"The Inconvenient Truth About Jack Lew"

37 posts / 0 new

After Jack Lew was named as the replacement for the departing Treasury secretary, I heard someone say the Sen Bernie Sanders was opposed to the nomination. I have not had much time to look deep into this, but did turn up this article by Robert Scheer that spells out some of the reasons Sen Sanders does not like Jack Lew. Some very good reasons. Scheer writes:

When asked by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., at a Senate confirmation hearing in 2010, when Lew was nominated to be head of the Office of Management and Budget, whether the deregulation pushed by Rubin and former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan had "contributed significantly" to the banking crisis, Lew responded:

"Senator, I don't consider myself an expert in some of these aspects of the financial industry. My experience in the financial industry has been as a manager, not an investment adviser. My sense, as someone who has generally been familiar with these trends, is that the problems in the financial industry preceded deregulation. There was an increasing emphasis on highly abstract leveraged derivative products that got us to the point, that, in the period of time leading up to the financial crisis, risks were taken, they weren't fully embraced, they weren't well understood. I don't personally know the extent to which deregulation drove it, but I don't think deregulation was the proximate cause."

Really? That is a statement of such deliberate ignorance that one must marvel at Lew's audacity in uttering it. He was one of the top economic officials in the Clinton administration when the president signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into law that declared all of those "derivative products" exempt from the reach of any existing government regulation or regulatory agency. It was aimed at silencing the warning of Brooksley Born, who, as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, attempted to control the burgeoning market in the toxic assets that have carried such a huge human price in foreclosed homes and lost jobs.

The Inconvenient Truth About Jack Lew

***

One report hinted that Sanders might try to block the nomination. As they say, stay tuned.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

Comments

For more on Brooksley Born and her fight to regulate the derivatives market, watch the PBS Frontline episode titled "The Warning".

from the PBS page intro:

"We didn't truly know the dangers of the market, because it was a dark market," says Brooksley Born, the head of an obscure federal regulatory agency -- the Commodity Futures Trading Commission [CFTC] -- who not only warned of the potential for economic meltdown in the late 1990s, but also tried to convince the country's key economic powerbrokers to take actions that could have helped avert the crisis. "They were totally opposed to it," Born says. "That puzzled me. What was it that was in this market that had to be hidden?"

Watch The Full Program Online | The Warning | FRONTLINE | PBS

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

Well Clinton was adopting republican policies everywhere, this was just one of them. Obama has been doing the same thing. Republicans knew the success Clinton had outflanking them with their own positions which deprived them of their opposition. They believed in the policies Clinton did because they were their own.

Obama did the same thing and republicans remembered how that hurt them though it was good for the country at the time. Republicans know to reject what is good for the country now because what matters is what is good for them. Their own policies don't matter unless they pass them. They win when the country suffers. Obama has passed republican legislation that will not come back to bite the country a decade out. Iraq has no troops. Afghanistan is now to be thinned this spring with a possible complete removal of troops like Iraq. McCain and Lyndsey are against any withdrawal from anywhere at anytime. McCain still wanted Vietnam to continue like Korea.

Republican policies have a real long blowback. W started two wars of choice and ended neither. He passed Medicare D with no negotiations for drug prices. He passed two tax cuts that were not needed and linger on for ever. Clinton signed the Gram [TX], Leech, Bliley that will be causing blowback for decades if allowed to continue.Clinton passed Nafta [republican plan] and that blowback was all the last decade and will continue for decades.

The Obama policies he passed that were republican were only healthcare. The carbon tax was republican until Obama was for it.

2011 saw the expiration of the humn trafficking law because republicans were cutting. 100,000 American children are victims of forced slavery and prostitution. That is really disgusting but typical republican.

Obama is a republican like Clinton and W, but with less long term damage than either of those two, and King Ronnie's blowback is now 30 years and climbing.

FDR is still the greatest for me. The talk of Reagan on Rushmore is nonsense without FDR. Eisenhower avoided Vietnam and Suez and left an intrastructure that was the envy of the world, before it was allowed to deteriate to a danger zone now.

