rollingstone | Congress looked serious about finance reform – until America's biggest banks unleashed an army of 2,000 paid lobbyists. It's early May in Washington, and something very weird is in the air. As Chris Dodd, Harry
Reid and the rest of the compulsive dealmakers in the Senate barrel
toward the finish line of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act
– the massive, year-in-the-making effort to clean up the Wall Street
crime swamp – word starts to spread on Capitol Hill that somebody forgot
to kill the important reforms in the bill. As of the first week in May,
the legislation still contains aggressive measures that could cost
once- indomitable behemoths like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan Chase
tens of billions of dollars. Somehow, the bill has escaped the usual
Senate-whorehouse orgy of mutual back-scratching, fine-print compromises
and freeway-wide loopholes that screw any chance of meaningful change.
The real shocker is a thing known among Senate insiders as "716."
This section of an amendment would force America's banking giants to
either forgo their access to the public teat they receive through the
Federal Reserve's discount window, or give up the insanely risky,
casino-style bets they've been making on derivatives. That means no more
pawning off predatory interest-rate swaps on suckers in Greece, no more
gathering balls of subprime shit into incomprehensible debt deals, no
more getting idiot bookies like AIG to wrap the crappy mortgages in
phony insurance. In short, 716 would take a chain saw to one of Wall
Street's most lucrative profit centers: Five of America's biggest banks
(Goldman, JP Morgan, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup)
raked in some $30 billion in over-the-counter derivatives last year. By
some estimates, more than half of JP Morgan's trading revenue
between 2006 and 2008 came from such derivatives. If 716 goes through,
it would be a veritable Hiroshima to the era of greed.
"When I first heard about 716, I thought, 'This is never gonna fly,'"
says Adam White, a derivatives expert who has been among the most vocal
advocates for reform. When I speak to him early in May, he sounds
slightly befuddled, like he can't believe his good fortune. "It's
funny," he says. "We keep waiting for the watering-down to take place –
but we keep getting to the next hurdle, and it's still staying strong."
In the weeks leading up to the vote on the reform bill, I hear one
variation or another on this same theme from Senate insiders: that the
usual process of chipping away at key legislation is not taking place
with its customary dispatch, despite a full-court press by Wall Street.
The financial-services industry has reportedly flooded the Capitol with
more than 2,000 paid lobbyists; even veteran members are stunned by the
intensity of the blitz. "They're trying everything," says Sen. Sherrod
Brown, a Democrat from Ohio. Wall Street's army is especially imposing
given that the main (really, the only) progressive coalition working the
other side of the aisle, Americans for Financial Reform, has been in
existence less than a year – and has just 60 unpaid "volunteer"
lobbyists working the Senate halls.
The companies with the most at stake are particularly well-connected.
The lobbying campaign for Goldman Sachs, for instance, is being headed
up by a former top staffer for Rep. Barney Frank, Michael Paese, who is
coordinating some 14 different lobbying firms to fight on Goldman's
behalf. The bank is also represented by Capitol Hill heavyweights like
former House majority leader Dick Gephardt and former Reagan chief of
staff Ken Duberstein. All told, there are at least 40 ex-staffers of the
Senate Banking Committee – and even one former senator, Trent Lott –
lobbying on behalf of Wall Street. Until the final weeks of the reform
debate, however, it seemed that all these insiders were facing the
prospect of a rare defeat – and they weren't pleased. One lobbyist even
complained to The Washington Post that the bill was being
debated out in the open, on the Senate floor, instead of in a smoky
backroom. "They've got to get this thing off the floor and into a
reasonable, behind-the-scenes" discussion, he groused. "Let's have a few
wise fathers sit around the table in some quiet room" to work it out.
As it neared the finish line, the Restoring American Financial
Stability Act was almost unprecedentedly broad in scope, in some ways
surpassing even the health care bill in size and societal impact. It
would rein in $600 trillion in derivatives, create a giant new federal
agency to protect financial consumers, open up the books of the Federal
Reserve for the first time in history and perhaps even break up the
so-called "Too Big to Fail" giants on Wall Street. The recent history of
the U.S. Congress suggests that it was almost a given that they would
fuck up this one real shot at slaying the dragon of corruption that has
been slowly devouring not just our economy but our whole way of life
over the past 20 years. Yet with just weeks left in the nearly year-long
process at hammering out this huge new law, the bad guys were still on
the run. Even the senators themselves seemed surprised at what assholes
they weren't being. This new baby of theirs, finance reform, was going
to be that one rare kid who made it out of the filth and the crime of
the hood for everybody to be proud of.
Then reality set in.
Picture the Restoring American Financial Stability Act as a vast
conflict being fought on multiple fronts, with the tiny but enormously
influential Wall Street lobby on one side and pretty much everyone else
on the planet on the other. To be precise, think World War II – with
some battles won by long marches and brutal campaigns of attrition,
others by blitzkrieg attacks, still more decided by espionage and
clandestine movements. Time after time, at the last moment, the Wall
Street axis has turned seemingly lost positions into surprise victories
or, at worst, bitterly fought stalemates. The only way to accurately
convey the scale of Wall Street's ingenious comeback is to sketch out
all the crazy, last-minute shifts on each of the war's four major
fronts.
0 comments:
Post a Comment