Leo W. Gerard

By Leo W. Gerard

International President

Congress drove the Big Three CEOs out of Washington, D.C. last week, ordering them not to return with their tin cups until they could guarantee their companies would be viable after a $25 billion bailout.

Just days later, Citigroup, a bank that had already received a $25 billion bailout in October, held its hands out for more. Within 48 hours, federal officials approved giving the bank another $20 billion and providing backing for $306 billion in its risky loans and securities. Even though Citigroup was failing just weeks after getting its first government bailout, Congress didn’t subject its CEO to the public lecturing and demands for business plans that it did the Big Three.

The message here could not be more clear: Washington will bailout out those who shower before work but not those who shower afterwards.

Washington, D.C. is a white collar town. President Bush and members of Congress understand their suited counterparts on Wall Street. In fact, several prominent figures in the banking industry – including Citigroup’s Robert Rubin, a former Secretary of the Treasury, and UBS Investment Bank’s Phil Gramm, a former Texas Senator, – worked in Washington first, aiding and abetting the current crisis by de-regulating the financial markets and everything else they could.

Detroit, by contrast, is a blue collar town. It’s a place where workers at the Big Three earn thousands of dollars — the average production employee making $67,480 last year — not hundreds of thousands, and certainly not Wall Street’s millions. The Citigroup CEO credited with overseeing the bank’s ill-fated investments, Charles O. Prince III, was forced out a year ago as the bank’s massive sub-prime losses began mounting but the board of directors still gave him a $12.5 million bonus, $68 million in salary and accumulated stockholdings, a $1.7 million pension, an office, and a car and driver for up to five years. Heading the board executive committee at that time was Rubin, who would briefly serve as chairman and receive $17 million in compensation as the bank declined further into financial ruin.

Detroit is a place where workers are unionized; Wall Street is not. And right-wing Republicans and conservative pundits have made it clear they want the union workers to suffer. They want federal aid denied to the Big Three so that the firms go bankrupt. Then the companies can renege on pensions they guaranteed to retirees and can break salary and benefit promises to workers in current contracts.

Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl writes on his web site that Chapter 11 bankruptcy would be best for the Big Three because it would enable them to break their pledges to retirees receiving health care and other benefits earned over decades of service, what he calls “legacy debts”: “Like many other industries, including the airlines, the goal under Chapter 11 is to gain temporary protection, reorganize in a way to reduce legacy debts, and emerge as a more viable and competitive company.”

Conservative columnist George Will, similarly, wrote: “Do nothing that will delay bankrupt companies from filing for bankruptcy protection, so that improvident labor contracts can be unraveled. . .” Will’s fellow Washington Post Columnist Martin Feldstein blamed all of Detroit’s problems on the unions, writing that the basic reason the Big Three can’t compete: “is labor costs imposed by union contracts.” He said if Congress gives the Big Three a loan, it must require “that the unions accept reductions in wages and benefits to levels that allow the firms to compete with imports and with non-union U.S. auto firms. The trustees of retiree benefits should be required to accept reductions in those benefits.”

They want the unions broken. They want retirees’ benefits slashed and union workers’ wages and benefits cut, which, of course, will enable the foreign auto makers – whose U.S. plants are non-union – to reduce their wages. It’ll be an all-American race to the bottom, rather than the preferable opposite, where workers and retirees are treated with dignity and respect for their hard labor.

None of those conservatives, however, is calling for Citigroup’s Charles O. Prince III, who took down Citigroup at a cost of untold billions to taxpayers, to return his $1.7 million pension, office and car and driver.

Unlike Citigroup and the other Wall Street banks, which have their very own inside-the-beltway apologists in the form of Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson to argue their case before Congress, the Big Three CEOs had to appear before Congress to plead for themselves.

There, legitimately, lawmakers grilled them about flying to the hearings in expensive private jets and about their multi-million dollar compensation packages. Still, none of the lawmakers has asked Citigroup’s CEO, Vikram S. Pandit, to take $1 for next year’s compensation, as they did the auto executives. Nor have they asked any of the CEOs from the nine banks that shared $125 billion in bailout money in October to sell their private jets, as they did the auto executives.

