Some Context for my Concern with Government Corruption

I realize that I probably look obsessed due to my many posts about government corruption. Perhaps that is because I saw it first-hand when I worked as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Missouri. That was back in the late '80s, when William Webster served as Missouri Attorney General. My job required me to prosecute consumer fraud. That's not quite how it worked, however. If the target was a significant contributor, I would be given lots of excuses that good cases were "not good cases." I resisted for many months, documenting my cases as best I could and refusing to close good files--this behavior confused me at first, but then it became all too clear. Ultimately, several substantial cases against major contributors convinced Webster to transfer me out of of the Trade Offense Division. Because I refused his transfer, Webster fired me. Little did I know that my experiences would become a focus for the 1992 Missouri Governor's debate. The debate featured Mel Carnahan (the Democrat) versus William Webster (the Republican). Prior to this debate Webster had held a 20-point lead. The election occurred two weeks after this debate, and Webster conceded by 7:30 pm on election night. During the debate Carnahan blistered Webster with accusations much of the night. You'll get a flavor for this well-deserved barrage if you watch the first 5 minutes--I was discussed beginning at the 3-minute mark. One other Assistant Attorney General also took a bold stand. After it became clear to him that the office was corrupt, Tom Glassberg resigned, immediately driving to Jefferson City to file ethics charges against Webster. Tom wrote a letter defending my reputation and his letter was published by the Post-Dispatch. It was letter I will never forget. A few sentences were read at the Governor's Debate. Those were intense times for me, of course. You can't solve problems like this in a day. It requires immense patience and diplomacy, and bucking the system is risky. When you start resisting, you quickly see who has both a conscience and a backbone. When I see the constant stream of money for political favors stories, I'm disheartened but resolute. Corrupt money and power are formidable, but they can't prevail where good people organize. I'm sure that my time as an AAG was formative, and it continues to drive me forward. One last thought is a sad one for me, however. During the Webster scandal, the St. Louis Post Dispatch was an aggressive newspaper that did real investigative journalism thanks to excellent reporting by several reporters, including Terry Ganey. The Post-Dispatch no longer does significant investigative journalism, as is the case with most newspapers. Reporters across the country are being laid off by the hundreds, and this has led to a huge news vacuum. These days, we simply don't know what is going on in most corners of our government. Many stories don't see the light of day, and the mass media offer no local alternatives (local TV "news" tends to be a joke). Hence my non-stop interest in media reform through organization such as Free Press. Media Reform and Election Reform need to be fixed before we can meaningfully address any other issues. That has so sadly become apparent.

Continue ReadingSome Context for my Concern with Government Corruption

Elizabeth Warren discusses the real purpose of TARP

At Daily Kos, "HoundDog" reviews Elizabeth Warren's new book, A fighting Chance. Here's an excerpt:

[Warren] says when she asked Geithner about helping the homeowners struggling to save their homesh he admitted "[d]espite the way it was sold, TARP was about saving banks, pure and simple." ..He admitted that really was not the goal, she writes. [caption id="attachment_26775" align="alignright" width="300"]Elizabeth Warren (Photo by Erich Vieth) Elizabeth Warren (Photo by Erich Vieth)[/caption] "The banks could manage only so many foreclosures at a time, and Treasury wanted to slow down the pace so banks wouldn't be overwhelmed," Warren writes, recounting Geithner's explanation. "And this was where the new foreclosure program came in: it was just big enough to 'foam the runway' for them." "There it was," Warren writes. "The Treasury foreclosure program was intended to foam the runway to protect against a crash landing by the banks. Millions of people were getting tossed out on the street, but the secretary of the Treasury believed the government's most important job was to provide a soft landing for the tender fannies of the banks. ... "Oh Lord." She praises President Obama for supporting the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but always says he has to take responsibility for choosing the team he did.
For more on Elizabeth Warren, see this post I wrote regarding her November, 2013 presentation to the National Association of Consumer Advocates.  The above quote by Warren confirms a similar statement by Neil Barofsky, who presented at an NCLC conference the previous year. Inside the White House, the TARP program was only about attending to the needs and wants of Wall Street banks.   I attended both of these, and the huge rooms filled with consumer advocates much appreciated hearing straight talk from these two exceptional people. [caption id="attachment_26774" align="alignright" width="150"]Neil Barofsky at NCLC Neil Barofsky at NCLC (Photo by Erich Vieth)[/caption]  