Lew worked on the '83 SS fix, too. He allowed the fica to rise a percent and a half that is regressive. But he raised the taxable fica to a point where 90% of all income was fica taxed. Republicans hate Lew, because he does know budget numbers and costs. The crap FL sen scott is claiming as medicaid cost is bs.

Which republican do you want Obama to emulate? Reagan was Coolidge, W was Hoover. Johnson was FDRll. Nixon was TR a bit because he did create the EPA. He also instigated revenue sharing that Reagan scoffed at. Reagan was also a little Franco. Franco's fascism lasted over 30 years. Reagan's corporatization has lasted over 30 years.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

One thing Lew may've been refering to was the securtization of mortgages that began under Reagan after he signed This and followed the next year as he promised with the next requirement that overode all of the states' own constitutions prohibiting securtization of mortgages.

DIDMCA or HR 4986 actually started it under Carter. But most of those moves didn't over rule state constitutions on mortgages, but did allow mergers. Carter was a neoliberal, too.

Bankers always do well after they have no regulations and are bigger. They lost under the regs in place before DIDMCA. GI bill home mortgages 30 year fixed at 6% cost the banks big time when inflation was 19%. Carter gave them freedom with MCA, I wonder why they didn't pay him back?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

What deregulation has occurred? The only major deregulation that occurred was of trucking and airlines under Carter. And that was a good thing. There has been no deregulation of the banking industry. Repeal of Glass-Steagal did not cause the most recent crisis.

LysanderSpooner's picture
LysanderSpooner
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Like hell it didn't.

Far more analysts and others familiar with the events leading up to the market crash of 2008 feel that the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act ( also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) was one of the major contributing factors than don't. It removed the firewall that separated the consumer banking market from the unchecked risks assumed by the banksters in the highly leveraged and speculative derivatives market. The ripple effects of losing this firewall caused the credit market for consumers and small businesses to seize up (we later found out another cause of this was financial institutions manipulating the LIBOR).

Things have loosened up somewhat, but have not gotten back to where they were before 2008. Small businesses that are healthy still have trouble getting credit, as are many consumers with clean credit records.

Another piece of the puzzle (ie share of the blame) is the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.

The revolving door between the government and the industries that it regulates and the lobbyists paid to deliver bribes to the politicians who write the laws must be closed and locked. ENRON and similar failures since then are a good example of why this revolving door must be stopped.

All previous attempts at slowing or stopping this cycle have been ineffective at best. Saying "both parties do it" is no excuse for allowing it to continue. Shutting down the revolving door needs to be a bipartisan effort.

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

Relevant to this discussion is Thomas Frank's February, 2012, monthly Easy Chair offering, Team America, found in Harper's Magazine. Sorry, if you don't have a subscription, and copyright rules don't allow me to post the entire article, but here are the first few paragraphs from the magazine's website. Also, a tidbit from the midsection of the piece itself:

Quote Thomas Frank:

Mitchell's juxtaposition of "friends," "rivals," and "bipartisan" helps us understand the high-octane appeal of this plodding idea. To a modern-day Washington grandee, what assembling a team of rivals means is that glorious thing: an election with virtually no consequences. No one is sentenced to political exile because he or she was on the wrong side; the presidency changes hands, but all the players still get a seat at the table.

The only ones left out of this warm, bipartisan circle of friendship are the voters, who wake up one fine day to discover that what they thought they'd rejected wasn't rejected in the least. And all in the name of Abraham Lincoln. Thanks for that, Abe.

Zenzoe
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote LysanderSpooner:

What deregulation has occurred? The only major deregulation that occurred was of trucking and airlines under Carter. And that was a good thing. There has been no deregulation of the banking industry. Repeal of Glass-Steagal did not cause the most recent crisis.

I thought that remark looked familiar ... I was right!

As they say in the movie-biz, "Deja-Vue all over again":

http://www.thomhartmann.com/forum/2011/12/%E2%80%98repeal%E2%80%99-glass-steagall-irrelevant-financial-crisis#comments

***

Let's get those banksters regulated w/ Glass-Steagall ASAP!

