to measured economic activity. Similarly, a household that decides to use all of its liquid deposits to purchase a house, instead of borrowing some money from the bank and keeping some of its deposits with the bank, is bearing liquidity risk.

Neither of these acts could be said to boost overall economic activity or productivity in the economy. They re-allocate risk in the system but do not fundamentally change its size or shape. For that reason, statisticians do not count these activities in capital markets as contributing to activity or welfare. Rightly so.

What is a demonstrably productive economic activity is the management of risk. Banks use labour and capital to screen borrowers, assess their creditworthiness and monitor them. And they spend resources to assess their vulnerability to liquidity shocks arising from the maturity mismatches on their balance sheets. Customers, in turn, remunerate banks for these productive services.

The current framework for measuring the contribution of financial intermediaries captures few of these subtleties. Crucially, it blurs the distinction between risk-bearing and risk management. Revenues that banks earn as compensation for risk-bearing – the spread between loan and deposit rates on their loan book – are accounted for as output by the banking sector. So bank balance-sheet expansion, as occurred ahead of the crisis, counts as increased value-added. But this confuses risk-bearing with risk management, especially when the risk itself may be mis-priced or mis-managed.

Read the rest of this entry »


Republican Debate Open Thread and Live Blog

Look what vcame out of the clown car!

Can you believe there’s another Republican debate tonight? I’m going to listen to at least part of it, because I’m hope Newt Gingrich will melt down. I expect everyone will be trying to trip him up since he’s now the {shudder} frontrunner.

The debate will be on CNN from 8-10PM. CNN will probably be live streaming it. I’ll find the link ASAP. The topic tonight’s debate is national security. I wonder if Herman Cain will show up? Or perhaps he’ll have one of the boxes on his back so that his advisers can cue him?

From the Boston Globe:

With new trouble appearing in the Middle East and the Pentagon facing possible budget cuts, the Republican White House contenders are debating for the second time in as many weeks how they would do better than President Barack Obama in protecting and extending America’s national security.

Six weeks to the day before the first nominating contests in Iowa, the candidates were looking to use the pre-Thanksgiving holiday debate to build or — for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich at the head of the pack — sustain momentum in the battle to pick a 2012 election challenger for Obama.

Businessman Herman Cain, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Reps. Ron Paul of Texas and Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman and former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania also were meeting in Tuesday night’s forum put together by CNN, the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute.

With unemployment stubbornly high and the economy sluggish to recover from recession, the candidates also were likely to drive the foreign policy discussion back to pocketbook issues at home.

With this crazy crowd, you never know what could happen. I don’t want to miss any ghastly gaffes or monstrous meltdowns! If you’re listing/watching too, please join me in documenting the atrocities. You can feel free to bring up other topics as well. This is an open thread.


More Empirical Research on Tax Policies tanks Right Wing Memes

I’m now trying to dig up my fall copy of the Journal of Economic Perspectives.  This link will take you to a pdf file of a new research article published there called ‘The Case for a Progressive Tax: From Basic Research to Policy Recommendations’. The authors are MIT professor Peter Diamond–who should be on the FED Board of Governors now– and Emmanuel Saez. Emmanuel Saez is a UC Berkley economics professor and director of the Center for Equitable Growth. Diamond won the Nobel Prize in 2010.   Paul Krugman has some early analysis up on his blog today having found the paper via Mark Thoma’s website.  This one ought to send the Republican party into propaganda overdrive.  I’m still reading it but I thought I’d share some of it with you.

The interesting thing is this comes as I was reading this study from Wider Opportunities for Women that shows that just under half the population–approximately 45% of US citizens–are living hand to mouth.

As 25 million Americans and their families continue to struggle to find jobs or full-time work and many newly created jobs are in low-wage industries, a new report on family economic security shows that 45 percent of Americans are unable to cover their basic expenses. Based on a comprehensive analysis of economic and demographic data by Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW), the new report finds many families are living without economic security even when household breadwinners are working. The findings suggest that federal budget cuts to programs like job training, career and technical education, unemployment insurance, and child care programs could compound the crisis facing American families.