Conservatives also argued that the Big Three should be left to die because in a free market, that’s what happens to poorly operated companies offering inferior products.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said, for example, “I do not support the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to reward the mismanagement of Detroit-based auto manufacturers.”

Shelby made this accusation while part of the Congress that ran up the largest federal deficits known to man and allowed Paulson to broker a deal to sell troubled Wachovia bank to troubled Citigroup – a bank that so far got two bailouts, the first of which arriving within weeks of the failed Wachovia marriage.

Shelby, of course, has a lot to lose if Michigan does well. His home state of Alabama gave tax breaks to foreign car companies Mercedes-Benz, Honda and Hyundai to locate factories there – hardly a free market approach.

So, like many conservatives, he twists reality to suit his circumstances. He’s right that American car companies made mistakes. In October, GM’s sales were off 45 percent from the year before, Chrysler 35 percent and Ford 30. But he’s wrong about that being a result of mismanagement alone, well, unless he thinks his precious foreign car companies made the same mistakes. Toyota was down 23 percent, Honda 25 and Nissan 33 for the same month.

And if aid denial is based on bad products, Wall Street definitely should be the first refused. Its firms built and sold what are now being called “toxic securities,” products so defective that they took down banks, the U.S. economy and international financial stability – creating the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression. Now that’s mismanagement for you!

When the representatives of blue collars went to Congress hat in hand, lawmakers insisted that to get loans automakers would have to present viable business plans. Congress didn’t impose similar conditions, however, when Bernanke and Paulson went to Congress seeking grants for reckless white collar firms.

In fact, they gave $125 billion to nine big Wall Street banks in October, contending the direct infusion of money would melt frozen credit. It didn’t. The firms apparently didn’t lend the money, and the deal didn’t require them to. There’s a viable business plan for you!

Paulson and Bernanke gave insurance giant AIG $85 billion. And when that didn’t work, they forked over more until it all added up to $150 billion. Now, it’s not clear that will be enough to resolve AIG’s problems. Sen. Jon Kyl, the Republican from Arizona who voted for the Wall Street bailout, didn’t demand a viable business plan for AIG or Citigroup, yet said this about the auto industry request: “There’s no reason to throw money at a problem that’s not going to get solved.”

This year, as Wall Street’s recklessness destroyed the American economy, a million Americans lost their jobs. It’s no wonder no one is buying cars. It’s not just that they can’t get credit. It’s also that they don’t have money to spend or they’re afraid to spend the money they have.

Some of those furloughed had been on Wall Street. Citigroup announced recently it would cut 52,000 jobs by early next year. But of the million jobs lost so far, 100,000, or one in ten, have been auto workers or employees of auto suppliers. Unemployment in Michigan is 9.3 percent – while in the rest of the nation it is 6.5.

Just like Paulson who couldn’t see that Citigroup was too weak to buy Wachovia, the conservatives intent on denying the Big Three loans are shortsighted. They don’t see that 2.3 million jobs in and dependent on the auto industry could be lost. They don’t see the effect of slashing the wages and benefits of people who get their hands dirty for a living.

It would mean even more mortgage foreclosures and even more credit card debt unpaid to those struggling banks. It would mean the Big Three defaulting on the $100 billion they owe to those weak banks and bondholders, some of which is secured, some not.

It’s the big circle of economic life. If Congress spits on the autoworkers and the millions whose jobs depend on the Big Three, the lawmakers may find themselves using more and more taxpayer dollars to scrub new blood off Wall Street.

International President

In a perverse way, the media painted Republicans perfectly when it selected red for their states.

Reporters would never have guessed when they did it that the red party’s candidate would engage in red-baiting. But there was John McCain repeatedly doing it in the debate Wednesday night, trying to convert Barack Obama into a terrifying “spread-the-wealth-around” commie. And earlier this month, the Republican’s brother, Joe “McCarthy” McCain, called two Democratic-leaning Virginia counties “Communist Country.”

