EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- How the US Turned Three Pacifists into Violent Terrorists
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Revealed: How US State Department 'Twists Arms' on Monsanto's Behalf
Popular content
Today's Top News
TARP on Steroids
I recall that September day like it was yesterday - the explosion so memorable. It wasn't 9/11/01, it was 9/29/08 - a moment when a rare blast of populist democracy briefly singed the economic terrorists who hold the Capitol hostage.
It had been a dark and stormy month of financial collapse, culminating in an attempted power grab. Pushed by his fellow Wall Street Ponzi schemers, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson - a former Goldman Sachs CEO - was threatening Armageddon unless Congress ratified his pamphlet-sized decree for a no-strings-attached bank bailout. The straightforward proposal, backed by President George W. Bush and President-to-be Barack Obama, would have turned Paulson into King Henry - a despot allowed to autonomously dole out $700 billion to any of his cronies.
This was too outrageous even for a rubber-stamp Congress that had long been ceding power to both the executive branch and the corporate boardroom. And so rank-and-file House Democrats and Republicans, backed by an angry public, overrode their leaders and voted down the measure.
Admittedly, the conflagration was brief. After a few days of industry lobbying, the House ultimately passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailout - but one with at least some mild restrictions. For a time, 9/29's fleeting blast of defiance appeared to establish a maximum limit to robbery and presidential authoritarianism.
For a time.
Today, the episode seems merely to have set minimum standards for chicanery. As evidenced by two little-noticed sections of the Obama administration's Wall Street "reform" bill, presidents and their bank benefactors are back to thinking they can pilfer whatever they want by burying their demands in the esoterica of lengthier bills.
Finding this latest giveaway means digging all the way down to sections 1109 and 1604 of the White House's mammoth proposal. These passages look like typical legislative asterisks.
They are anything but.
At a recent hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Sherman Oaks (Los Angeles County), called the language "TARP on steroids," noting the provisions would deliberately let the executive branch enact even bigger, more unregulated bailouts than ever - and by unilateral fiat.
Whereas the original TARP included some oversight language and power to limit Wall Street bonuses, TARP on Steroids includes no specific oversight or executive pay constraints. Whereas TARP permitted the government to underwrite both small and large banks, TARP on Steroids allows taxpayer cash to go only to the behemoths (which, not coincidentally, tend to make the biggest campaign contributions). And whereas TARP limited the Treasury Secretary's check-writing authority to two years and $700 billion, TARP on Steroids would let him spend as much as he wants.
This last point is what poker players call "the tell" - the inadvertent tip exposing a scam. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's tell came when he publicly said the Obama administration would oppose amendments limiting the new bailout power - even if the limit had a $1 trillion cap.
The former financial executives inside the Obama administration have labeled their bill the "Financial Stability Improvement Act," and some might say that's like Bush officials oxymoronically calling their own anti-environment initiatives a "Clear Skies" agenda. But that's not a totally fair comparison because there's an underlying consistency here: While these new "financial stability" powers may destabilize the nation's finances, they would more than stabilize Wall Street's larcenous profits.
That thievery, of course, always has been the problem - and now, only another 9/29 can prevent it from getting worse.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
32 Comments so far
Show AllThe Obama faithful continued to empty their piggy banks to support his campaign even after he rushed to DC to zealously support the TARP giveway. If they were in denial that Obama was a fascist at that time, they certainly in denial now.
Good to see the author addressing the sleazy strategy of creating voluminous legislation that facilitates hiding corrupt provisions. Today on NPR they said that one of the health care bills is approaching 2000 pages. Single-pater legislation would require a small fraction of that.
I voted for Obama not because I truly trusted him to be a real reformer, but because there was simply no ballot alternative. Now, I must accept the fact that he was no alternative either—just a slicker version of the destructive same.
Re Dorothy October 30th, 2009 11:20, am who complains,
"...there was simply no ballot alternative (to O'Bummer)."
Where do you vote?
On my ballot there were Greens, Socialists, Libertarians and Trotskyites, to name a few. I also had the option to write myself in, if none of the other choices appealed to me; if I had not even trusted myself, I also had the option not to vote at all---admittedly, the worst-case scenario.
Nothing compels me to vote for anyone who doesn't hold values similar to my own. If this is not the case where you live, you should seriously consider moving.
Cute, Jethro. I'm glad you enjoy such a wide ballot palette there in the land of Oz. I won't ask whether you voted for Obama, the Green, the Socialist, the Libertarian, the Trotskyite or Yourself. In any case, I don't see a viable alternative.
Dorothy,
One very insightful definition of insanity is the act of doing something that doesn't work over and over again. To translate: Voting year after year for Democrats who betray us is insane. What does make sense is to begin to build alternatives, such as "Greens, the Socialist, the Libertarian, the Trotskyite" and yes, even ourselves.
nonsurrender,
Yes, I like the idea of building "alternatives"--bring 'em on! It's just that I didn't see any viable Trotskyite's on my last ballot. And, please don't assume that I have voted for "Democrats "year after year" and am, therefore, insane. You don't know anymore about how I vote, than I do about you. What counts is that you, apparently, want change (alternative), and I want change (alternative). Maybe we will get it after the crash. Frankly, I don't see it coming before.