***

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

It is important that everyone know about the new HR129 bill introduced by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) on the first day of the 113th Congress, so that you can call your US Congress Rep to have them sign onto the bill as cosponsers, and to call your US Senators to tell them that they need to lead the fight to get a sister bill to HR129 created and passed in the Senate.

The latest title of the bill is: To repeal certain provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and revive the separation between commercial banking and the securities business, in the manner provided in the Banking Act of 1933, the so-called "Glass-Steagall Act", and for other purposes.

There is no need for another round of BS with the financial cliff, and the reality of an impending implosion of the world's financial system, due to the current "cure" the Fed is implementing of $120/mo QE to infinity...

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm

Thanks, Karolina.

I was having trouble remembering the new HR number of the bill that Rep Marcy Kaptur submitted in the 113th congress to replace the lapsed bill from the 112th.

Here are links to help us track the bill:

H.R. 129 - GovTrack.us

H.R. 129 - OpenCongress.org

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

I think this is a big "so what?"

First, it isn't the job of the OMB to design banking systems. It's to help prepare the President's budget. Neither Clinton nor Obama bailed out the banks. Second, Lew is being hired to do a job. Fighting the Republicans on budget matters. Just as he was hired by the hedge fund to operate it successfully. Third, as a subordinate of Obama, he will be hired to promote the President's policies. Third, there is nothing dishonorable about being the successful COO of a successful hedge fund. I tried to hedge my investments when the crash came. I didn't do anything wrong. The job of a COO is to report to the CEO and to run the day-to-day operations of the company. There is no evidence that Alternative Investments lobbied the Government for TARP Funds. Should hedge funds be outlawed? Should investment banks be outlawed? As much as I love Bernie Sanders, I think he may be jumping onto the "hate everything the President does" bandwagon.

As David Corn tells us,

But Lew's time with Citigroup should be pared against his efforts to preserve programs for low-income Americans during last year's budget and debt-ceiling negotiations. Lew also boasts a record of policy achievements geared towards protecting the most vulnerable, like helping create the Low-Income Heating Assistance Program. And his time on the board of theCenter on Budget and Policy Priorities, one of Washington's premier think tanks on low-income and poverty issues, suggests that his heart isn't with Wall Street, as Mother JonesDC bureau chief David Corn reminds us.(sic)

I think there's a lot of knee-jerking going on. Find a few key words (Budget, investment bank, bonus, TARP) and voila! The guy is single-handedly responsible for the Wall Street crash. Rather than expand on the barely-understood rhetoric of hatred and guilt-by-implied-association, it would be better to tell us exactly what he did wrong.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

de regulation? what deregulation? lysander spooner is spam or troll.

Now, this bill also represents the first step in our administration's comprehensive program of financial deregulation. I particularly want to commend the leadership of the chairman, Senator Garn, and Chairman St Germain, along with Secretary Regan and his fine team at Treasury. They did a remarkable job forging a consensus within the Congress and among affected industries in favor of the bill's deregulatory provisions. I'd like to also thank Congressmen Stanton, Wylie, and LaFalce for their assistance.

What this legislation does is expand the powers of thrift institutions by permitting the industry to make commercial loans and increase their consumer lending. It reduces their exposure to changes in the housing market and in interest rate levels. This in turn will make the thrift industry a stronger, more effective force in financing housing for millions of Americans in the years to come.

Unfortunately, this legislation does not deal with the important question of delivery of other financial services, including securities activities by banks and other depository institutions. But I'm advised that many in the Congress want to put this question at the top of the banking deregulatory agenda next year, and I would strongly endorse such an initiative and hope that at the same time, the Congress will consider other proposals for more comprehensive deregulation which the administration advanced during the 97th Congress.

Thank you all again. I'm very pleased to sign this Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982.

Note: The President spoke at 11:03 a.m. at the signing ceremony in the Rose Garden at the White House.

As enacted, H.R. 6267 is Public Law 97 - 320, approved October 15.

Just because reagan called it deregulation doesn't mean it was to spam launched by right wing nuts.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

From Democracy Now

"We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Professor Black, let’s start with you. Your assessment of Jack Lew?

