An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Imploding American Economy & John McCain’s Very Own Terrorist In Pinstripes

01aaagramm_mccain.jpg

Having been chided last week by Phil Gramm as a whiner afflicted by “a mental recession” as one of millions of Americans who are struggling to keep their heads above water while the U.S. is sucked ever deeper into the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it was grimly satisfying to see Henry Paulson standing on the steps of the Treasury Building yesterday afternoon and announcing yet another massive taxpayer bailout, this one for the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac mortgage giants.

It was a bittersweet moment to be sure, and one that John McCain and his toxic campaign co-chair and chief economic adviser no doubt fail to appreciate.

Gramm should be thrown out of the McCain campaign plane at 30,000 feet without a parachute if the presumptive Republican nominee wants to make a statement about how presidential he will be when it comes to the biggest campaign issue of all — the economy — and not merely a septuagenarian Bush knock-off.

This is because Gramm, as a U.S. senator and wheeler-dealer extraordinare, is the man most responsible for the repeal of Depression-era banking regulations that have led to today’s economic turmoil, much of it triggered by the rapacious and arguably criminal actions of Wall Street investment banks.

Sentient Americans long ago became accustomed to the gap between our leaders’ words and reality, so the McCain-Gramm tandem is par for the course, and McCain’s efforts to distance himself from the snarky Texan since his “mental recession” remarks and now the mortgage institution bailout have been laughingly feeble: Gramm, who has more than earned the nickname “Foreclosure Phil,” is suddenly called “a volunteer” who “does not speak for the candidate” but nevertheless is bound to remain an integral part of this hapless campaign through to November when the Republican hegemony sputters to a dismal end.

Paulson’s actions, necessitated by the flight of private mortgage capital, makes the feds responsible for most mortgages, as well as student loans, at a time when the Iraq war and other politics-over-policy actions, including feel-good stimulus checks, have plunged the U.S. even deeper into debt and ravaged the dollar.

Even at this stage of the game, President Bush is confronted with a crisis that he and many of his economic advisors still do not understand, cannot admit the full gravity of and are pretty much clueless when it comes to long-term solutions that do not step on the toes of the fats cats who have oiled the Republican money machine for the last 15 years. As it is, even the most sanguine economists are saying that dozens of bank failures in the coming months is not outside the realm of possibilities.

There is indeed “no rule book for an economic crisis,” as economist Douglas Elmendorf has written, and there is a long way to go before the last car careens off the cliff before the ongoing economic train wreck is over.

In fairness, the president inherited some of the time bombs that are exploding on the train tracks. But he is probably the last person on earth with a Harvard MBA to not acknowledge that the U.S. is figuratively if not literally in a recession, although he does keep saying that “Our economy obviously is going through a tough time.”

The administration’s actions to bail out the student loan industry and now the two government-chartered mortgage giants is akin to a nationalization. These actions are, of course, anathema to fiscal conservatives like Gramm who believe the less the government has to do with financial markets the better and the less Joe and Jane Sixpack have to rely on it to send their kids to college or buy a new home the better still. Ditto for health care, but that’s another story.

Gramm was the biggest of the big guns behind the 1999 repeal of the banking regulations — the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act — which was officially called The Financial Services Modernization Act. (Don’t you just love the name!)

Passage of the law was greased with an astonishing $300 million in lobbying money, and it encountered little opposition other than from those old-fashioned banks that actually insure your deposits, while receiving the enthusiastic blessing of the Bill and Hillary Clinton co-presidency.

One of many consequences of the repeal was that a year later the Swiss bank UBS gobbled up brokerage house Paine Weber. A year after that, Gramm settled in as a vice chairman of UBS’s new investment banking arm and has since energetically lobbied Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department on banking and mortgage issues.

This has included rolling back state rules that sought to stem the rise of predatory tactics used by lenders and brokers that led directly to the subprime mortgage meltdown.

McCain and Gramm go way back.

In 1992, the two worked closely as senators to defeat Hillary Clinton’s 1993 health care plan, and in 1996 McCain was national chairman of Gramm’s unsuccessful presidential run.