I also was reading the newly revised GDP growth numbers which have lowered to 2% which is definitely not enough to send unemployment figures in the right direction.   Some of the inventory numbers look bad too.  We could potentially get more mass layoffs from companies since we still appear to have way more capacity than customers in the country.

Anyway, back to the academic study that shows that the top bracket on top income earners should “optimally” be set at about 70%.  So, much for the “taxing the job creators” is horrible meme once again.    This study is the latest in a long line of them that shows that highly progressive tax systems are beneficial.  Rich people even do better under them.  The 70 percent solution is considered the optimal rate given the goal of these types of models which is basically as follows.  (Hang on, this is from the paper and it’s in economist speak, so bear with me.  If you’re not used to thinking in terms of calculus based maximization models given specific definitions of things so you can do the math, it can read like stereo instructions.) This is the basic explanation in the introduction of the goal of this line of research.

Models in optimal tax theory typically posit that the tax system should maximize a  social welfare function subject to a government budget constraint, taking into account that individuals respond to taxes and transfers. Social welfare is larger when resources are more equally distributed, but redistributive taxes and transfers can negatively affect incentives to work, save, and earn income in the first place. This creates the classical trade-off between equity and efficiency which is at the core of the optimal income tax problem. In general, optimal tax analyses maximize social welfare as a function of individual utilities—the sum of utilities in the utilitarian case. The marginal weight for a given person in the social welfare function measures the value of an additional dollar of consumption expressed in terms of public funds. Such welfare weights depend on the level of redistribution and are decreasing with income whenever society values more equality of income. Therefore, optimal income tax theory is first a normative theory that shows how a social welfare objective combines with constraints arising from limits on resources and behavioral responses to taxation in order to derive specific tax policy recommendations. In addition, optimal income tax theory can be used to evaluate current policies and suggest avenues for reform. Understanding what would be good policy, if implemented, is a key step in making policy recommendations.

What this basically is looking for is a level of tax that will not cause disincentives to work, factor in the federal budget requirements, and consider what the society needs to achieve its overall goals of having good infrastructure, providing jobs, educating people. etc.  It also mentions that you have to consider this analysis subjectively because it is based on achieving society’s group vales and goals as expressed through the political process. In our case, our values and goals are express through democracy.   This is important because their study shows that you can actually tax rich people a lot without creating disincentives for them.  That’s exactly the opposite of what Republicans usually bleat and it really kicks that dead horse of a Laffer curve one more time.

Here’s Krugman’s thoughts on what will probably come out of the right wing meme manufacturers.

In the first part of the paper, D&S analyze the optimal tax rate on top earners. And they argue that this should be the rate that maximizes the revenue collected from these top earners — full stop. Why? Because if you’re trying to maximize any sort of aggregate welfare measure, it’s clear that a marginal dollar of income makes very little difference to the welfare of the wealthy, as compared with the difference it makes to the welfare of the poor and middle class. So to a first approximation policy should soak the rich for the maximum amount — not out of envy or a desire to punish, but simply to raise as much money as possible for other purposes.

Now, this doesn’t imply a 100% tax rate, because there are going to be behavioral responses – high earners will generate at least somewhat less taxable income in the face of a high tax rate, either by actually working less or by pushing their earnings underground. Using parameters based on the literature, D&S suggest that the optimal tax rate on the highest earners is in the vicinity of 70%.

OK, I hear loud screams from the right side of the room. Parsing those screams, I hear the following arguments:

1. Theft! Tyranny! OK, I hear you. This can’t be argued on rational grounds; I think there are a lot more important moral issues in the world than defending the right of the rich to keep their money, but whatever.