WILLIAM BLACK: Well, on financial matters, Jack Lew has been a failure of pretty epic proportions, and he gets promoted precisely because he is willing to be a failure and is so useful to Wall Street interests. So, you’ve mentioned two of the things in terms of the most important and most destructive deregulation under President Clinton by statute. But he was also there for much of the deregulation by rule, and a strong proponent of it, and he was there for much of the cutting of staff. For example, the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, lost three-quarters of its staff, and that huge loss began under Clinton. And the whole reinventing government, Lew was a strong supporter of that. And, for example, we were taught—instructed by Washington that we were to refer to banks as our "clients" in our role as regulators and to think of them as clients.

He goes from there to Wall Street, where he was a complete failure. You noted that part of what Citicorp did was bet that housing would fall. That was actually one of their winning bets. But they actually made a bunch of losing bets, as well. And the unit that he was heading would have not been permissible but for the deregulation of getting rid of Glass-Steagall under President Clinton. And you saw, as an example of Citicorp, why we shouldn’t be doing this. Why would we create a federal subsidy where all of us, through the U.S. government, are on the hook for Citicorp’s gambling on financial derivatives for its own account, you know, running a casino operation? That makes absolutely no public policy sense.

Then he comes into the Obama administration, and he was disastrously wrong. He tried very hard to impose austerity on the United States back in 2011, which is—he wanted, you know, the European strategy, which has pushed the eurozone back into recession, and Spain, Greece and Italy into Great Depression levels of unemployment.

And this is the guy, after all of these failures, who also is intellectually dishonest. He will not own up to his role and deregulation’s role and de-supervision’s role in producing this crisis—and not just this crisis, but the Enron-era crisis and the savings-and-loan debacle.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: Well, Matt Taibbi, your reaction to the nomination of Jack Lew by President Obama?

MATT TAIBBI: I think there’s a couple things. I agree with everything that Professor Black said. I think it’s—the symbolism of this choice is, I think, very important for people, just the mere fact of picking somebody from Citigroup and from that same Bob Rubin nexus that Timothy Geithner came from. And, you know, you heard Barack Obama, as he’s introducing Jack Lew, praising Tim Geithner as somebody who’s going to go down in history as one of the great treasury secretaries of all time. I think what this tells everybody is that Jack Lew is going to represent absolute continuity with the previous treasury secretary, who had a very specific agenda when it came to Wall Street. And I think we’re just going to expect more of the same, more of the same really being overt and covert support of these too-big-to-fail institutions that Lew worked for, Citigroup being the worst and most disastrous example of that kind of company. So I think it’s—the choice of somebody from that particular firm is fraught with pretty upsetting symbolism for the country, I think."

More bailouts and monopolistic level profits for the banksters and Austerity for Main Street, democray and We the People.

I guess that makes him the perfect democrat.

Scappoose's picture
Scappoose
Joined:
Mar. 30, 2012 7:49 am

More from Bill Black on Jack Lee that DIRECTLY counters Art's arguments.

"So—and he has the history, in one sense, correct. He says the problem arose before deregulation. That’s true that derivatives were already a problem before deregulation. And so, Brooksley Born proposes to deal with the problem by having a regulation to deal with credit default swaps. And then the Clinton administration, in league with Greenspan, in league with Phil Gramm, and with one of the important architects of all of this being Jack Lew, squashes Brooksley Born to destroy the proposed regulation and to pass something, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act—talk about a dishonest phrase—that not only said, "You, Brooksley Born, cannot go forward with this particular regulation," the statute actually said, "We hereby withdraw all regulatory powers to protect the nation, period. From the federal government, from the state and local governments, we exempt you from the gambling laws. We exempt you from the boiler room laws to prevent fraudulent operations." It’s one of the most extraordinary abusive things in the world, heavily involved with AIG’s ability to produce not just the disaster at AIG, but the disaster of credit—of the CDOs that blew up a larger portion of the world. And those CDOs would not have been possible without these credit default swaps.

So, this is a guy who designed the disaster, participated in the disaster on Wall Street, was made rich by it. We haven’t talked about the fact that he got a huge bonus for destroying—helping to destroy the world at Citicorp. And he got it through the bailout of Citicorp by the U.S. government. So he produces disaster, profits from the disaster, we pay him bonuses for causing the disaster, and then we have the absurdity of the president of the United States saying that this is a man with a track record of unmitigated success. It is exactly the opposite, in terms of finance. He is a worthy successor to Tim Geithner, in that he has screwed up everything substantively he has ever touched."