You are making no sense by not seeing the wisdom of voting for a quality driven progressive candidate for leadership versus a mere vote getter called "progressive". If winning is all that matters to you, sure any Democrat would do but if voting for a true progressive mattered the most, you would have realized that Obama is nowhere close to being a progressive. By arguing that there are no viable alternatives, you are allowing the two party duopoly to cheat you into voting against what your own heart and mind really want. Think about it.
I just love when someone trots out the Einstein quote about insanity, yet fails or refuses to see that it applies to voting for Nader three times as easily as it applies to voting for Democrats or Republicans three times.
Remember Ross Perot? I voted for him in the first presidential election in which I was eligible to vote. He got 18% of the popular vote, but 0, zero, zip, zilch, nada, no electoral votes.
Unless and until we change the WAY WE VOTE it won't matter which dicksucking fucktards they give us the "choice" of voting for.
elainem, it's never insane to vote your for principles and hopes, no matter how many times you do it.
voting in this kabuki theater we call democracy is all about voting against that which we fear. i refuse.
if by "the way we vote" you mean going back to lever machines, i agree. also agree on your description of our candidates in general.
Re Dorothy October 30th, 2009 12:22 pm
I wasn't trying to be cute, I was deadly serious. But I misunderstood you; you want a VIABLE alternative---not one who shares your values and aspirations, merely one whose chances of being declared The Winner appear statistcally better than zero.
That's a recipe for a lifetime of regret, as you're finding out. You have my sincerest sympathy.
Unfortunately, this mantra becomes true because it's repeated it over and over again. The more you say it, the truer it becomes - self-fulfilling prophecy. Here, I'll join you in giving it a little boost. Surely we've noticed, it makes so much sense NOT to put any pressure on the duopoly.
Hear ye, hear ye! Repeat after me:
There IS no viable alternative
There is NO viable alternative
There is no VIABLE alternative
There is no viable ALTERNATIVE!!
Make no demands!
Make no demands! Do not use your vote as pressure. Just get on board the duopoly train!
Down with spoilers! They only scare the duopoly and make them unhappy. Can't have an unhappy duopoly. We want smiles and a can do attitude.
Pass it on! everyone MUST get it!
AMEN
I have Voted GREEN up here in Canada for the last 20 some years.
They have yet to take a single seat in an election.
I do not think I have EVER wasted ny vote.
My biggest waste of a Vote was when I voted for Brain Mulroneys Conservatives way back in the 80's....and they won.
Dorothy, I think we do a disservice to ourselves when we buy into the concept of "viability." I think it's a red herring served up by the media (serving the power structure) to scare us from voting for someone who might be an agent of authentic change. When we buy into the notion that someone who represents progressive values isn't "electable" we end up supporting the lesser of two evils and allowing the mainstream parties to continue moving further to the Right.
Remember the 2004 presidential election and Howard Dean. Dean, no Left wing radical, was sliced and diced by the media for being "too angry" after he gave a passionate speech to his supporters. MY GOD - WHO DID HE THINK HE WAS, rallying his supporters?!? But the media narrative from then on was "Dean - too angry - unelectable.
Unless we find a way to break the two-party monopoly, and nominate candidates who are responsive to the people (and not corporations) ... we will continue to get exactly the kind of leaders we have been getting.
Disorder will bring opportunity, both progressive and regressive. America has been relatively fat and happy through the 80s and 90s. This has turned into the decade of annihilation on many levels, and its gonna keep showing itself in charming ways.
This time we've added the most explosive catalyst of economic destruction to the mix, and on a level so large that the rigged system is having a tough time keeping itself propped up, something few alive have seen before.
There are so many real economic landmines still waiting, a ruling class that has lost its mind (look at Hillary in Pakistan), and environmental factors piling up, plus the fact that we may have finally reached the top end of the earth's resources that we may get to witness the real implosion of America. I would say the world, but some countries are in much better shape than ours, mentally and socially if nothing else, at least for the moment. What shape that takes who knows.
Progressives should have learned that lesson after Clinton. But most didn't. And, sadly, most won't learn it this time either. In eight years, they'll just vote for the next charismatic leader to claim to be on the side of "the people."
After all, we have to nominate someone who is "electable." Never mind whether he (or she) has any morals or the courage to fight for them.
Last month, Paul Volcker finally spoke out about separating banking functions from risky investment functions. Too little, too late--they are ignoring him.
I'm sorry so many actually thought Obama would do something about this--his TARP vote was a tell for sure.
Of course, the banking function WERE already separated, under the Glass Stegal Act. Unfortunately, that was repealed by that great Liberal President, Bill Clinton.
