Newsflash folks: This isn’t Market Capitalism, it’s Monopoly
Posted: October 15, 2011 Filed under: #Occupy and We are the 99 percent!, commercial banking, Economy, financial institutions | Tags: banking laws, Banksters, Bernie Madoff, Financial Panic of 1792, Glass Steagall Act, Global Financial Crisis, monetary control act of 1980, Raj Rajaratnam, The Riegle Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994, William Duer 23 Comments
I entered the world of commercial banking the same year that the Monetary Control Act of 1980 (MCA) got passed and signed by Jimmy Carter. President Jimmy Carter was responsible for the first onslaught of deregulation of all kinds of industries which is important to think about. It was a Democratic President that pulled the first card from the laws that were put into place to stop the banking crises that had plagued our country in the early years of capitalism. I should also remind you that the country was founded on a system of economics called mercantilism. Capitalism didn’t come into being until the early-to-mid-19th-century. (Note to Rick Perry: The US Revolutionary war was not in the 16th or 17th century.) We had series of financial crises in the 1840s and then in 1870s . The first one was in 1792 and a politician/financier caused it.
We didn’t call them recessions bank then. We called them Panics and they were sourced in banking and nascent financial markets. They were the result of excessive speculation and/or some Bernie-Madoff-like figure and scheme. In 1792, the panic was set off by William Duer who used his appointment to the US Treasury by Alexander Hamilton to use insider information in a similar way to Hedge Fund Manager Raj Rajaratnam who was just sentenced to 11 years in jail yesterday. This is a very old story and really dates back to the birth of capitalism as we know it.
Hamilton was pretty appalled by Duer’s speculative activities. He wrote this at the time.
“Tis time, there must be a line of separation between honest Men & knaves, between respectable Stockholders and dealers in the funds, and mere unprincipled Gamblers.”
If you start typing Financial Panic into Google, you’ll start seeing a huge number of dates pop up. From 1792 down to the present time, most of these panics have been clearly rooted in that same problem: speculative bubbles and banking malfeasance.
There’s a clear difference between the good old fashioned community banking that gave me my first job out of my masters program and what we have today. Much of it is due to that first card pulled from the bottom of the financial market card house by Jimmy Carter in 1980. You can read about the law at FRB Boston. There were a lot of responsibilities placed on the FED for oversight at the time but the banks got a lot of benefits including increased access to borrowing money from the FED. When I was working in Nebraska, a bank was allowed one branch and a main office. There were restrictions on how far away the branch could be. I worked for a small bank with a branch across the street at a big shopping center. That local law was pulled down shortly thereafter because the banks wanted to branch every where into communities they did not know. There are very few community banks left in the country where your banker knows if you’ll be good for your loan or not based on years of knowing you.
Most small and regional banks have been gobbled up by the top 4 or 5 financial institutions. The majority of financial assets sit in a handful of institutions. That’s called monopoly, folks. Monopolies require regulation, not free reign. That’s basic classical economic theory and has nothing to do with Keynes and politics. Any microeconomics
101 students should be able to explain why. They are incredibly inefficient. We say they are not Pareto Efficient, which means some very specific things. They overprice their products. They restrict access to these products. They earn profits above and beyond what they should because the revenue far exceeds the productivity of the factors used to produce the service. They create a deadweight loss which is bad for every corner of the economy except for the monopolist.
We have gone from a system where lending risk is personalized and spread around a number of institutions to a situation where it’s all concentrated and automated in the hands of a few big banks. They also can invest in a lot of specious assets. The banks continued to seek complete interstate banking and eventually got it. The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994 gave them exactly what they wanted. It also allowed bank holding companies to do things that they had previously been disallowed like hold subsidiaries that offered speculative investments. Interestingly enough, it is much easier to become a bank holding company than it is to become a bank. Many investment banks became bank holding companies to access borrowing through the Fed Window in 2008 when they had gambled away a good deal of their own capital.
This law was signed by Democratic President Bill Clinton. That’s only the commercial banking side. The so-called shadow banking industry got freed to speculate at will and be closely aligned with banks and their guaranteed deposit when the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) was signed by President William Clinton in 1999. It repealed huge sections of the Glass Steagall Act that were put into place during the Great Depression to deal with all those financial panics that finally led up to the 1929 Bank Run. If you’re unemployed and you’ve seen your housing equity and your retirement funds depleted, I’d suggest going to Phil Gramm’s house with placards and rotten eggs. He’s the one mover and shaker that brought all this on to our heads and a symbolic tar and feathering would make me feel good, frankly. (Here’s an academic site with some brief notes on a Mishkin textbook on the history of the repeal of important banking laws for your reference.)