Good luck with that Economy thingy.

Scappoose's picture
Scappoose
Joined:
Mar. 30, 2012 7:49 am

Gee. I wish you could tell us exactly what Jacob Lew did that was wrong. these guys talk about everybody but Jack Lew - excepth that he was "there". Where? In the OMB? The OMB doesn't design regulatory policy. Nor does it design banking systems. What did Jack Lew do that was wrong? Do you have any ideas of your own? Or are you going to continue trying to impress us with all the undocumented opinions of other people?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

1/11/13 -

John Nichols writes:

Bernie Sanders campaigned, hard, for Barack Obama’s re-election.

But the independent senator from Vermont is not going to rubberstamp the president’s selection of Jack Lew, a supporter of banking deregulation who has passed back and forth through the revolving door from Wall Street to Washington, as the nation’s seventy-sixth secretary of the Treasury.

...

Part of the remarks from Senator Sanders:

“As a supporter of the president, I remain extremely concerned that virtually all of his key economic advisers have come from Wall Street. In my view, we need a treasury secretary who is prepared to stand up to corporate America and their powerful lobbyists and fight for policies that protect the working families in our country. I do not believe Mr. Lew is that person.

...

Why Bernie Sanders Objects to Obama's Treasury Nominee

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm
I do not believe Mr. Lew is that person.
I guess we are just going to have to wait and see. Personally, I'm hopeful, and not willing to pre-judge. As for the "revolving door" thing, that should be fixed. Jacob Lew didn't design that either. If I were offered that high-paid job at Alternative Investments and I thought I would be good at it, I don't think I would have turned it down, either.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:Personally, I'm hopeful, and not willing to pre-judge. As for the "revolving door" thing, that should be fixed. Jacob Lew didn't design that either. If I were offered that high-paid job at Alternative Investments and I thought I would be good at it, I don't think I would have turned it down, either.
I think that a high-paid job at Alternative Investments is like any other job — needs to be decided by honest, sincere self-questioning.

First question: Does this job HURT ANY INNOCENT BEING IN ANY WAY?

Second question: Will I do this job in a way that will HURT ANY INNOCENT BEING IN ANY WAY?

If the answer is "YES!" to either question — it is the candidate's responsibility to turn it down.

Unless, of course, he/she/it belongs to the selfish/greed-ridden/evil, oligarchy-supporting, competition-hungry clan of Earth and human being destroyers. They accept that job with pride and celebration.

Right now, it is everyone else's responsibility to get members of that nasty clan out of government, and keep them out...

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Art:

If I were offered that high-paid job at Alternative Investments and I thought I would be good at it, I don't think I would have turned it down, either.

Obviously... based on your particular brand of moral flexibility/relativity and ability to rationalize that which is morally obscene...

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
that which is morally obscene...
What's morally obscene about a hedge fund? Any investment fund fills a positive social need by managing peoples' investments. You don't know what you're talking about.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

From above:

"He was one of the top economic officials in the Clinton administration when the president signed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act into law that declared all of those "derivative products" exempt from the reach of any existing government regulation or regulatory agency. It was aimed at silencing the warning of Brooksley Born, who, as head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, attempted to control the burgeoning market in the toxic assets that have carried such a huge human price in foreclosed homes and lost jobs."

Probably replacing Geithner with his twin twit won't accomplish much.

'Had it not been for Geithner and his sidekicks we would have been permanently rid of an incredibly bloated financial sector that haunts the economy like a horrible albatross. Along with the salvation of the Wall Street banks, Geithner also managed to restore their agenda of deficit reduction.'