In 2002, as the full extent of the Enron scandal was emerging, The New York Times called Gramm “a demon for deregulation” as one of the chief engineers of the stealthy approval of a bill that exempted energy commodity trading from government regulation and public disclosure.

Meanwhile, Gramm’s wife Wendy was paid over $1 million in salary, stock options, dividends and other goodies from 1993 to 2001 as an Enron board member, but of course was deaf, dumb and blind to the energy company’s rampant cooking its books with the acquiescence of the late unlamented Arthur Andersen accounting company.

The result was economic ruin for thousands of families.

Considering the pain and suffering that Gramm’s masterwork has caused ordinary Americans, it is not hyperbolic to say that he is a terrorist, he just doesn’t wear funny looking headgear and carry a Kalashikov.

Photo by Gabriel Chmielewski/College Station Eagle via AP

  • superdestroyer
    If the Democratic party really believes that the economy is in a recession then why are they proposing higher taxes? Why are they proposing a massive expansion of entitlement spending? Why are they proposing national industrial regulations that will kill the last part of manufacturing in the U.S? Why are they promoting open borders and unlimited immigration and lowers wages and drives up taxes? Why are they proposing to discourage academic learning in the public schools and start up new social engineering programs?

    It seems like the Democrats do not really believe the economy is that bad off or their policy proposals would look very different.
  • shaun
    SuperD:

    For the umpteenth time, you are commenting on something that a post does not address. This inevitably includes your pathological fixation with immigration.

    My post is ripe for all sorts on discussion pro and con, so I will tell you once again to stick to the subject at hand or kindly bug off. Do you understand?
  • superdestroyer
    Shaun,

    I guess you do not like it when people refuse to play into the progressive nitpickers game. If the economy is in a recession, do you really think that making it much harder to get a home loan will really help? That seems to be what you are arguing. I refuse to play the game of defending the Republicans. They will totally out of power in a few months. What is important is what the Democrats will do when they gain full control of the government. That is something that you absolutely refuse to do.

    I just took your argument, that the economy is bad and then used it to nitpicket Senator Obama (something I suspect that you will never do). If you look at the Washington Post you will see an article about how illegal immigration made the home loan problem worse.

    Instead of nitpicking old problems (like mentioning Enron) trying writing about the coming problems (private investment in a time of increasing taxes, energy regulations, and the nationalization of the healthcare industry).

    Your have written many times that the Republicans did not think about long term consequences. Please demonostrate how the Democratic Party, Democrats in Congress, and Senator Obama are thinking about the long term. Nationalizing indsutrial policy and healthcare will making deregulating the banking industry look minor in comparison.

    Of course, I doubt that you really want to talk about the future. It is better repeating the same old dailykos, media matters talking points that you usually do. I guess I cannot expect nothing better from a journalist who believes that you do not need a literate public in order to sell newspapers.
  • shaun
    SuperD:

    Ahem.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    Superdestroyer--

    I'm sure you know the massive federal deficit is contributing to the weak dollar, which in turn is contributing to the high price of oil (since petroleum is denominated in dollars). What do you think should be done--since you're opposed to tax increases--to pay down the deficit? Please be specific about any budget cuts.

    Also, do you think I should vote to keep the party--the Republicans--that ran up this huge deficit in power? I ask because you seem very unhappy at the prospect of their displacement.

    Thanks for your comments, by the way!!
  • DLS
    "For the umpteenth time, you are commenting on something that a post does not address."

    (such as, no surprise: Bush)
  • superdestroyer
    GeorgeSorwell,

    Let met guess, you want me to say something like foreign aid while knowing that it is a small portion of the federal budget. According to the federal budget, the projected 2008 deficit is about $250 billion.

    things that could be cut are the farm bill, That is 60 billion a year. You could cut defense spending (at least 50 billion a year) and you could probably zero out the education budget and give it to the states. This would be the deal for doing away with NCLB. About the only thing the feds should be doing for education is collecting data and publishing data on state and local public schools. Then there is the cutting on unneeded offices within every part such as the EEO office, the SBA office, the historians office, cut the public relations budgets, and the 8A budget. Stop treating the government like a jobs program and you will save money. Also, cut Medicaid expenditures for illegal aliens and other non-qualified individuals. That probably gets the budget deficit under 100 billion.