So, it goes with out saying that the minute these things were put into play from 1980 forward, it was only a matter of time before we started to repeating panics and would eventually get another Great Depression. The panics started in the 1980s. I’d moved out of commercial banking and into the S&L business right before our first panic came. When S&L’s started giving market rates of interest on their liabilities, they had to start giving new mortgage loans out at exorbitant prices. My first one–in 1982–was for around 17%. I got the banker discount which brought it down to 12%. The problem was that all the liabilities were repricing to market and all the assets (loans) were still stuck at those 1950-1960 home loan interest rates of about 5%. My dad was barely paying 4% because the bank he used also was funding his floor plan (that’s the cars he had on his inventory sheet as a new car dealer). His floor plan interest was through the roof in those days because the usury laws had been suspended. It was in the 20% levels just like credit card debt was at the time. The commercial banks were seeing incredibly high prime rates of interest and the Savings and Loans were hemorrhaging money. This is a problem of term mismatch when you rely on arbitrage profits, but I’ll avoid the lecture on that one! The S&L crisis should’ve been the first cautionary tale from that Monetary Control Act. I have some pretty wild stories from those days including the Treasurer that I worked for using GNMA futures to day trade to try to up our cash balances. Illegal yes! That’s if you’re caught! However, we were the least of the FSLIC’s problems at the time and he got away with it!
The second cautionary tale came with a Long Term Capital Management that lost tons of money after the Russian Financial Crisis in 1998. That didn’t stop the GLBA at all however. There was an earlier canary too. That was Franklin Savings and Loan. There’s actually a more recent example of the same. That would be Granite Funds. LTCM made convergence trades that required huge sums of money and enormous leverage to be profitable. They were eventually bailed out and wound down at a huge cost. There is absolutely something wrong when we repeatedly have huge organizations collapse because of margin calls. I point back up to the quote from Alexander Hamilton who got it the first time out. We still haven’t learned the lessons from any of this because we’re ready and primed for the next financial crisis with European Sovereign Debt too. The speculators are pulling the same tricks and we’re suffering from the same results.
So, the deal is that after about 100 years of horrible problems, we put a box around the speculators called Glass Steagall. There is a new box proposed called the Volcker Rule. The banks are kicking and screaming about even the smallest regulations to stick them back into their boxes. We cannot afford to repeatedly coddle an industry that systematically creates huge social and economic costs on a regular basis when set free to do as it will. The Volcker Rule–in its current form–is pretty mild. It’s no where near what ex Fed Chairman Paul Volcker originally offered but it’s a step in the right direction. That’s why it’s first on my list of demands for OCCUPY activists.
Fitch Ratings on Friday said it sees potential for a delay in the adoption of a newly proposed rule barring banks from trading for their own profits, due to industry opposition that could lead to a political fight.
Banks’ opposition “will likely fuel a lengthy debate in Washington regarding the ultimate scope and precise implementation” of the Volcker Rule, Fitch said in a report released four days after federal banking regulators proposed the rules.
“There is a real possibility that controversy surrounding the proposal could delay the precise definition of restricted trading, particularly in a presidential election year when partisan debate over financial regulation will be intense,” Fitch said.
The rule, named after former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, was required under the financial overhaul that became law last year. The rule would bar banks from trading for their own profit instead of on their clients’ behalf. Banks must hold investments for more than 60 days, and bank managers must make sure employees comply with restrictions.
The day after banking regulators and the Federal Reserve backed the rule, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted 4-0 to send the proposal out for public comment. The public has until Jan. 13 to comment on a rule that’s expected to take effect by July after a final vote by all the regulators. Banks would have until July 2014 to comply.
The industry has said that the proposal would put them at a disadvantage to banks in other countries.
Let me reiterate something I’ve said earlier. The Scandinavian countries learned from their last disastrous banking crisis in the early 1990s and put their banks back into the box. This was roughly the same time of our own S&L crisis and came from speculative bubbles. They all come from speculative bubbles, excess risk taking, and extremely immoral behavior on the part of many bankers/brokers because the extraordinary profits that can be extracted on the ride up are incredible. The Canadians never let them out so they’ve basically been sitting pretty well during this last crisis. None of these countries had the problems that we and other countries have had since then. The Volcker Rule is the least we could do to start down the path to sanity.
I want to end this post by pointing out a new voice in the blogging community called Reformed Broker. His real name is Joshua Brown. He has written a Dear Wall Street letter that’s worth a read. He now feels like I felt after living through the S&L crisis and then watching the insanity repeat with LTCM and the others in the late 1990s. All this fol de rol tanked my 403(B) retirement account as badly as this last bit of craziness has tanked it again. Only this time I am 10 years closer to retirement. Oh, and this time they got my home equity in the process and my job. The S&L crisis got my job and killed my ability to sell my house. It also caused incredible damage to my father’s small business. He sold it at a huge loss just to get out from under the stress that was killing him. I’ve just about had it now with this nonsense, the bankers, and the politicians that enable them. As I’ve said it’s been going on for some time and they need to be put back into the box.
I’m going way beyond fair use here, Josh but I wanted your voice to be read by our readers. Please take this as a compliment and not a copy right violation!
In 2008, the American people were told that if they didn’t bail out the banks, there way of life would never be the same. In no uncertain terms, our leaders told us anything short of saving these insolvent banks would result in a depression to the American public. We had to do it!
At our darkest hour we gave these banks every single thing they asked for. We allowed investment banks to borrow money at zero percent interest rate, directly from the Fed. We gave them taxpayer cash right onto their balance sheets. We allowed them to suspend account rules and pretend that the toxic sludge they were carrying was worth 100 cents on the dollar. Anything to stave off insolvency. We left thousands of executives in place at these firms. Nobody went to jail, not a single perp walk. I can’t even think of a single example of someone being fired. People resigned with full benefits and pensions, as though it were a job well done.
The American taxpayer kicked in over a trillion dollars to help make all of this happen. But the banks didn’t hold up their end of the bargain. The banks didn’t seize this opportunity, this second chance to re-enter society as a constructive agent of commerce. Instead, they went back to business as usual. With $20 billion in bonuses paid during 2009. Another $20 billion in bonuses paid in 2010. And they did this with the profits they earned from zero percent interest rates that actually acted as a tax on the rest of the economy.
Instead of coming back and working with this economy to get back on its feet, they hired lobbyists by the dozen to fight tooth and nail against any efforts whatsoever to bring common sense regulation to the financial industry. Instead of coming back and working with the people, they hired an army of robosigners to process millions of foreclosures. In many cases, without even having the proper paperwork to evict the homeowners. Instead, the banks announced layoffs in the tens of thousands, so that executives at the top of the pile could maintain their outrageous levels of compensation.
We bailed out Wall Street to avoid Depression, but three years later, millions of Americans are in a living hell. This is why they’re enraged, this why they’re assembling, this is why they hate you. Why for the first time in 50 years, the people are coming out in the streets and they’re saying, “Enough.”
And one more time, let’s hear from Alexander Hamilton because it bears repeating!!!
“‘Tis time, there must be a line of separation between honest Men & knaves, between respectable Stockholders and dealers in the funds, and mere unprincipled Gamblers.”
I’ve added a link to Josh’s blog so you can go sample his writing any time you want. He’s also on twitter as @ReformedBroker. Okay, this is a little long, and a little like one of my lectures for financial institutions, but I thought you might appreciate how this thing came down and what needs to be done. Like I said, we need to put them back into a box. If they are to be free from the chance of bankruptcy, able to access US tax dollars at zero cost, and are still able to create Financial Panics by bad lending and investment practices we have no other chance. This will repeat ad infinitum and will cost us our personal and national treasures.
Will the Banksters Finally Pay?
Posted: September 3, 2011 Filed under: commercial banking, financial institutions, just because | Tags: Banksters, mortgage fraud, toxic mortgages 7 Comments
Federal regulators have finally decided to go after seventeen big banks for bad mortgage lending practices. In question are $200 billion in toxic mortgages sold to now bankrupt Fannie and Freddie. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is the regulator suing BOA, JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and others. You may recall I wrote on a FED investigation last month. This comes way too late to help many people who were put into loans they couldn’t possibly handle who were later evicted, but it may give these folks standing in future court suits to recoups some of their losses. Financial sector-related equities and bonds lost in what was a dismal Friday market already given the unemployment figures.