"Even though the economy is still down more than 9 million jobs from its full employment level, none of the important people in Washington are talking about measures that would hasten job creation. Instead the focus is exclusively on deficit reduction, a process that is already slowing growth and putting even more people out of work. While lives that are being ruined today by the weak economy, Geithner helped create a policy agenda where the focus of debate is the budget projections for 2022." - Dean Baker is the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).


http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/14/exit-geithner/

The "real" Obama has revealed himself...again.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease:

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
"He was one of the top economic officials in the Clinton administration when the president signed the Commodity Futures
The problem is that he wasn't a top economic official unless you consider preparing the President's budget to being a "top economic official." This source tells us who comprised Clinton's Council of Economic Adivisors. These would be those actually responsible for bank regulation policy. Lew's name does not appear among them.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Art, read or find a link to any Greg Palast account of our hedge fund managers and their conduct and you will be a lot slower to rush to their defense, I hope. Is there a legitimate place for some hedging? Yes. But, to the extent that it is integral to the financialist rather than the investor form of capitalism, it serves nothing but evil. It is what allows the Big Fish to eat the little ones because hedging is not something we all get to do.

I will agree with Poly's assessment of, for example, Bain Capital's business plan, not just its conduct. The Debt Vultures should be staked out in the desert for the real ones.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 12:15 pm
because hedging is not something we all get to do.
Nonsense. We all have the ability to put our investments in the hands investment managers who do get to hedge. We all have the ability to to just sell our stocks. Hedging, or in other words, selling short, is a necessary part of the investment world, unless you really like bubbles. You might have noticed that people really get hurt when bubbles pop. Overheated markets result in Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance", and shorting is a necessary function in bringing the markets back down to earth. That is, bringing an asset closest to it's true legitimate book value. Corrections are a normal and necessary part of the markets. Somebody is going to lose in a correction. There is nothing evil about giving the investor an opportunity to "hedge his bets".

Greg Palast has his own slant, but he is hardly a scholar of investment philosophy. Better to read people who are professionals in the business.

Imagine a market without shorting, and you'll know why short-selling is such a crucial practice. First, there would be no effective mechanism for throwing out the market's trash. I'm talking about stocks like Westwood One (Nasdaq:WWON ) , which is still losing money despite an advertising recovery and trades for more than 20 times its book value. What if we were forced to either buy or ignore these stocks? The resulting artificial stimulus -- in this case, a lack of sellers -- would cause the shares to rise for no good reason.

It's a natural, human impulse to just want to see stocks go up forever and ever because we associate high market returns with good times. Most laymen would find that a very attractive scenario, and Greg Palast is no different. It is, at best, a Pollyanish point of view. And so, we see movements to outlaw or heavily penalize short-selling. Most people don't know what they're talking about. It only courts disaster.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Short selling might be fine as a Hedge - but to create the bubble conditions and THEN short sell the market isn't fine -

Its market manipulation - which used to be against the law -

Luckily for Wall Street both parties are on the take - and are esentially CAPTURED.

Hence the return of Jacob Lew - clinton era dereg partner - Derivitives pusher and John Paulsons Housing Short partner at Citibank - Austerity pusher as oama OMB - grand bargain pusher as chief of staff -

And most likely Austerity Implementor as Treasury Sec - protecting the biggest crimnal organizations on the planet - the Central Banks and their individual owners such as JP Morgan and Citi.

Scappoose's picture
Scappoose
Joined:
Mar. 30, 2012 7:49 am

Really? Did he do any of these things? Can you show any of this? Of course you can't. You are just guessing and making stuff up.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Scappoose:

Short selling might be fine as a Hedge - but to create the bubble conditions and THEN short sell the market isn't fine -

Its market manipulation - which used to be against the law -

Luckily for Wall Street both parties are on the take - and are esentially CAPTURED.

Hence the return of Jacob Lew - clinton era dereg partner - Derivitives pusher and John Paulsons Housing Short partner at Citibank - Austerity pusher as oama OMB - grand bargain pusher as chief of staff -

And most likely Austerity Implementor as Treasury Sec - protecting the biggest crimnal organizations on the planet - the Central Banks and their individual owners such as JP Morgan and Citi.

Apparently such behaviors are only considered a negative when they take place during a GOP adminstration. Under a Democratic adminstration.... everything is just fine, nothing to see here....

My sense is that the Democratic party and their loyalist base have done more to weaken the progressive movement than anything done by conservatives since the Powell memo...