2. They’ll go Galt! This amounts to saying that D&S’s estimate of the “behavioral elasticity” is too low. Maybe, but they’re pretty careful about that, and your gut isn’t better than their econometrics.

3. You’ll kill job creation! This is where it gets interesting.

Right now the official rhetoric of the right, and a fair number of people who consider themselves centrist, is that high-income individuals are “job creators” who must be cherished for the good they do.

Yet textbook economics says that in a competitive economy, the contribution any individual (or for that matter any factor of production) makes to the economy at the margin is what that individual earns — period. What a worker contributes to GDP with an additional hour of work is that worker’s hourly wage, whether that hourly wage is $6 or $60,000 an hour. This in turn means that the effect on everyone else’s income if a worker chooses to work one hour less is precisely zero. If a hedge fund manager gets $60,000 an hour, and he works one hour less, he reduces GDP by $60,000 — but he also reduces his pay by $60,000, so the net effect on other peoples’ incomes is zip.

Of course, he doesn’t actually lose all of that $60,000, since he ends up paying less in taxes. So there is a loss of revenue from that withdrawal of effort. But that’s precisely what the Diamond-Saez calculation takes into account, and the reason the optimal top tax rate isn’t 100%.

This sort’ve follows what Warren Buffet is saying when he says sure, raise my taxes.  When you’re talking incomes as high as his, the benefit of having a little bit more just isn’t that great compared to the benefit of having a lit bit more when you are you or me.   Our little bit more goes to basic bills for at least 45% of us. They really don’t miss anything they don’t already have.  This probably could apply to corporate taxation too.  At some level of project income, effective taxes paid is usually not the major expense of any project, so when you do the present/future value analysis, taxes really don’t cut into the future cash flows.  There are many more expenses that are much more significant.   In the case of the uppermost income earners, they don’t really feel it until around 70 percent.  Remember, this is US data and not from places like Sweden or Norway where people are demonstrably happier about pitching in to build a better country and society and don’t have an entire political party plus a portion of the opposition party working to bring the rest of the country and the economy to its knees.

There’s also a good argument presented against zero taxation of capital gains which is another right wing sacred cow.  There’s an entire section on if it makes sense to tax income from labor differently than income from capital.  In a review of literature, the authors show how favoring capital over labor tends to shift money from labor to capital.   This is because the tax system does not distinguish between capital gains from entrepreneurial activities like actually setting up a business, producing something, and hiring yourself and others and speculating in dicey derivatives.   Hopefully, you can skim over the literature review, the rationale behind the model, and the discussion of results and find some of the interesting things.   The analysis uses pareto coefficients and elasticities which are have intuitive explanations but are normally not the things people remember from their microeconomics classes.  In this case, the elasticity is how sensitive various income earners are to changes in tax rates.  The Pareto coefficients are a measure that show optimal marginal tax rates that maximize revenue collection and individual and social “welfare”.   Welfare economics studies how a society is efficient and welfare maximizing in that it produces the maximum amount of  stuff and the resulting benefit from using the stuff to the society.  It should do so at the lowest costs also which implies that all resources in the society are used the best way possible.

I’m continually amazed by the number of studies that have been done that basically contradict the political narrative of many politicians and true believers in a system they don’t frankly understand.  I’m also amazed at the number of people that really don’t know what constitutes a functional and efficient market.  They also don’t understand what capitalism is any more than they understand what socialism is.  On the way back from Denver, some extremely wealthy real estate investor who had just gotten back from a customized jaunt to Bhutan was telling me that he loved capitalism because it was all about being allowed to take on risk.  He really was describing entrepreneurship which can flourish under a lot of different economic systems including mercantilism which is the economic system on which this country was founded.  I actually think sometimes that Republicans really don’t want capitalism, they want a return to mercantilism with its limitations on wages, focus on exploiting resources, hoarding of gold and silver, use of colonies, and jingoistic approach to foreign countries.   Risk taking isn’t inherent to the definition of capitalism.  But then, maybe all this confusion is  because of this:  “Fox News viewers less informed about current events than those who don’t watch news at all, study finds”.   The propaganda machinery in this country is highly efficient.