The litigation represents a more intense effort by the federal government to go after the financial services industry for its supposed mortgage failures.
Indeed, the cases were brought on the basis of 64 subpoenas issued a year ago, giving the government an edge in its investigation that private investors suing the banks lack.
The Obama administration as well as regulators like the Federal Reserve have been criticized for going too easy on the banks, which benefited from a $700 billion bailout package shortly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in the autumn 2008.
Much of that money has been repaid by the banks — but the rescue of the mortgage giants Fannie and Freddie has already cost taxpayers $153 billion, and the federal government estimates the effort could cost $363 billion through 2013.
Even though the banks already face high legal bills from actions brought by other plaintiffs, including private investors, the suits filed Friday could cost the banks far more. In the case against Bank of America, for example, the suit claims that Fannie and Freddie bought more than $57 billion worth of risky mortgage securities from the bank and two companies it also acquired, Merrill Lynch and Countrywide Financial.
In addition to suing the companies, the complaints also identified individuals at many institutions responsible for the machinery of turning subprime mortgages into securities that somehow earned a AAA grade from the rating agencies.
The filing did not cite a figure for the total losses the government wanted to recover, but in a similar case brought in July against UBS, the F.H.F.A. is trying to recover $900 million in losses on $4.5 billion in securities. A similar 20 percent claim against Bank of America could equal a $10 billion hit.
In a suit that identifies 23 securities that Bank of America sold for $6 billion, the company “caused hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in an amount to be determined at trial.”
The most interesting thing about these new lawsuits is that it is obvious that some of the most egregious practices like backdating and robosigning are still being practiced even as these banks are making tons of fees from foreclosure. It’s hard to sympathize with an industry unable to correct it’s own bad practices. This is especially true since so much tax payer money has gone to stabilize the results of these practices already. This is from the American Banker and it’s damning.
The practice continues nearly a year after the companies were caught cutting corners in the robo-signing scandal and about six months after the industry began negotiating a settlement with state attorneys general investigating loan-servicing abuses.
Several dozen documents reviewed by American Banker show that as recently as August some of the largest U.S. banks, including Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., Ally Financial Inc., and OneWest Financial Inc., were essentially backdating paperwork necessary to support their right to foreclose.
Some of documents reviewed by American Banker included signatures by current bank employees claiming to represent lenders that no longer exist.
Many banks are missing the original papers from when they securitized the mortgages, in some cases as long ago as 2005 and 2006, according to plaintiffs’ lawyers. They and some industry members say the related mortgage assignments, showing transfers from one lender to another, should have been completed and filed with document custodians at the time of transfer.
“It’s one thing to not have the documents you’re supposed to have even though you told investors and the SEC you had them,” says Lynn E. Szymoniak, a plaintiff’s lawyer in West Palm Beach, Fla. “But they’re making up new documents.”
The banks argue that creating such documents is a routine business practice that simply “memorializes” actions that should have occurred years before. Some courts have endorsed that view, but others, such as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, have found that this amounts to a lack of sufficient evidence and renders foreclosures invalid.
Yves Smith at Naked Capitalism has been following this issue closely and continues to have harsh words for banks and banker apologists.
It’s disturbing at this juncture that Felix Salmon more or less falls in with the bogus bank party line on “memorializing” (he finesses it by saying they need to do it “transparently”). I suggest he try talking to an attorney who is expert in securitizations and does not have opinion letter liability on this matter. The contracts that governed these deals were immutable and set forth in precise detail the steps various parties to the deal were required to perform. That included strict cutoff dates for getting the properly prepared notes and mortgages to the securitization trusts. Long-standing precedents for New York trusts (virtually all RMBS trusts are New York trust) call for delivery to the trust to be as perfect as possible. Since all securitization through at least the late 1990s did deliver all the notes and mortgages to the trusts as stipulated, there is no excuse for later changes in practice (as in if the parties wanted to simplify procedures for reasons of cost or convenience, they needed to change the governing agreements to reflect that).
Put it another way: what about the Statute of Frauds don’t you understand? And while some judges have sided with banks, the robosigning scandal and greater media coverage of mortgage abuses has led many jurists to be much less bank friendly than they were a mere year ago. The trend is moving decisively against, not for, the banks.