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I offered up Matt Taibbi and Bill Black as my proof.

Bll Black is an expert and a prosecutor in the field who prosecuted many of the Savings and Loan criminals.

Lets just admit the truth - if democratic apologists don't want to admit to facts and deny any sort proof offered up by experts such as Bull Black they will stay willfully uninformed and factually incorrect.

As I've said before if people don't want to know the truth they simply won't admit it - no matter if its obvious or not -

Democrats doing their part to uphold the Scam of the Duopoly - and proving Glen Ford correct is his More Effective Evil banner for the democratic party.

Theres NO holding Obamas feet to the fire - only Protecting Obama for any and all crimes.

And we can't even get democrats to admit that Obama DIDN'T Go Left as the dem apologists said he would do - instead Obama has veered rightward as us lefties said he was to going to do -

Sometimes I feel dem apologists are the lefts version of the rightwing christian repub - enagaing in massive cognitive dissonance with nary a hint of irony appearing to them.

Scappoose's picture
Scappoose
Joined:
Mar. 30, 2012 7:49 am
Quote Scappoose:Sometimes I feel dem apologists are the lefts version of the rightwing christian repub - enagaing in massive cognitive dissonance with nary a hint of irony appearing to them.

This point has been brought up several times in the past few months... and simply can't be overstated....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think this article about Lew is worth reading.

So is deregulation pushed by Rubin and Greenspan a large contributory factor to the financial crisis of late last decade? Of course. Jack Lew never said that it wasn't. But that wasn't by any means, as Lew put it, the "proximate cause." In light of the facts, Jack Lew is right. What caused the financial industry meltdown was in fact "an increasing emphasis on abstract leveraged derivative products" - and the creation and exploded, unsupervised use of these products were allowed by deregulation, yes, but that deregulatory process (along with lax oversight) did not begin with Clinton; it began with Carter.

It should be noted that there is in fact no record of Jack Lew publicly supporting deregulation - not even as part of the Clinton administration. It's important to note that during Bill Clinton, Jack Lew was head of the Office of Management and Budget - his job was to balance the budget, and had nothing to do with monetary policy.

Well, there's much, much more in the article, all of which I've contended myself. You can read it or not. If you want a balanced view you will read it. If you don't, then I can't help you.

(From the comments at the bottom of the article, it appears that Robert Scheer may be as much of an issue as Jack Lew).

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Does it really matter with which presidential White House the long-term deregulation began its quiet shenaniganing? What is needed NOW is a presidential White House that embraces the idea of bringing back all of the regulations that kept the US safe, until the deregulations were fianlly all kicked in. I doubt that Jack Lew and Obama plan on even allowing back the Glass-Steagall Act, without which there will be no improvement in our economy and jobs.

Enforced austerity on this continent would be just as tragic as it is in Europe.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Does it really matter with which presidential White House the long-term deregulation began its quiet shenaniganing?
Well, yes it does so long as Lew's opinion of deregulation is taken out of context to help show that he long pushed for deregulation.

The Liberal elite (I guess that's what they're being called) are telling lies about Jack Lew. I'm not OK with that.

What would it take to bring back Gass-Steagal? Do you know. I don't know. I'm pretty sure it can't be done by Executive Order. The one to watch is Elizabeth Warren. The President is not able to introduce bills. He needs a Senator or a Congressman to do it for him. Elizabeth Warren is the one.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Karolina in #9:It is important that everyone know about the new HR129 bill introduced by Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) on the first day of the 113th Congress, so that you can call your US Congress Rep to have them sign onto the bill as cosponsers, and to call your US Senators to tell them that they need to lead the fight to get a sister bill to HR129 created and passed in the Senate.

The latest title of the bill is: To repeal certain provisions of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and revive the separation between commercial banking and the securities business, in the manner provided in the Banking Act of 1933, the so-called "Glass-Steagall Act", and for other purposes.

There is no need for another round of BS with the financial cliff, and the reality of an impending implosion of the world's financial system, due to the current "cure" the Fed is implementing of $120/mo QE to infinity...

It takes grass-roots action by a virtual ocean of people. I know it's a double metaphor.