Continue ReadingElizabeth Warren discusses the real purpose of TARP

It’s official: The United States is an Oligarchy

We have no hope of fixing any problem in this county until we fix THIS problem, described by Zachary Davies Boren of the U.K. Guardian:

The US government does not represent the interests of the majority of the country's citizens, but is instead ruled by those of the rich and powerful, a new study from Princeton and Northwestern Universities has concluded. The report, entitled Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, used extensive policy data collected from between the years of 1981 and 2002 to empirically determine the state of the US political system. After sifting through nearly 1,800 US policies enacted in that period and comparing them to the expressed preferences of average Americans (50th percentile of income), affluent Americans (90th percentile) and large special interests groups, researchers concluded that the United States is dominated by its economic elite. The peer-reviewed study, which will be taught at these universities in September, says: "The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence. . . . "When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it.""

Continue ReadingIt’s official: The United States is an Oligarchy

Matt Taibbi: Bush I and Bush II tougher on corporate crime than Obama

TPM reports on Taibbi's latest book, "The Divide," which explains that America's wealth gap has created injustice throughout the country's judicial system.

AMY GOODMAN: Who was tougher on corporate America, President Obama or President Bush? MATT TAIBBI: Oh, Bush, hands down. And this is an important point to make, because if you go back to the early 2000s, think about all these high-profile cases: Adelphia, Enron, Tyco, WorldCom, Arthur Andersen. All of these companies were swept up by the Bush Justice Department. And what’s interesting about this is that you can see a progression. If you go back to the savings and loan crisis in the late '80s, which was an enormous fraud problem, but it paled in comparison to the subprime mortgage crisis, we put about 800 people in jail during—in the aftermath of that crisis. You fast-forward 10 or 15 years to the accounting scandals, like Enron and Adelphia and Tyco, we went after the heads of some of those companies. It wasn't as vigorous as the S&L prosecutions, but we at least did it. At least George Bush recognized the symbolic importance of showing ordinary Americans that justice is blind, right? Fast-forward again to the next big crisis, and how many people have we got—have we actually put in jail? Zero. And this was a crisis that was much huger in scope than the S&L crisis or the accounting crisis. I mean, it wiped out 40 percent of the world’s wealth, and nobody went to jail, so that we’re now in a place where we don’t even recognize the importance of keeping up appearances when it comes to making things look equal.
An anti-poor person attitude permeates courtrooms: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/16/matt-taibbi-the-divide_n_5159626.html
"If a poor person without means comes into a court room, the judge doesn't want to hear anything that the defense attorney has to say for that person," he explained. "Whereas when I went to watch these white-collar cases," Taibbi continued, "there's almost an admiration that you see when the judges talk to the lawyers of the white-collar defendants."

Continue ReadingMatt Taibbi: Bush I and Bush II tougher on corporate crime than Obama

Tax revenue lost because of overseas tax havens

According to Bloomberg, Americans and American companies are hiding their money overseas and this is costing us immense amount of money.

U.S. taxpayers would need to pay an average of $1,259 more a year to make up the federal and state taxes lost to corporations and individuals sheltering money in overseas tax havens, according to a report. “Tax haven abusers benefit from America’s markets, public infrastructure, educated workforce, security and rule of law -– all supported in one way or another by tax dollars -– but they avoid paying for these benefits,” U.S. Public Interest Research Group said in the report released today, the deadline for filing 2013 taxes.

Continue ReadingTax revenue lost because of overseas tax havens