Here's some cheerful stuff leading up to Election Day that a friend found:
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/
I'll limit my comments to the author's criticisms of Obama's
handling of the financial crisis, since we've already discussed and have
general consensus on Obama's transgressions on civil rights, gov't
transparency, and the war on terror. I somewhat agree with the facts
that the author has presented, but I disagree that not voting
for Obama in 2012 in favor of a 3rd party candidate is the best thing we
can do. Because clearly the right is not defecting to support the
libertarian candidate - they are holding their nose and voting Romney.
I know I've spent all year jocking Obama's record and declaring him
the obvious choice vs. Romney. 2008 seems like a long time ago, but it
is worth revisiting now. J has studied the financial crisis in great
detail, so I'd be happy for him to chime in here if he has time. Please
forgive my inaccuracies and simplifications. :)
A lot of Obama's background suggests that he's not a pure
corporatist,
and I believe he prioritizes social justice and middle class issues as
well or better than most recent presidents. Of course he took a lot of
Wall St. money
in his 2008 campaign, but actually many elite donors have defected
since then, because he hasn't show them enough "love". I think the
system was mostly to blame. Since the S&L scandal, banks have used
soft power to gain more influence in Washington. Especially after the
Glass-Steagall repeal and Cit. United, it's clear that some
Congressional committees, the SEC, the Fed, Treasury, and others are
literally controlled by Wall St. Even if you or I were president and we
were completely anti-banks, what could we do?
As the new president in 2008, Obama's priority was to prevent the
nation
from falling into a decade-long depression. And he did that (we think).
Unfortunately the banks have rigged the game so that saving them was a
prerequisite for saving the economy. And of course they are more clever
than our leaders (or Washington was complicit in their plans), so they
were able to dump all the debt, risk, and toxic assets
on us, while the banks (some would argue) got even more
freedom to grow bigger and profit from the aftermath of the
financial crisis. As the author said, it basically cost them zero to
borrow unlimited money. That money was supposed to be used to kick-start
growth and rescue underwater mortgages, but they used it to make
themselves richer and bigger instead. Probably the largest wealth
transfer in human history since Midas. Unfortunately no law could have
passed Congress that would have forced the banks to use the bailout
funds properly, given our money-tainted legislative process.
Especially since the process started before Obama's term. Paulson gave
Congress that famous 2-page bill and told them to write Wall St. a blank
check. Pelosi and others protested, but ultimately had to cave because
no one wanted to be responsible for dithering while the economy
imploded.
Congress was not equipped to handle such a rapidly deteriorating
blackmail situation. And most of Congress is beholden to the banks more
than their constituents anyway. I guess we learned the hard way that
hasty action can sometime be worse long term than inaction. I thought we
learned that already from Iraq, but I guess not.
I really believe that even FDR or Lenin himself would have been
powerless in the face of such a situation. The only alternative I can
think of for Obama is this (and it would have been career suicide of
course): he could have bypassed the banks just as single payer insurance
aims to bypass private insurers. If the banks were being stubborn,
selfish a-holes who only care about their own bonuses, then forget them.
Have the Treasury become the emergency federal commercial bank. Why
waste time with the private sector and corrupt, inept middlemen like Fannie,
Freddie, and Sallie? Why does Treasury only get to collect taxes and issue notes/bonds - they should
make reasonable loans too (not just to the big banks but to us). If the banks are
getting 0% APR rates, then at least give the people 2% APR and FAIR
re-fi and repayment terms. If the gov't was guaranteeing banks and
taking on their bad bets, then they should do the same for consumers. I
don't understand macro and monetary policy much, so I am sure my idea is
either illegal or impossible or both. But if the credit sector is not
doing its job, then why can't the gov't step in? Commercial banking is
not rocket science - it should be simple and boring and easy (especially
when profit, liquidity, and shareholders are out of the equation).
The staff at Treasury are probably smart enough to figure out how to make direct
loans to Americans, and buy up distressed homes to take them off the
market and stabilize real estate. Surely the banks would have gone to
war over this, so If Obama committed to this path, I think it would
have been the modern equivalent of Lincoln abolishing slavery. Very
controversial, very risky, maybe ahead of its time (or overdue,
depending on your perspective), but courageous, necessary, and the right thing
for America's soul and future.
Otherwise we'll just inevitably descend into the United Banks of
America, which we kind of are now. FIRE (finance, insurance, real
estate) has risen from like 2% of GDP in the '40s to over 8% now, with
no sign of reversing (and it's probably bigger when you consider private
equity, derivatives, and other less transparent sectors). We lost,
and we missed the one chance to really fight them - the crisis.
http://www.kauffman.org/uploadedFiles/financialization_report_3-23-11.pdf
Since Wall St.
has infected Washington, we probably can't even enact laws to establish
an alternative public banking system (like credit unions but way
bigger) to compete with them - and
expose all their corruption and inefficiencies. There was
so much anger against the banks back then, but Obama failed to make the
bold Lincoln move (so I fault him on that), and now most of the anger is
directed at him now (deserved or not). But this is what he gets when he
surrounds himself with Geithner, Summers, and the other ex-banking,
status quo
crowd. They probably promised him that the banks learned their lesson
and this would never happen again. And he believed them since he really
wanted to fix health care, and accomplish what the Clintons failed to
do.
Now to the question of how to hold Obama accountable. Unfortunately
we are all out of Lincolns in US politics today. Literally Obama and
Clinton may be the best ones we have, apart from "nonviable" candidates
like Kucinich, Sanders, and Nader. Obviously a President McCain would
have done things 95% the same as Obama, or made it even worse. And now a
President Romney would give the banks more leeway. So what choice
do we have but to stick with Obama? I guess we can fault him for not
having a crystal ball and predicting this betrayal if he caved to the
banks with no strings attached. But in a crisis we act hastily,
especially with so much at stake. Krugman and many other experts were
warning Obama. He should have picked real reformers in his cabinet, but I
chalk that up to inexperience and his conflict-averse personality. He is not a tough love leader. It
was the only time to knock the banks down to size, and we still could
have rescued the economy and guaranteed a better future with a more
effective banking sector. But I guess Obama was worried about being
labeled as a socialist and taking on the yoke of "real reform".