The American Banker article, disappointingly, fails to discuss what these continued abuses mean. As we have stressed in repeated past posts, the failure to get the notes to the securitization trusts by the cutoff date is not fixable by any legitimate means. Do you think banks and law firms would continue to fabricate documents, particularly in the wake of so much harsh media and Congressional scrutiny, if they had any other way out?
The failure to get the notes to the securitization trust correctly does NOT mean that no one has the right to foreclose. It does mean that the party that can foreclose is someone earlier in the securitization chain who was paid for the note but in effect, no one bothered to collect it from him. No one wants that party to foreclose because, first, it would prove that the securitization did not have the note and investors were misled, and second, there is no way to get the proceeds into the trust for the benefit of the investors.
The FHFA actions against the banks rush to originate loans to package and dump is based in lack of due diligence which is central to the role of any lending institution. I’ve written a lot about this having been straight out of grad school and part of the secondary mortgage process back in the 1980s when the S&L crisis exploded. My huge S&L was desperate to grab fee income any way it could to stay afloat. Practices this time were based on giving people bonuses just to give high numbers. That’s always a disaster policy from a quality stand point.
Buried in the filings themselves, however, is a damning portrait of the excesses of the housing bubble, when borrowers were able to obtain home loans without basic proof of income or creditworthiness, and banks appeared only too happy to mine profits taking the risky loans and assembling them into securities that could be sold to investors.
In the complaint against Goldman Sachs, for example, the suit says that “Goldman was not content to simply let poor loans pass into its securitizations.” In addition, the giant investment bank “took the fraud further, affirmatively seeking to profit from this knowledge.”
When an outside analytics firm, Clayton, identified potential problems in the underlying mortgages Goldman was turning into securities, the suit said, “Goldman simply ignored and did not disclose the red flags revealed by Clayton’s review.” Goldman Sachs declined to comment, as did JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, Credit Suisse and Citigroup.
Similar behavior in terms of warnings provided by Clayton transpired at Bank of America, Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, RBS and UBS, according to the complaints.
My hope is that this leads to some policy to compensate homeowners taken in by these schemes but I’m not holding my breath. Speculators and gamblers should not be rewarded for causing homeless and lost wealth for honest people looking to live the American Dream. My worry is that Timothy Geithner’s presence as Treasury Secretary will force policy that continues to prop up the wrong people. This entire spectacle is another example of the opposites reality we know seem to inhabit. In this version of “It’s a wonderful life”, the cautionary tale is the ending.
Monday Reads
Posted: July 18, 2011 Filed under: morning reads | Tags: Banksters, Debt Ceiling, News Corps, News of the World, right wing Republicans, Rupert Murdoch 29 Comments
Good Morning!!
There are two big news items these days. The GOP continues to be stupid when it comes to deficit talks and it is really looking like Murdoch INC is about to crash and burn. Let’s look at the deficit story first.
The right wing of the GOP continues to block any middle path budget deal. Jim Demint and Eric Cantor win the traitors of the year award.
Final revisions made Friday submerge conservative demands to reduce all federal spending to 18 percent of gross domestic product — a target that threatened to split the GOP by requiring far deeper cuts than even the party’s April budget. But Republican congressional leaders still want a 10-year, $1.8 trillion cut from nondefense appropriations and have added a balanced-budget constitutional amendment that so restricts future tax legislation that even President Ronald Reagan might have opposed it in the 1980s.
Indeed, much of the deficit-reduction legislation signed by Reagan would not qualify under the new tea-party-driven standards. And even the famed Reagan-Tip O’Neill Social Security compromise — which raised payroll taxes — passed the House in 1983 well short of the 290 votes that would be required under the constitutional amendments being promoted by the GOP.
Dubbed Cut, Cap and Balance, the House bill allows for a $2.4 trillion increase in the Treasury’s borrowing authority but effectively uses the Aug. 2 deadline as a Republican anvil on which to hammer out cuts President Barack Obama would otherwise veto.
We knew this was coming last December when they renewed the idiotic Bush tax cuts. I have no idea why they didn’t take care of this while the Democratic party was still in charge of the House.
The mess created by Rupert Murdoch’s News International looks to take the emperor of sleeze down. We’ve now had two resignations, one paper closure, an arrest and a resignation of the Head of Scotland Yard. Which will collapse first? The U.S. economy or Fox News and the Wall Street Journal?
The commissioner’s resignation came as the London political establishment was still digesting the stunning news about the arrest of Ms. Brooks — who apparently was surprised herself. A consummate networker who has always been assiduously courted by politicians and whose friends include Prime Minister David Cameron, Ms. Brooks, 43, is the 10th and by far the most powerful person to be arrested so far in the phone-hacking scandal.
Her arrest is bound to be particularly wounding to Mr. Murdoch, who, asked early last week to identify his chief priority in the affair, pointed to Ms. Brooks and said, “This one.”
Ms. Brooks has not yet been formally charged, but it is significant that she is being questioned in connection with two separate investigations. One, called Operation Weeting, is examining allegations of widespread phone hacking at the News of the World, the tabloid at the center of the scandal, where Ms. Brooks was editor from 2000 to 2003. The other is Operation Elveden, which is looking into more serious charges that News International editors paid police officers for information.
Ms. Brooks has always maintained that she was unaware of wrongdoing at The News of the World, which was summarily closed by Mr. Murdoch a week ago in an unsuccessful damage-control exercise. But the tide rose against her, and on Friday she resigned, saying in a statement that her presence was “detracting attention” from the company.
This entanglement is beginning to remind me of some Steig Larsson crime novel. All we need is a girl with a dragon tattoo. News Corps shares are falling as the scandal continues to grow. Couldn’t happen to a bigger sleezebag as far as I’m concerned.
The shares fell 7.6 percent to as low as A$13.65, their lowest since July 2009, and also a 7.4 percent discount to News Corp’s (NWSA.O) last U.S. close, implying that $3 billion of market capitalization would be wiped out when U.S. trade resumes.
“There’s a lot of sentiment and emotion driving the stock,” said Simon Burge, chief investment officer at ATI Asset Management in Sydney, which holds News Corp shares.
“From an earnings point of view, News of the World was less than 1 percent of earnings but this has catapulted to something greater and it is hard to quantify.”
It was the biggest one-day slide for the shares since November 2008.
Paul Krugman lets bankers and the people that enable their bad decision-making have it. Of course, we all know who the head-bankster enabler in chief is, don’t we?
Ever since the current economic crisis began, it has seemed that five words sum up the central principle of United States financial policy: go easy on the bankers.
This principle was on display during the final months of the Bush administration, when a huge lifeline for the banks was made available with few strings attached. It was equally on display in the early months of the Obama administration, when President Obama reneged on his campaign pledge to “change our bankruptcy laws to make it easier for families to stay in their homes.” And the principle is still operating right now, as federal officials press state attorneys general to accept a very modest settlement from banks that engaged in abusive mortgage practices.
Why the kid-gloves treatment? Money and influence no doubt play their part; Wall Street is a huge source of campaign donations, and agencies that are supposed to regulate banks often end up serving them instead. But officials have also argued at each point of the process that letting banks off the hook serves the interests of the economy as a whole.
It doesn’t. The failure to seek real mortgage relief early in the Obama administration is one reason we still have 9 percent unemployment. And right now, the arguments that officials are reportedly making for a quick, bank-friendly settlement of the mortgage-abuse scandal don’t make sense.
Yup. We still have mortgage messes, unemployment crises, and partisan wars. It’s a wonderful country these days, isn’t it? Meanwhile, neoconfederate religionist governor Rick Perry is toe tapping in the Austin area about running for president. All the Birchers are orgasmic! Just another great white hope for the country’s extremists!
Perry is a staunch advocate of states’ rights and of a limited role for the federal government, views he laid out in his 2010 book, “Fed Up!: Our Fight to Save America from Washington.”
Critics said he took the states’ rights argument too far in 2009, with remarks that implied the possibility of secession.
He was responding to questions after a tea party event in which audience members screamed “secede.” He then said that while he didn’t believe there was any reason to dissolve the union, “if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that?”
Today, he’s adamant he never meant to suggest secession as an option.
“The idea that we’re going to break off is just nonsense, and anyone who is a thoughtful American knows that,” Perry said. “This is a diversion from what’s really important.”
Perry marches in step with Iowa’s social conservatives by opposing same-sex marriage and abortion. He signed a bill this year that mandates a sonogram be taken before abortions.
He has been praised and mocked for mixing his religious beliefs with his actions as the elected head of the state.
In April, he issued a proclamation calling for a three-day period of prayer for rain. Comedian Bill Maher poked fun at the move, comparing it to ancient Mayan beliefs.