Anyway, I hope this study finds its way to some states–at the very least–and does some good.  It’s not really a good idea to base your economic policy on wishful thinking and fairy tales.


Tuesday Reads: 11/22/63

John and Jackie Kennedy on November 22, 1963

Today is the 48th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Every year reams of material about media that long ago day are produced by the media. But even though a congressional investigation determined that a conspiracy was behind the murder of JFK, the media narrative never changes: most writers claim that Oswald was the only person involved.

In my opinion, if Oswald killed Kennedy, he could not have done it alone. If you watch the videos of the assassination, it’s very clear that bullets hit Kennedy from both back and front. Witnesses reported hearing three shots. Witnesses at the scene ran toward the “grassy knoll,” the direction from which shots came. I think Oswald was a patsy, as he himself claimed after his arrest. A great deal of evidence has been released over the years, and a number of books have been published that clearly demonstrate that powerful forces wanted JFK dead. But the media continues to defend the “lone gunman” theory, because if the truth were publicly acknowledged, they would have to admit that there was in fact a coup in the U.S. 48 years ago today.

I don’t know who was really behind the assassination of course, but I suspect rogue elements in the CIA, the FBI, and possibly the military. Obviously we will never know for sure, because the cover-up began immediately after the murder–in Dallas, where doctors saw wounds that were apparently tampered with before the official autopsy took place at Bethesda Naval Hospital–at which federal agents refused to allow the President brother Bobby to attend, according to David Talbot’s book Brothers: The Secret History of the Kennedy Years.

Talbot also wrote that neither Bobby Kennedy nor Jackie Kennedy ever believed that Oswald had killed JFK. Bobby immediately suspected the CIA, which Jack Kennedy had vowed to “splinter…into a thousand pieces and scatter to the winds.” Bobby also suspected that Lyndon Johnson was involved.

One of RFK’s goals in running for President was to reopen the investigation into the JFK assassination. But we all know what happened to Bobby.

Richard Nixon was obsessed with finding out what happened to JFK, and he once “joked” about LBJ being involved.

All I know is that Johnson didn’t want anyone looking too closely at what had happened. He wanted the “investigation” to be wrapped up very quickly. President Johnson

immediately set up a commission to “ascertain, evaluate and report upon the facts relating to the assassination of the late President John F. Kennedy.” Johnson asked Warren if he would be willing to head the commission. Warren refused but it was later revealed that Johnson blackmailed him into accepting the post. In a telephone conversation with Richard B. Russell Johnson claimed: ” Warren told me he wouldn’t do it under any circumstances… I called him and ordered him down here and told me no twice and I just pulled out what Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City… And he started crying and said, well I won’t turn you down… I’ll do whatever you say.”

Not a very auspicious beginning for a thorough, unbiased investigation.

I’m by no means an expert on the assassination literature, although I’ve read several recent scholarly books about it in recent years. For anyone who is interested, I recommend reading some of what Joseph Cannon has written on the subject over the years.

What I think is that on that day in November 48 years ago there was essentially a coup, and after that Presidents knew that if they really tried to take on the CIA, they might end up dead like John and Bobby Kennedy did. The longer I live and the more I see what has happened to our government, the more strongly I believe this.

I do not by any means consider Jack Kennedy to be a “great President.” His time in office was far too short to permit a real evaluation. I honestly don’t care about Kennedy’s sex life or about his relationship with his wife Jackie. I don’t believe either Jack or Jackie was a saint or a villain. I think they were flawed human beings. But I do know that when they were in the White House, there was a sense of hope in the country. There was a feeling of a new beginning, of new possibilities. And I know that those feelings died with Jack Kennedy on 11/22/63.

