Politics Plus

Tomorrow the full text, several hundred pages, of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission will be released.  The meltdown was both foreseeable and preventable.  The former, I knew, because I had foreseen it.  The main factors in the fall were criminal corporate greed, and corporate and regulatory incompetence.  While Democrats did contribute, it is mainly a Republican recession.  Fannie and Freddie, the scapegoats Republicans use to deflect blame, were not major contributors to the crisis.

…The majority report finds fault with two Fed chairmen: Alan Greenspan, who led the central bank as the housing bubble expanded, and his successor, Ben S. Bernanke, who did not foresee the crisis but played a crucial role in the response. It criticizes Mr. Greenspan for advocating deregulation and cites a “pivotal failure to stem the flow of toxic mortgages” under his leadership as a “prime example” of negligence.

It also criticizes the Bush administration’s “inconsistent response” to the crisis — allowing Lehman Brothers to collapse in September 2008 after earlier bailing out another bank, Bear Stearns, with Fed help — as having “added to the uncertainty and panic in the financial markets.”

Like Mr. Bernanke, Mr. Bush’s Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., predicted in 2007 — wrongly, it turned out — that the subprime collapse would be contained, the report notes.

Democrats also come under fire. The decision in 2000 to shield the exotic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives from regulation, made during the last year of President Bill Clinton’s term, is called “a key turning point in the march toward the financial crisis.”

Timothy F. Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the crisis and is now the Treasury secretary, was not unscathed; the report finds that the New York Fed missed signs of trouble at Citigroup and Lehman, though it did not have the main responsibility for overseeing them.

Former and current officials named in the report, as well as financial institutions, declined Tuesday to comment before the report was released.

The report could reignite debate over the influence of Wall Street; it says regulators “lacked the political will” to scrutinize and hold accountable the institutions they were supposed to oversee. The financial industry spent $2.7 billion on lobbying from 1999 to 2008, while individuals and committees affiliated with it made more than $1 billion in campaign contributions.

The report does knock down — at least partly — several early theories for the financial crisis. It says the low interest rates brought about by the Fed after the 2001 recession; Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage finance giants; and the “aggressive homeownership goals” set by the government as part of a “philosophy of opportunity” were not major culprits.

On the other hand, the report is harsh on regulators. It finds that the Securities and Exchange Commission failed to require big banks to hold more capital to cushion potential losses and halt risky practices, and that the Fed “neglected its mission.”

It says the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which regulates some banks, and the Office of Thrift Supervision, which oversees savings and loans, blocked states from curbing abuses because they were “caught up in turf wars.”

“The crisis was the result of human action and inaction, not of Mother Nature or computer models gone haywire,” the report states. “The captains of finance and the public stewards of our financial system ignored warnings and failed to question, understand and manage evolving risks within a system essential to the well-being of the American public. Theirs was a big miss, not a stumble.”

The report’s implications may be felt more in the political realm than in public policy. The Dodd-Frank law overhauling the regulation of Wall Street, signed in July, took as its premise the same regulatory deficiencies cited by the commission. But the report is sure to be a factor in the debate over the future of Fannie and Freddie, which have been run by the government since 2008.

Though the report documents questionable practices by mortgage lenders and careless betting by banks, one striking finding is its portrayal of incompetence.

It quotes Citigroup executives conceding that they paid little attention to mortgage-related risks. Executives at the American International Group were found to have been blind to its $79 billion exposure to credit-default swaps, a kind of insurance that was sold to investors seeking protection against a drop in the value of securities backed by home loans. At Merrill Lynch, managers were surprised when seemingly secure mortgage investments suddenly suffered huge losses.

By one measure, for about every $40 in assets, the nation’s five largest investment banks had only $1 in capital to cover losses, meaning that a 3 percent drop in asset values could have wiped out the firm. The banks hid their excessive leverage using derivatives, off-balance-sheet entities and other devices, the report found. The speculative binge was abetted by a giant “shadow banking system” in which the banks relied heavily on short-term debt.

“When the housing and mortgage markets cratered, the lack of transparency, the extraordinary debt loads, the short-term loans and the risky assets all came home to roost,” the report found. “What resulted was panic. We had reaped what we had sown.”… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

Of course, the Republican response to all this is to undo the financial regulation, insufficient itself, and depend on the market to correct itself, just like it did in 2007.  Republicans are 100% Bankster bought.

Obama is doing little better.  Keeping Bernanke and Geithner is an economic nightmare.

The solution remains obvious.  Break up the TBTF banks.  Eliminate the shadow markets.  Reemployment Glass-Steagall.  Dump Geithner and Bernanke.

Few Democrats did more to undercut progressives in the Obama Administration that Rahm Emmanuel, a business as usual machine politician and DINO extraordinaire.  Damage done, he left to become Mayor of Chicago, but the court have ruled that he does not meet that residency requirements.  He has appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, but there is no word as yet.  I’ll do a last minute check right before posting this.

An Illinois appellate court ruled Monday that Rahm Emanuel cannot run for mayor of Chicago, a decision that shocked the city’s political establishment and triggered a rapid appeal from the former White House chief of staff to the state Supreme Court.

Since returning from Washington, Emanuel (D) had not lived in his North Side home long enough to meet Chicago’s one-year residency requirement to run for mayor, a divided three-judge panel ruled.

The decision, which followed months of unsuccessful attempts to challenge Emanuel’s residency claim, came only days before the city starts early voting.

And regardless of the outcome of Emanuel’s appeal, the ruling threatened to strip his name from the ballot – potentially putting him at a severe disadvantage in the Feb. 22 election. Elections officials said that unless a court immediately granted Emanuel’s request for a stay, they would begin printing ballots without his name so that voting could begin as scheduled next week… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Washington Post>

Frankly, I would thoroughly enjoy seeing Rahmbo’s career come to an end, because he thought he was too important to obey the rules.

Update: Still no ruling from the Illinois Supreme Court.

Update: They ruled that his name stays on the ballot pending his appeal.