And Perry has planned on Aug. 6 a Christian prayer meeting with the American Family Association in Houston. He’s asked governors to issue proclamations urging constituents to engage in prayer and fasting “for our nation to seek God’s guidance and wisdom in addressing the challenges that face our communities, states and nation.”
So, that’s enough excitement for me for one Monday morning! What’s on your reading and blogging list today?
Tuesday Reads: Cantor’s Conflict, Libertarian Cruelty, bin Laden’s DNA, and a Cold Case Solved
Posted: July 12, 2011 Filed under: Central Intelligence Agency, children, Corporate Crime, Crime, Economy, Federal Budget and Budget deficit, Foreign Affairs, income inequality, morning reads, Pakistan, Psychopaths in charge, Republican politics, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, voodoo economics | Tags: Banksters, Bill Clinton, CATO Institute, CIA, concflict of interest, Eric Cantor, Federal debt ceiling, Health care, IL, Jack Daniel McCullough, John Boehner, Joseph Cannon, Medicaid, Michael F. Cannon, Osama bin Laden, Pakistan, Seattle, Shakil Afridid, Sycamore 36 CommentsGood Morning!! I’ll take my coffee iced today, because it’s hotter than hell here in the Boston area. And about 110 percent humidity. OK, let’s get to the news.
The Washington Post has a laudatory profile of House Majority Leader Eric Cantor and his refusal to negotiate on raising the Federal debt ceiling–without ever mentioning that Cantor stands to make lots of money if the U.S. defaults on its debts.
Last month, Cantor walked out of talks led by Vice President Biden. Cantor said the reason was Democrats’ insistence on raising taxes as part of a deal to increase the national debt ceiling.
Then, last week, Cantor urged House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) to reject a possible “grand bargain” with President Obama, which could have included tax increases. Boehner pulled Republicans out of those talks.
Now, as Cantor joins other leaders at the White House for near-daily summits in the third different grouping of negotiators, his moves have revealed him as a third major player in a legislative drama that had been dominated by Obama and Boehner. Where Boehner has sought to define what Republicans can do with their newfound power, Cantor, the House’s ambitious number-two, wants to underline what Republicans would never do.
So what is Cantor’s negotiating strategy?
On Monday, with a potential default less than a month away, Cantor was asked to identify compromises that Republicans had offered to help negotiations along.
He told reporters that the negotiation itself was a compromise.
“I don’t think the White House understands how difficult it is for fiscal conservatives to say they are going to vote for a debt-ceiling increase,” Cantor said.
Gee, it wasn’t all that hard to increase the debt ceiling again and again under Bush, now was it? But maybe in those days Cantor wasn’t betting against the U.S. in his financial investments. It’s very troubling that the Post didn’t mention Cantor’s humongous conflict of interest.
According to a new Washington Post-Pew poll, increasing numbers of Americans are “very concerned” about a U.S. default, but they are also “concerned” that raising the limit will lead to out-of-control spending.
The twin, divergent, concerns complicate the political calculus for the White House and congressional leaders as they attempt to strike an agreement. Nearly eight in 10 Americans are worried about raising the debt limit, and about three-quarters are concerned about not doing so.
Asked to choose, 42 percent see greater risk in a potential default stemming from not raising the debt limit, a seven-point increase from a Post-Pew poll six weeks ago. Slightly more, 47 percent, express deeper concern about lifting the limit, but the gap has narrowed.
Sixty-six percent of Republicans worry more about raising the debt limit than the U.S. defaulting on its debts. {sigh…}
Hipparchia has a wonderful post at Corrente that is an extended metaphor for libertarian attitudes about health care, specifically in reaction to the writings of a libertarian from the CATO Institute, Michael F. Cannon on the new Oregon health care plan. Here is the relevant quote from Cannon that set her off.
Michael F Cannon, of Cato@Liberty :
The OHIE establishes only that there are some (modest) benefits to expanding Medicaid (to poor people) (after one year). It tells us next to nothing about the costs of producing those benefits, which include not just the transfers from taxpayers but also any behavioral changes on the part of Medicaid enrollees, such as reductions in work effort or asset accumulation induced by this means-tested program. Nor does it tell us anything about the costs and benefits of alternative policies.
Reduction in work effort?? This would be really funny if Cannon weren’t so deadly serious. Providing health care to poor people means that more of them are just going to spend their days hanging out in parks, yakking on their cell phones , I guess. So, Libertarians are in favor of liberty for themselves and wage slavery for anybody else. Good to know.
Please go read the whole thing if you have time. It’s well worth the effort. We live in a world of selfish, greedy narcissistic fops. How can the country survive them?
Joseph Cannon has a short but pithy post on the media’s obsession with Casey Anthony being found not guilty. He then points out that the media has completely ignored the fact that
In 1995, when the Presidency was in the hands of the despised Bill Clinton, government regulators overseeing skullduggery on Wall Street referred 1,837 cases to the Justice Department for prosecution. That number has gone down. Between 2007 and 2010, the Justice Department has received just 72 referrals a year (on average).
Gosh. How can this be? I guess investment bankers are simply more honest than they used to be.
You won’t see this issue discussed on CNN. It’s not newsworthy.
I did not know that. Thank you Joseph Cannon. F&ck you CNN (and HLN and Nancy Grace).
Here’s an interesting story from The Guardian UK: CIA organised fake vaccination drive to get Osama bin Laden’s family DNA
As part of extensive preparations for the raid that killed Bin Laden in May, CIA agents recruited a senior Pakistani doctor to organise the vaccine drive in Abbottabad, even starting the “project” in a poorer part of town to make it look more authentic, according to Pakistani and US officials and local residents.
The doctor, Shakil Afridi, has since been arrested by the Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) for co-operating with American intelligence agents.
Relations between Washington and Islamabad, already severely strained by the Bin Laden operation, have deteriorated considerably since then. The doctor’s arrest has exacerbated these tensions. The US is understood to be concerned for the doctor’s safety, and is thought to have intervened on his behalf.
The vaccination plan was conceived after American intelligence officers tracked an al-Qaida courier, known as Abu Ahmad al-Kuwaiti, to what turned out to be Bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound last summer. The agency monitored the compound by satellite and surveillance from a local CIA safe house in Abbottabad, but wanted confirmation that Bin Laden was there before mounting a risky operation inside another country.
DNA from any of the Bin Laden children in the compound could be compared with a sample from his sister, who died in Boston in 2010, to provide evidence that the family was present.
Jeralyn at Talk Left has finally decided that Obama deserves to get a pink slip. Yes, I know, she should have known better. But please go read anyway.
I’m going to end with a story about a long ago murdered child and how the case has been solved–54 years later. Maria Ridulph disappeared in 1957 when she was 7 years old. Maria and her best friend Kathy were playing on the street one day.
Kathy Chapman, who was 8 at the time, recalled that she and Maria were under a corner streetlight when a young man she knew as “Johnny” offered them a piggyback ride. Chapman, now 61 and living in St. Charles, Ill., told the AP she ran home to get mittens and that when she returned, Maria and the man were gone.
Maria’s disappearance and death had a powerful effect on her small community.
Charles “Chuck” Ridulph always assumed the person who stole his little sister from the neighborhood corner where she played and dumped her body in a wooded stretch some 100 miles away was a trucker or passing stranger — surely not anyone from the hometown he remembers as one big, friendly playground.
And, after more than a half century passed since her death, he assumed the culprit also had died or was in prison for some other crime.
On Saturday, he said he was stunned by the news that a one-time neighbor had been charged in the kidnapping and killing that captured national attention, including that of the president and FBI chief. Prosecutors in bucolic Sycamore, a city of 15,000 that’s home to a yearly pumpkin festival, charged a former police officer Friday in the 1957 abduction of 7-year-old Maria Ridulph after an ex-girlfriend’s discovery of an unused train ticket blew a hole in his alibi.
A judge in Seattle set bail Monday at $3 million for Jack Daniel McCullough, of Seattle, a former police officer who denies he is the man Illinois police have been seeking in the 1957 slaying of a young girl….
McCullough, 71, a former police officer in Milton and Lacey, has been living in North Seattle and working as a night watchman in a senior-housing facility, Four Freedoms.
McCullough, 18 at the time of the girl’s death, had been a suspect early in the investigation. He lived about a block from where the girl disappeared and matched the description of a man seen at the site.
At the time, police did not show Maria’s best friend Kathy a picture of their suspect. But last year, they showed her a picture of the teenaged McCullough (then using the last name Tessier) and she recognized him.
That’s all I’ve got for today. What are you reading and blogging about?









Recent Comments