When it comes to spreading assets around, however, the royal red Republicans, led by King “I-am-a-capitalist-really” George, take the Triple Crown. Their upside down communism works like this: the middle class pays for the tax breaks awarded the nation’s rich and for the financial recklessness of Wall Street’s ultra-wealthy.

Trickle down

In the Republican world, in the view of John McCain and George W. Bush, it never, ever works the other way. A curse, they would say, on anyone who would dare suggest that the rich should be taxed so that government could “trickle down” a portion of their extraordinary wealth to benefit the majority.

They believe in “free markets,” that is, allowing financial markets to run unrestrained and unregulated, or as some have put it recently – amok. They believe government interferes in markets and therefore should be shrunken and impotent. They believe that when an elite few accumulate wealth in that system, some of it naturally will eventually “trickle down” into the empty porridge bowls of the nation’s vast unworthy masses.

A dreadful thing happened on the way to the fiscal crash, though. That philosophy failed.

The “small government” Bush and Republican Congress increased spending, thus replacing the budget surplus bequeathed them with deficits. And not just any deficits – the largest known to man — $455 billion this year, edging out the $413 billion record debt Bush set in 2004.

The rich won’t be paying for that. No, Bush gave them a tax break, and McCain swears he’ll make that break for the wealthy permanent. The middle class, and their children and grandchildren will be making payments on that debt — which, by the way, was caused in part by the revenue loss from Bush’s tax break for the rich.

That’s spreading the wealth around – from the pockets of middle class to trust funds of the rich.

Over the past eight years, middle class Americans have watched with shock and awe as corrupt and incompetent CEOs left their failing corporations with golden parachutes – like McCain’s top financial advisor Carly Fiorina, who exited Hewlett-Packard with $45 million in 2005 when the board dismissed her as CEO following the company’s stock dropping 50 percent and her furloughing 20,000 workers.

Bail out speculators

Now those same middle class Americans are incredulous as Bush — who had McCain’s support 90 percent of the time over the past eight years — is taking $700 billion of their tax dollars to nationalize banks. Their tax dollars will be used to bail out the Wall Street financiers who wouldn’t cut the middle class a break when they were late on mortgage payments, the speculators whose uninhibited risk-taking caused financial institutions to fail, lending to freeze, stocks to swoon.

Deregulation of the financial industry allowed banks and other sorts of financial institutions to merge and become “too big to fail” and engage in risky purchases without sufficient supporting capital. McCain, who until recently bragged about being “Mr. Deregulation,” endorsed this suspension of rules. Its chief champion served as his campaign co-chairman – former Texas Senator Phil Gramm.

Gramm successfully pressed for repeal of the depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which was designed to prevent financial institutions from becoming too big to fail, and for passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 that deregulated those now infamous credit default swaps that took down insurer AIG, costing taxpayers another $85 billion.

Gramm left the senate in 2002 for an executive position with the Swiss investment bank, UBS, the stock for which, by the way, has plummeted right along with that of American banks.

McCain’s mentor

Gramm still advises McCain, though he’s no longer campaign co-chair. He had to resign that position after he called the United States a nation of whiners during an interview in which he also denied the seriousness of the financial crisis. Here’s what McCain’s financial mentor said, “You’ve heard of mental depression; this is a mental recession.”

Sure, when the coins of the middle class are flowing up into your pockets, Mr. Gramm, it doesn’t feel like a recession at all. Spreading the wealth around – from the middle class to the wealthy Gramms and multi-millionaire McCains.

Really, Joe “McCarthy” McCain was right when he called the Virginia counties of Arlington and Alexandria Communist Country. John McCain owns a condo in Arlington, and that’s where he located his campaign’s national headquarters. They’re communist all right, McCain Republican-communist, under which middle class earnings are spread to the rich.

In the debate Wednesday night, McCain accused Barack Obama of conducting class warfare because the Democrat wants to end Bush’s tax breaks for the wealthy and instead cut the taxes of the middle class – 95 percent of American families.