I am concerned that the President might veto the bill, when it finally passes through Congress. The corporations and the Big Banks hate Glass-Steagall. Jack Lew IS corporations and Big Banks.

Karolina's picture
Karolina
Joined:
Nov. 3, 2011 7:45 pm
Quote Art:

What would it take to bring back Gass-Steagal? Do you know. I don't know. I'm pretty sure it can't be done by Executive Order. The one to watch is Elizabeth Warren. The President is not able to introduce bills. He needs a Senator or a Congressman to do it for him. Elizabeth Warren is the one.

the bill submitted in the 113th congress by Rep Marcy Kaptur to re-instate Glass-Steagall is HR129.

more on this bill in the post below (it was written in January 2012, and the original bill, HR1489, failed to pass, and has been resubmitted as HR129):

Let's get those banksters regulated w/ Glass-Steagall ASAP!

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

1/24/13 -

Treasury nominee Lew’s history with Citigroup raises questions

1/25/13 -

Five questions the Senate should ask Jack Lew about Citigroup

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

1/10/13 -

from Sen Bernie Sanders:

As a supporter of the president, I remain extremely concerned that virtually all of his key economic advisers have come from Wall Street. In my view, we need a treasury secretary who is prepared to stand up to corporate America and their powerful lobbyists and fight for policies that protect the working families in our country. I do not believe Mr. Lew is that person.

We don’t need a treasury secretary who thinks that Wall Street deregulation was not responsible for the financial crisis. We need a treasury secretary who will work hard to break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions so that Wall Street cannot cause another massive financial crisis.

Bernie Sanders Slams Jack Lew, Obama's Would-Be Treasury Secretary

1/11/13 -

from Democracy Now:

Former bank regulator William Black and Rolling Stone’s Matt Taibbi join us to dissect the career of Jack Lew, President Obama’s pick to replace Treasury Secretary Timothy Geither. Currently Obama’s chief of staff, Lew was an executive at Citigroup from 2006 to 2008 at the time of the financial crisis. He backed financial deregulation efforts while he headed the Office of Management and Budget under President Bill Clinton. During that time, Clinton enacted two key laws to deregulate Wall Street: the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. Black, a white-collar criminologist and former senior financial regulator, is the author of "The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One." A contributing editor for Rolling Stone magazine, Taibbi is the author of "Griftopia: A Story of Bankers, Politicians, and the Most Audacious Power Grab in American History." [includes rush transcript]

"Failure of Epic Proportions": Treasury Nominee Jack Lew’s Pro-Bank, Austerity, Deregulation Legacy

2/27/13 -

"We need a secretary of the Treasury who does not come from Wall Street but is prepared to stand up to the enormous power of Wall Street," Sanders said in a statement. "We need a Treasury secretary who will end the current Wall Street business model of operating the largest gambling casino the world has ever seen and demand that Wall Street start investing in the job-creating productive economy."

Obama's Treasury pick Jack Lew confirmed by Senate

***

In a statement on the Senate floor Wednesday explaining why he would vote against confirming Treasury Secretary nominee Jack Lew, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) accused Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase and Goldman Sachs of avoiding U.S. taxes. Lew, who worked at Citi when the bank received a bailout, was confirmed by a Senate panel Tuesday.

“When it comes to paying their taxes, oh, suddenly they love the Cayman Islands,” Sanders said of Wall Street banks, according to a transcript posted on his website. “So my suggestion is, the next time these crooks destroy their banks and they need to be bailed out, let them go to the government of the Cayman Islands to get their bailout.”

Senator Bernie Sanders Accuses Wall Street Of Avoiding Taxes By Stashing Cash Overseas

2/28/13 -

Senator Bernie Sanders Feb. 27, 2013 Senate Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Jacob Lew to be Treasury Secretary

Thank You, Bernie Sanders, for Opposing Jack Lew

miksilvr
Joined:
Jul. 7, 2011 12:13 pm

The problem with these beliefs is that they aren't all true. Lew has never had anything to do with banking regulation. This article, which I have posted on this thread before, explains Jack Lew with absolute clarity. Most of the disinformation about Lew seems to be coming from somebody named Robert Scheer.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system