And as far as Obama's "tells," in addition to TARP there was telecom immunity (which he vowed to vote against until he, ya know, voted for it), his stance against single payer healthcare, his promise to ratchet up the war in Afghanistan, his surrounding himself with financial advisors (Tim Geitner, Larry Summers) who fostered the economic mess we're in ... and on, and on.
If one paid attention to the actions (and not the rhetoric) any sane person would have known we elected, not an agent of chnage, but just the next standard bearer of the status quo.
God Bless America (seriously, we need it!)
Yes, I forgot to mention the FISA vote. And Geithner and Summers were the final blow to any hope whatsoever. I have a Lib Dem cousin who, in July, was still completely enamored with Obama and how young people were inspired by him.
Power breeds contempt and scorn. If there's one pattern I notice between the two parties, it's this. When the party is not in power or is about to lose it, they suddenly side with the people. When the party is in power or is about to win it, they side against the people. This applies to both Republican and Democratic parties. Unlike most third parties, there is nothing genuine about what they have to offer that favors the people. There are a few exceptions in each of the two parties because those people actually have a heart and a mind hell bent on helping people see the light of day but those exceptions get neutered. All said, I'm not surprised that TARP has gone too far though I am a bit surprised that it all happened much sooner than expected.
Jennifer,
(See my comment above)
I agree with the idea that whomever is in power is not on the side of the people. The only point I'd make is that NEITHER party EVER acts in the interest of "the people." The RHETORIC might sound that way, but their actions never are. The point is (which I think you were making) that we need to get beyond the two-party system in order to attempt to bring about any kind of change. It's why I've been supporting the Green party in every national election since 1996. Denis Kucinich (and perhaps Russ Feingold) are the only Democrats with any morals.
DS misses the bigger 'tell' - clearly, 'our' Bankster-owned government is aware that they're setting the Recovering Economy up for an even greater tumble, and they wanna make sure they got all their 'insurance' ducks lined up.
IOW, when the next load of shit hits the f@#king fan, the worst sufferers of Severe Greedism Disorder are seeing to it that they - and their zillions in stolen loot - are safe and secure... again...
(Unless those warning of Worse Things To Come are wrong, of course, in which case, forget everything that's happened and pretend the economic system that was 'on the verge of total collapse' a year ago was magically fixed by the SOBs who wrecked it in the first place...)
Too much is never enough again! Whoo hoo!!!
I think you have your finger on it. We watch, saying how stupid can they be to do these things, but they actually know it won't work.
As I've written endlessly Obama's job is to accrete even more power to the executive branch.
That's why he was CHOSEN (the "Chosen One"?).
There's no way McCain could pull off a planned trillion dollar heist as his doddering confusion reminded one too much of Bush's stupidity.
Like a casting agent flipping through a talent agency's catalog the elite spotted Obama and knew they had their man.
Suave, dapper and spineless the Senator from Lincoln Land would be the perfect leading man.
That's the story you should recite to your children when they ask you how our first African-American president came to be.
Amen! But the American people are too blind to see this. Where does one find the hope to believe in bringing about actual change? When half the country buys into the Right Wing rhetoric that Obama is a Socialist(?!?) and half the country buys into the Left wing rhetoric that Obama (and the Democrats in general) are doing what they can for the American people -- where do you turn?
The more I learn, the more disgusted and hopeless I get.
Any ideas????
It's possible that the media are depicting the right as socialist-baiters and the left as dewed-eye Obama lovers precisely because they don't want the public to unite. I'm an urban lib, and I'm always surprised by how many rural people do get it, if not even more, since they are closer to the edge of survival at times. Americans are physcially separated, glued together by Katie Couric and her trashspeak.
People know what's up, but it's gonna take ruthless elections, and in my mind, a whole lot of civil disobedience and directed boycotts, in multiple countries, to change this disasterous path. Interestingly, not all of the world is being run as an oligarchy. There are countries being decent to their people, but we're not one of them.
ALCHEMY!!
Let them EAT LEAD!!
people they aren't in denial they just don't give a fuck
what we think and will continue to do this until we stop them.
there is a dome around washington and they DO NOT hear
what we are saying to them! jethro there is at times a
thick as a brick type of mind set on display here where
people ASSUME that others vote in a certain and this
is simply not true right dorothy? its going to take
more then just elections to straighten this out. its
going to take a commitment by us tp force the doj and
whatever regime is in power to put these fucks in jail at the very least to stop this!
It is the bought and paid for media that is keeping us misinformed and divided.FOX.ABC,NBC,
CBS, A.P.,N.Y.T, and WASH.POST, control the framing and discussion. Unless there is media reform, America will
continue to stagger along as a rich, powerful country whose majority population is poor and ignorant.
Addiction to television has destroyed America.The big lies couldn*t gain popular support without television.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
If TARP on steroids isn't the permanent enfranchisement of a massive graft cycle between extortion of the taxpayers to bail out banks, bonuses for criminal bankers, and campaign finance donations from criminal bankers to crooked politicians, and if this whole thing isn't a successful version of the failed business coup of the 1930s then what else is it?