Blog

Richard Eskow

By Richard (RJ) Eskow
Senior Fellow, Campaign for America’s Future

It’s looking like the SEC/Goldman Sachs lawsuit could open up a whole new can of worms — one that Tim Geithner and some bank executives aren’t likely to be very happy about. The story’s about AIG and I used to work there so, as much as I like to stay out of the story, a little personal background is in order. We’ll do the story first and then get to the personal stuff.

The story is this: As almost everyone knows by now, the SEC filed a suit against Goldman over a program called Abacus. The suit alleges that Goldman didn’t tell Abacus investors that the bonds they were essentially insuring were being picked by a firm (Paulson) which was betting that they’d fail. Remember that Twilight Zone episode called “To Serve Man,” where the aliens promised to help everybody but were really just getting ready to eat them? In this story the investors are the humans and Goldman’s execs are the aliens.

The slide show Goldman used to pitch Abacus is pretty damning. It starts with so many pages of fine-print “disclaimers” and “risk factors” that it seems like a Viagra ad (“call your doctor if …”). There’s a lot in there about well-respected (but at best gullible) ACA, this firm that Goldman claimed was picking the bonds. About half of the 66 slides sing ACA’s praises, but there’s no mention of Paulson. There are long descriptions of ACA’s capabilities, their “internal” and “external data sources,” and their “defensive trading” designed to “minimize real market value exposure.”

To serve man. “It’s a cookbook!”

Here’s where it gets uncomfortable for Geithner and some executives. Remember all that criticism of the taxpayer-funded AIG bailout, and how under Tim Geithner’s direction (he was running the New York Fed then) AIG paid 100 cents on the dollar to Goldman and other “counterparties” for its debts? It turns out that AIG insured seven Abacus deals, and the debts they were ordered to pay may have included payoffs on some of these deals. It turns out that AIG reportedly wanted to pay 60 cents on the dollar, but Geither’s New York Fed directed them to pay the full amount.

AIG paid $13 billion from its bailout to Goldman at Geithner’s direction. And now, as the Wall Street Journal reports, the SEC “is investigating whether other mortgage deals arranged by some of Wall Street’s biggest firms may have crossed the line into misleading investors.” And, while “It isn’t known what deals the SEC is investigating,” the Journal adds that “among the firms that created mortgage deals that soon went sour were Deutsche Bank AG, UBS AG and Merrill Lynch & Co., now owned by Bank of America Corp.”

Who were some of the other counterparties paid by AIG under Geithner’s direction? Deutsche Bank, UBS, Merrill Lynch, and Bank of America. This is already a big story, and it could get much bigger. None of those firms can be happy today, knowing that they’re being drawn into the firestorm surrounding Goldman Sachs. And Geithner can’t be happy that his handling of AIG is once again in the news. He took a beating for it back then (including from right-leaning Forbes, the self-described “capitalist tool”), and the NY Fed’s eventual defense of its own actions was ineffectual. Among other things, it claimed that the counterparties’ “contractual rights were well-protected.”

Not if they lied, they weren’t. Nobody has a “well-protected right” to enforce contracts made under false pretenses. It looks now as if the New York Fed didn’t try hard enough.

It’s not as if people weren’t objecting at the time. Eliot Spitzer was all over the issue. Former AIG CEO Hank Greenberg, who had been forced out by Spitzer, wrote that “the federal government is using AIG as a conduit to pump massive sums to the counterparties of AIG’s credit default swaps.” Spitzer, along with William Black and Frank Portnoy, had a very reasonable request: Release AIG’s emails from that period so we can get to the bottom of the situation. That’s a good idea today, too – no matter who it might make uncomfortable.

Now AIG is considering a lawsuit to get some of that money back from Goldman. Two members of Congress want to collect the money, too. Good idea. If it embarrasses some people in high places, there’s a solution for that too: They can push for aggressive derivatives reform, which is something Geithner’s reportedly been resisting up to now. None of us can change our past actions, but we can all vow to do better in the future.

***

I can’t write about AIG without disclosing the fact that I used to be an executive there. Not that I’ve been hiding it — I’ve mentioned it in interviews and elsewhere — but I didn’t cover the last AIG crisis so I never had to address the conflict of interest issue directly. Now I do, so here’s the deal:

I worked for a health care company that was acquired by AIG, and wound up staying there for about seven years. I was well-liked at AIG, and I liked working there. I wasn’t involved with financial products. I worked in risk management and property/casualty, focusing on workers’ compensation and health issues. Then I became President of an AIG subsidiary and joint venture that did international health projects and some investment work. I never worked directly for Hank Greenberg, although I had several meetings with him and was the target of his well-known interrogative wrath at least once.

I was still working on Wall Street, though not at AIG, when “quants” became trendy and financial products really began taking off. (We had an all-Wall Street rock and roll band in those days. I still wonder what became of the keyboard player from Merrill Lynch.) Regarding financial products: Some of us thought we saw thunderclouds forming, but everyone told us that these guys knew what they were doing. It turned out there were thunderclouds.

There’s a lot more to the story than that, but for now I’ll just say that my opinion of AIG is this: It was a good company when I worked there. Many people found the aggressive culture hard to handle, but I didn’t. (God knows what that says about me.) It had some real flaws – it was notoriously slow to pay claims, for example. Still, I had many friends there, some of whom caught undeserved flack for what the financial products people did. AIG contained many different companies, but it appears that the 200 employees of the financial products group operated by a completely different set of rules.

The insurance and risk management operations were essentially sound and well-run, and from everything I know they still are. Nobody got rich from bonuses — certainly not me. And the sooner those sound businesses can get out from under the wreckage wrought by the financial products group and its enablers, the better off everybody will be — including the American taxpayer.

***

Richard (RJ) Eskow is a consultant and writer. This post was produced as part of the Curbing Wall Street project. Richard blogs at Campaign for America’s Future’s: No Middle Class Health Tax and A Night Light. His website is Eskow and Associates.

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.