Kennedy had signed an order to remove the American advisers from Vietnam, but Johnson immediately reversed the order. He plunged the country into a bitter bloody war. He also did some good things. He managed to get Congress to pass some of the legislation that Kennedy had championed like the Civil Rights Bill and Medicare. But Vietnam brought LBJ down and then we got Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan, and Bush I. We had a bit of a respite with Clinton, but Bush II managed to wreak as much or more destruction as Reagan had. How would things be different today if Kennedy had lived? We’ll never know, of course; but the country has sure gone to hell since he died.

There will be hundreds of articles about JFK’s death published. I’ll link to just a few that I’ve read recently.

Famed horror writer Stephen King has written a fantasy novel in which a man travels back in time to a few years before the assassination in order to try to stop Oswald and save JFK and America (King is convinced that Oswald acted alone).

On one end is 2011. An unpopular diner has finally been bought out by L. L. Bean. The diner — and the time portal inside it — may last a few more weeks in the footprint of a burned textile mill.

On the other end is America under Eisenhower. The mill churns out white smoke. “Vertigo” is showing at the outdoor movie theater — on its first run. The Kennebec Fruit Company isn’t a curio for tourists; it sells oranges. And John Kennedy, the young senator from Massachusetts, is still alive.

The rules of the rabbit hole into the past are outlined in the first pages of the novel. Al Templeton, the owner of the diner, explains them to Jake Epping, an English teacher at the local high school. Walk to the back of the pantry. Mind the 60-watt bulb overhead. Expect the smell of sulfur. And keep walking until you feel your foot fall.

Suddenly you’re back on Sept. 9, 1958. It’s 11:58 a.m. There are, Al says, only two conditions. One, it’s not a one-way trip. It doesn’t have to be. But when you return, no matter how long you’ve stayed in the past — two days, five years, whatever — only two minutes have gone by in the present. Two, each time you go back to the past, there is a reset. Like a Magic Slate. It’s 11:58 a.m., and everything you did on your previous trip has been erased.

I haven’t read the novel, but Frank Rich has, and he’s written a lengthy article in New York Magazine in which he argues that Kennedy faced a barrage of right-wing hatred similar to that directed at President Obama in 2011.

At the two-year mark of February 1963, the Times Washington bureau chief James Reston lamented that the “exuberant optimism of the first few months of the Kennedy administration” had given way “to doubt and drift” in a Washington nearing “the point of paralysis.” The president, Reston wrote, was “a moderate confronted by radical facts,” among them “a whopping budget deficit and an alarming army of the unemployed.” Kennedy was in “trouble both with the conservatives who think he has gone too far and the liberals who think he has not gone far enough.”

Unlike Obama, JFK enjoyed consistently high poll numbers, still hovering near a 60 percent approval rating in November 1963. But that fall, both Newsweek and Look speculated he could lose his bid for reelection in 1964. The hatred he aroused, while from a minority of voters, was heated and ominous. On Sunday, November 24, 1963, the Times was packed with elegiac coverage of the leader who had been slain that Friday. But the No. 1 book on the nonfiction best-seller list, as it had been for weeks, was JFK: The Man & the Myth, by Victor Lasky, a newspaperman who would years later enjoy a second vogue on the right as a die-hard Nixon defender after Watergate. Lasky’s thick slash-and-burn Kennedy book, which even questioned his World War II heroism as the skipper of PT-109, was a precursor of the Swift Boat hatchet job on John Kerry.

Rich writes of Stephen King’s novel:

But another controversy from the assassination—one that has never received remotely the attention generated by the endless “grassy knoll” and “second gunmen” debates—is forcefully revived by King: the role played in Oswald’s psyche by the torrid atmosphere of political rage in Dallas, where both Lady Bird Johnson and Adlai Stevenson had been spat upon by mobs of demonstrators in notorious incidents before Kennedy’s fateful 1963 trip. As the time-traveling Epping gets settled in that past, he describes an inferno of seething citizens, anti-Semitic graffiti on Jewish storefronts, and angry billboards demanding the impeachment of Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren and equating racial integration with communism. That last one, King’s protagonist observes, “had been paid for by something called The Tea Party Society.”

That “Tea Party Society” is the novelist’s own mischievous invention, but the rest of his description is accurate. King’s touchstone is The Death of a President, by William Manchester, a meticulous biographer and historian who was chosen by Jacqueline Kennedy to write the authorized account of the assassination. Manchester received cooperation from almost every conceivable party, the Warren Commission included, but after the Kennedy camp read the manuscript and objected to the disparaging treatment of Lyndon Johnson, as well as some (G-rated) domestic details about the First Couple, Mrs. Kennedy filed a quixotic injunction to halt publication. Her brief, failed effort only enhanced the book’s blockbuster appeal; soon after its release in 1967, The Death of a President became arguably more prominent than the Bible in middle-class American households. In his afterword to 11/22/63, King says he was “deeply impressed—and moved, and shaken” when rereading it. It’s hard to disagree. But what also struck me in a rereading was Manchester’s stern rejection of one major Warren Commission finding. Though he was onboard for its conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin, he did not buy its verdict that there was “no evidence” of any connection between Oswald’s crime and Dallas’s “general atmosphere of hate.”

Manchester is uncharacteristically contentious about this point. He writes that “individual commissioners had strong reservations” about exonerating Dallas but decided to hedge rather than stir up any controversy that might detract from the report’s “widest possible acceptance.” While Manchester adds that “obviously, it is impossible to define the exact relationship between an individual and his environment,” he strongly rejected the universal description of Oswald as “a loner.” No man, he writes, is quarantined from his time and place. Dallas was toxic. The atmosphere was “something unrelated to conventional politics—a stridency, a disease of the spirit, a shrill, hysterical note suggestive of a deeply troubled society.”

The ultra-right wing hasn’t really changed all that much–but today the haters are mainstream, treated by the media as “moderates.” In JFK’s day they were in the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan; today they control the Republican Party.

Here’s an interesting piece by Edward Lane of Wichita Falls, TX: Who Really Killed President John F. Kennedy?

Although many eyewitnesses said they thought the gunfire came from a grassy knoll in front of the President’s automobile, the Warren Commission determined the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository Building behind Kennedy. The Commission also said a lone gunman fired all the shots.

The Warren Commission, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, in 1964 ordered that much of its records be sealed for 75 years until 2039.

Why all the secrecy if, in fact, the government wanted the American people to be confident that they were getting the truth?

Although many eyewitnesses said they thought the gunfire came from a grassy knoll in front of the President’s automobile, the Warren Commission determined the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository Building behind Kennedy. The Commission also said a lone gunman fired all the shots.

The Warren Commission, headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, in 1964 ordered that much of its records be sealed for 75 years until 2039.

One Wichita Falls man today speculated as to why there was need for secrecy until the year 2039.

He said he was puzzled by the need to keep the public in the dark for so long.

“Evidently they want to wait until everybody is dead before they release those records. Who are they protecting?” he asked, as he thought about one of the darkest days in American history.

Most of the sealed records belong to the CIA and will automatically become public in 2017.

And why are “long lost tapes” related to the assassination still turning up?

The tape is titled “Radio Traffic involving AF-1 in flight from Dallas, Texas to Andrews AFB on November 22, 1963.”

It consists of in-flight radio calls between the aircraft, the White House Situation Room, Andrews Air Force Base, and a plane that was carrying Kennedy press secretary Pierre Salinger and six Cabinet members from Hawaii to Tokyo when the president was assassinated.

Many Americans are unaware that there was an attempt to assassinate JFK by a New Hampshire man only a month before he was murdered in Dallas. A week later there was another foiled attempt in Chicago. Neither involved Lee Harvey Oswald.

This post is getting way too long, so I’ll end there. What’s on your reading and blogging list today?