What Obama proposes isn’t warfare; it’s fairness.

Class warfare is what the Republicans have done to the middle class over the past eight years, and what McCain pledges to continue. It’s a war the rich now are winning.

That’s what Obama wants to change.

By David Sirota
Author of “The Uprising: An Unauthorized Tour of the Populist Revolt Scaring Wall Street & Washington”

Last night on MSNBC, Rachel Maddow and I discussed John McCain’s new rhetoric claiming he supports better financial regulation.

But instead of focusing only on McCain’s words, we tried to follow in the spirit of the Institute for America’s Future’s call for a substantive debate by examining the Arizona senator’s career as a public official – one who’s formative regulatory experience was being a member of the Keating Five pressing federal financial regulators to stop doing their job in advance of the S&L crisis (ie. the most analogous crisis to today’s Wall Street meltdown).
You can watch the conversation here:

McCain, as the S&L scandal first suggested, is no run-of-the-mill free-market fundamentalist. Yes, he voted for the ill-advised repeal of the key Depression-era law that might have prevented the rampant consolidation and speculation that brought on today’s emergency.

But, then again, Bill Clinton and his DLC Democrats supported it too. Yes, McCain’s top economic adviser is Phil Gramm, the UBS investment banker who pushed through so much deregulatory legislation as a senator. But then again, Barack Obama’s top economic adviser is Robert Wolf, Gramm’s UBS boss.

Where McCain really leaps to the fringe and differentiates his extremism from others is in his use of the deregulatory label to publicly define himself. That’s how you can really tell what a politician believes in.

This is not a guy who just votes for the corrupt legislation his Wall Street friends tell him to vote for – this is a guy who has staked his name on being “fundamentally a deregulator,” as he recently described himself.

On 11/19/93, McCain took to the Senate floor to support an early financial deregulation bill and decry what he called “the tremendous regulatory burden imposed on financial institutions.” The guy who now claims to be the trustbusting Teddy Roosevelt back then lamented “the rapidly increasing regulatory burden imposed on banks is to cause them to devote substantial time, energy and money to compliance rather than meeting the credit needs of the community.”

Ten years later, McCain was bragging to the Associated Press that “I have a long voting record in support of deregulation,” and to CNN that “I am a deregulator. I believe in deregulation.”
And, during this year’s presidential campaign taking place in the shadow of financial meltdown, McCain was only months ago insisting on PBS that “we need less government [and] less regulation” and that “I’m always for less regulation.”
Of course, there’s plenty of good news for both Democratic partisans and ideological progressives about McCain’s about-face.

For partisans concerned only about Obama winning the election, McCain’s 180 on regulation opens up an obvious chance for Democrats to label him a against-it-before-I-was-for-it, say-anything-to-get-elected hypocrite – and Obama is (finally) moving to seize that opportunity.

For ideological progressives long fighting the good fight to resurrect the common-good regulatory agenda of the New Deal, McCain’s shift reflects a broader shift in the public debate. Suddenly, regulation isn’t a four-letter word anymore. Suddenly, even John “I’m always for less regulation” McCain is for regulation. That rhetorical shift could help create an election mandate forcing whoever wins the presidential contest to actually move away from Reagan-style extremism for the first time since, well, Reagan.

But as I told Maddow (and as I will examine further in my upcoming newspaper column on Friday), we have to all follow the money and the actions. Both Obama and McCain have taken huge sums of cash from the industries that caused this crisis. Both Obama and McCain continue to rely on Wall Streeters who engineered the meltdown as their top economic advisers (though only McCain employs lobbyists intimately involved in the crisis). That kind of influence doesn’t just slink away with a boom-bust crisis – it fights hard to make sure nothing concrete comes out of the situation (think the weak Sarbanes-Oxley after Enron).

Whether we get the kind of populist reforms will be decided by how much grassroots pressure is put on either of these potential presidents when they reach the Oval Office. The talk right now from both candidates may be good – and Obama is smart to point out McCain’s absurdly dishonest rhetoric. But talk is cheap when it comes time to write legislation.