    The Democrats refuse to try to do anything about Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and that if well over half of the budget. I do not see how raising income taxes fixes that problem. I also do not see how nationalizing is going to solve the problem.
  • GeorgeSorwell
    Superdestroyer--

    I completely agree that the farm bill is a disgrace. It's where I would also begin to look for savings.
  • The Democrats refuse to try to do anything about Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid and that if well over half of the budget. I do not see how raising income taxes fixes that problem. I also do not see how nationalizing is going to solve the problem.

    Ahh... so much wrong with this paragraph.

    Social security pays for itself. Medicare and Medicaid are still more efficient than private insurance. If you're worried about paying for government programs, it makes sense to raise more revenue by raising income taxes. If nationalizing Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac won't solve the problem, would you mind if they completely collapsed?
  • AustinRoth
    "Social security pays for itself"

    Oh Lordy, that is the funniest thing I have read in a while.
  • runasim
    AR,
    it wouldn't be funny at all if the funds collected weren't repalced by IOU's.
    It's time the IOUs were called in instead of cheating the deposiotrs.

    If that can't happen now, then let's call it what it is: cheating by the government.
    It's not a failure by Social Security, it;s a failure of honest bookkeeping. .
  • runasim
    After first sending Gramm to Belarus, McCain's surrogates are now saying he will stay on as the primary economic adviser. These earthquake size flip=flops are suspiciously ignored while a change of tie by Obama gets front page flip-flop coverage.
    No matter how you look at it, on economics. McCain will be Bush's third tone-deaf term.
  • It's not a failure by Social Security, it;s a failure of honest bookkeeping.

    Runasim totally pwns AustinRoth. Well done.
  • superdestroyer
    Runasim,

    All trust funds are nothing put collections of IOU. Even your savings accounts is nothing but an IOU between you and a bank. The trust fund gives the Social Security Administration a claim on future general revenue funds.

    What would you propose for the social security trust fund? I doubt that you would support it being invested in the private sector or even in government owned revenue generating properties.

    YOu show why it is so hard to talk about social security because most people do not know enough basic finance to even rationally discuss the issue.
  • Shaun,

    Isn't this the second time you've compared Phil Gramm to a terrorist? Is this really necessary? Can't we question people's policies and judgments without calling each other terrorists?

    I thought TMV was above this.
  • EllenH
    Austin! Wow! That is the dumbest comment I've ever read! Yes, social security not only pays for itself, but there's extra money paid in every year. S.S. taxes are taken out of your paycheck and put into the S.S. funds, which are distributed with lots of $ left over! What happens to that extra money? Is it put by so that the baby boomers, and you, will be sure to get your social security? No, the government uses that extra money and sticks a little old I.O.U. in the drawer. THIS is why S.S. might run out of money. Because the government keeps dipping their paws in the till and raking out the cash. They didn't always do that. I think it was under Reagan that this began. (Might be wrong on that, but it's a fairly new thing. That I know).
  • AustinRoth
    EllenH - want to read something really stupid? Try your post.

    A financial fund entity that uses current receipts to pay past past investors, while siphoning off the excess receipts for the controlling party's use outside the actual fund itself, is known as a Ponzi Scheme (but only if you are not the Federal Government).

    Additionally, in the case of Social Security, the excess being siphoned off, even were it left in place, does not and cannot meet the future needs of the fund, even with the Pollyanish financial projections used by the Social Security Administration and Congress.

    And it was in 1968 this siphoning to the general budget began under the Johnson Administration (you really shouldn't be listening to Paul Krugman - he is the one that like to perpetuate the myth this started with Reagan).

    Social Security is not solvent, in the traditional, financial sense of the word, or any real-world definition you wish to use. Only government-style accounting, aka lying, makes it even look remotely so.

    It is a pig with lipstick. A dead pig with lipstick.

    Oh, and finally, in the future please know what you are talking about when you choose to insult and denigrate me.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC