Buck Naked Politics

C'Mon—Break it Up!

Posted by Bill: Readers interested in how to prevent another meltdown should check out Zephyr Teachout's great piece, "C'Mon— Break it Up!" Teachout makes the case for putting reasonable size limits on the megabanks and limiting the conflicts of interest that accrue to their present status as financial supermarkets.

Deal on Derivatives?

Posted by Bill: This could be a big development. According to ABC News, Senator Dodd has accepted as a part of financial reform Senator Blanche Lincoln's proposed ban on banks owning derivatives operations; this is a provision that would force the big banks to spin off the businesses that led them into the 2008 meltdown.

Passage of such a proposal will be a major fight, but one that could well be worth it in terms of ensuring the safety of the marketplace— and limiting the damage that can be done by derivatives.

Basically, the megabanks would have to observe derivatives deals from across the street and would have no incentive to lure their clients into buying them, creating another watchdog on things like synthetic CDOs and some of the other wonderful financial products that now clog the garbage pails on Wall Street. Doing so would cost the banks a big slice of business, so expect a very angry response from the moguls.

(Kavanagh cross-posts at Bill's Big Diamond.)

SAFE Banking

by Bill Kavanagh: After the President's tough Cooper Union speech on financial reform, we're left with Senator Dodd's legislation— it helps in some ways, but doesn't stop "too big to fail" banks from dominating American finance for their own benefit, just as they did leading up to the meltdown. One sliver of hope for curbing future bubbles lies in a proposed amendment in the Senate, the Brown-Kaufman SAFE Banking Act. This legislation would break up the biggest of the megabanks and require limits on non-deposit liabilities. "Too big to fail" is just too big, say the sponsors of the amendment.

If you want to prevent the next meltdown from occurring, you can help by supporting the Brown-Kaufman amendment and making sure it gets an up or down vote. Call your Senators, Harry Reid, and the White House switchboard. Tell the folks answering that you are calling to make sure the SAFE Banking Act gets a chance to come to a vote on the Senate floor— and that without limiting bank size, financial regulation won't work.

What the hell, it's better than waiting for the bank lobbyists to kill the amendment without a fight, right?

(Kavanagh cross-posts at Bill's Big Diamond.)

To Geico: For God's Sake, Ignore the Tantruming Toddlers

Some people think that if you cave in to a toddler every time it shrieks, you'll become a hostage.  I don't know whether that's true with respect to children, but I know that it's spot-on in terms of adults.

That said, PR Web reports:

"Los Angeles actor, D.C. Douglas, says he was dropped from the upcoming GEICO "Shocking News" campaign after a group of Tea Party members harassed him and the insurance giant over a private voicemail the actor left for FreedomWorks. Matt Kibbe, President and CEO of FreedomWorks, posted Mr. Douglas' cell phone number in a blog post on biggovernment.com, instructing readers to "Feel free to contact (him)… call his employer too. Let them know that you…are now in the market for car insurance." The next day, GEICO held auditions to replace Mr. Douglas' voice on the campaign.

"Mr. Douglas' message hardly warranted the mobilization of the Tea Party Movement. Upset by the recent gay and racial slurs slung by Tea Party members at Congressman Barney Frank and Representative John Lewis during the Health Care Reform Weekend, Mr. Douglas left his opinion of FreedomWorks' staff and followers on their company voicemail and included his phone number.

"'I called as a private citizen to make a complaint,' explains Mr. Douglas. 'Racism and homophobia are my Achilles heal, but unfortunately my message included inappropriate words and I am sorry for that. However, telling their members to harass my employer to get me fired is an egregiously disproportionate response to my actions.'"

Apparently, Mr. Douglas used cuss words, which I suspect shocked and offended even the most cable-addicted Tea Partiers.   Why stop at firing Mr. Douglas?  Why not subject him to severe domestic discipline?  Perhaps a few months in jail?

Incidentally, something has been plaguing me for months: what does Freedom Works mean?  My Oxford American Dictionary says that Freedom is a noun meaning "the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants...."  In this context, the most sensible interpretation of Works is as a present tense verb meaning to function well.

Putting it all together, the group's message seems to be that freedom serves a valuable function in our society (and, thus, should be protected).

The big question: why would a group of self-styled freedom lovers go gunning after a fellow American for exercising his power to speak or think as he wants?

Back in the '80s, we had to contend with the so-called "Moral Majority," which was eventually re-labeled the "Oral Minority" because there weren't all that many of them (relative to the nation's population).  Though, they sure did squawk like chickens during a neck wringing.

GOP Politicans Rush to Defend Goldman Sachs

by Deb Cupples |  Five days ago, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged Goldman Sachs with fraud.  The first paragraph of the news release:

"The SEC alleges that Goldman Sachs structured and marketed a synthetic collateralized debt obligation (CDO) that hinged on the performance of subprime residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). Goldman Sachs failed to disclose to investors vital information about the CDO, in particular the role that a major hedge fund played in the portfolio selection process and the fact that the hedge fund had taken a short position against the CDO."

Other materials at the SEC's website go into a lot more detail.  Despite the fact that there are many concrete details that are at least worth a thorough review, a group of Republican politicians -- led by Rep. Darrell Issa -- are essentially trying to bully the SEC into backing off.

It's no surprise: when I used to watch House Oversight Committee hearings back in 2007-08, Mr. Issa habitually knee-jerk defended corporate heads and Bush-Administration bureaucrats.  That's just how Mr. Issa tends to roll.

Fact is, our nation believes that people (and corporations) are innocent until proven guilty.  I support that notion.  What I don't support is the notion that regulators should be dissuaded from thoroughly investigating certain people or entities simply because they have  deep pockets.  The law is supposed to be applied equally to everyone in this country, regardless of their wealth (or lack thereof).  Apparently, Mr. Issa and some of his colleagues disagree.

Interestingly enough, the blog Beltway Confidential reported:

"Campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs employees to President Obama are nearly seven times as much as President Bush received from Enron workers, according to numbers on OpenSecrets.org.

"President Bush's connections to Enron were well-hyped during the company's accounting debacle that rippled through the economy. Time magazine even had an article called, "Bush's Enron Problem." The Associated Press ran with the headline, "Bush-backing Enron makes big money off crisis." David Callaway wrote that Enron for Bush was worse than Whitewater for Clinton."

If Beltway Confidential's figures are accurate, then good point. 

Still, one major point is missing from that blog post: ex-President Bush had some serious ties to Goldman Sachs--ties that ended up costing us taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

You remember the Bush-backed bailout plans of 2008?  The bailouts that led to a massive funneling of our tax dollars to the very executives who had recklessly driven our nation's financial system (and economy) into a ditch?

Who was primarily responsible for designing the no-strings-attached bailout plans?

On Re-Financing Mortgages or Buying A Home – It’s Time to Pull the Trigger

posted by Chris |  If you have a home mortgage, now may be a good time for you to consider refinancing.   If you are looking for a home, now may be a very good time to purchase a home. 

My very best guess regarding both housing prices and interest rates comes from my crystal ball.  While my timing may not be perfect, I am betting that we are near a bottom in both housing prices and mortgage interest rates.  My crystal ball is telling me that while housing may not rebound quickly, mortgage interest rates may start to rise in the summer and into the fall. 

If you have an adjustable rate mortgage...,

Ill Fares the Land

posted by Bill: In his NY Review of Books piece on Ill Fares the Land , Tony Judt writes:

In the US, the UK, and a handful of other countries, financial transactions have largely displaced the production of goods or services as the source of private fortunes, distorting the value we place upon different kinds of economic activity. The wealthy, like the poor, have always been with us. But relative to everyone else, they are today wealthier and more conspicuous than at any time in living memory. Private privilege is easy to understand and describe. It is rather harder to convey the depths of public squalor into which we have fallen.

Another Sex-Related GOP Incident?

Via Memeorandum, National Journal's Hotline On Call tells us:

"The RNC has fired the director of its young donors program after she approved an expense for a risque L.A. nightclub, multiple sources tell Hotline OnCall.

"Allison Meyers, director of the RNC's "Young Eagles"  program, was terminated yesterday after reports that the RNC reimbursed a donor for a nearly $2K expense at the Voyeur nightclub in West Hollywood. A CA GOP consultant, Erik Brown, was reimbursed for the expense after a Young Eagles event in Beverly Hills. A CA blog reported that an RNC staffer's credit card was declined at the club, so Brown grudgingly put the expense on his own card. RNC spokesman Doug Heye refused to discuss any individual staffers, or to confirm that Meyers was fired.

"But several sources said Meyers both organized the Jan. 31 fundraiser at the Beverly Hills Hilton and attended the after-party at the nightclub. The fundraiser was held for the group of donors Meyers was responsible for, a group that solicits contributions from donors under 45 years old."

How unexpected!  Members of the self-styled party of "values" and "morals" actually thought a trip to a strip joint might loosen the purse strings of prospective, and apparently randy, "Young Eagles" (a name likely thunk up by a devout fan of the Cartoon Network). 

For those who appreciate details, it wasn't just a plain-vanilla strip club.  According to the Washington Post, the "Young Eagles" had congregated at "a bondage-themed club."

Perhaps the Republican Party has a latent preference for donors with lubricious tendencies.  Why buck a tradition so firmly established by some of the party's most distinguished (former) elected officials? 

Names are coming to mind: names like ex-Rep. Newt Gingrich [cheating on wife or wives]; ex-Rep. Mark Foley [dirty emails to same-sex Congressional pages]; ex-Gov. Eliot Spitzer [engaging with prostitute(s)]; ex-Sen. Larry Craig [soliciting sex in an airport mens room].... 

There are just too many names for me to type here, but Alternet has rated (and explained) some of the top GOP sex-scandals over the past 20 years.

Of course, many politicians of both parties have focused excessively on matters sexual.  One key difference is that Republican politicians spend an awful lot of energy and resources telling God  and everyone that they don't.

Why This Moment Matters

posted by Bill: Here's an excerpt from James Fallows at his Atlantic blog the other day— that I thought summed up nicely why, beyond all the caveats about how Health Care Reform, as presently constituted, falls far short of the mark, it matters:

...the significance of the vote is moving the United States FROM a system in which people can assume they will have health coverage IF they are old enough (Medicare), poor enough (Medicaid), fortunate enough (working for an employer that offers coverage, or able themselves to bear expenses), or in some other way specially positioned (veterans; elected officials)... TOWARD a system in which people can assume they will have health-care coverage. Period.

The Healthcare Debate and Beyond

by Bill Kavanagh: The House of Representatives finally passed the Senate's Christmas Eve version of Healthcare Reform, 219-212. This time, the legislation will go to the President and the Senate will take up a package of changes negotiated between the House and Senate. No doubt after some promised Republican Senatorial-haggling-over-parliamentary-procedure-to-come, the legislation will be signed into law. Healthcare reform, after a century of debate, will be enacted.

The floor debate in the House last night followed the tone of the argument in the country at large. On the Democratic side, there was a general pride in reaching out, finally, to the millions of Americans left uncovered by the current health system. There were members recalling civil rights struggles of the past to include all Americans in the franchise of voting and connecting health care as a right for all to stand alongside other basic freedoms we hold dear. On the Republican side, there were many exhortations about the end of liberty; members warned of losing a battle against tyranny and decried totalitarian tactics.

Healthcare Reform- The Tea Party Viewpoint

by Bill Kavanagh: It's likely that today will finally be the decisive vote on healthcare reform. Over thirty million Americans currently lack health coverage and a good many more are losing insurance along with their jobs. Beyond this, lots of people who pay for health coverage find their insurance won't compensate them when they need it most, either through rescission or because their illnesses are categorized as pre-existing conditions. The reform bill will address these conditions.

While healthcare reform could have done more to lower costs and provide an affordable public option, the moderate provisions that remain in the bill are still intensely controversial. The resistance to reform has engendered a backlash on the right that has taken to the streets. Erick Stoll and Chase Whiteside, two students at Wright State University, produced this terrific coverage of the last Tea Party gathering against healthcare reform in Washington this past week. It's worth a few minutes to check out the sort of sloganeering that's passed for argument in opposition to any serious reform of the system.

If you value Stoll and Whiteside's coverage, support their work here.

(Kavanagh cross-posts at Bill's Big Diamond .)

Reform in the Balance

by Bill Kavanagh: Paul Krugman sums up the situation on health care reform nicely in his column today. It's decision-time. A few months back, we almost had an imperfect, but enormously significant reform which had passed both houses of Congress. Now, we might just get almost the same package passed, finally. It's up to a few members of Congress to step up.

The alternative, as Krugman points out, is more of the same bone-crunching cruelty that is health insurance today in America. People get thrown off the rolls when they become ill, are undercovered or not covered at all when they are well (or at least think they are), and are paying premiums without knowing whether they'll be honored when it counts.

This weekend should finally tell whether the United States joins the ranks of every other developed nation in providing for reasonably universal coverage, whether imperfectly or not.

One way or another, the fate of health care reform is going to be decided in the next few days. If House Democratic leaders find 216 votes, reform will almost immediately become the law of the land. If they don’t, reform may well be put off for many years — possibly a decade or more.

(Kavanagh cross-posts at Bill's Big Diamond.)

Lobbyist Publicly Targets Consumer-Friendly Utility Regulators -- then Reverses Himself?

We've repeatedly covered some of the apparent corruption surrounding Florida's Public Service Commission (PSC), the entity that regulates utility companies.  The PSC is charged with protecting Florida's consumers, not advancing the interests of monopolistic utility companies. 

A few years back, Governor Crist was able to appoint two PSC commissioners who have been very consumer friendly: Nathan Skop and Nancy Argenziano.  The utilities industry doesn't particularly like Skop and Argenziano, precisely because they are so consumer oriented.

This brings me to my point.  On March 4, in a piece titled "Associated Industries to Fight Consumer Watchdogs on PSC," the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reported:

"Associated Industries of Florida President Barney Bishop said his group opposes the re-appointment of Public Service Commission members Nancy Argenziano and Nathan Skop, whose first terms expire this year.

"'We are going to do everything we can to make sure that doesn't happen,' Bishop said about their re-appointments after a Sun Sentinel editorial board meeting this week."

It doesn't get any clearer than that.  Now, look at what the Sun-Sentinel reported on March 8, in a piece titled "Associated Industries Will Stay out of Debate over PSC Appointments":

U.S. Debt

posted by Chris |  Recently, there has been an increased level of interest and discussion on the ramifications of the US Federal Deficit.    I would ask that you click on the link provided and just absorb the site:  http://www.usdebtclock.org/

In addition, you might check out the U.S. Treasury's official debt-to-the-penny page, on which you can plug in a date and find out what our national debt was on that date.

Regulating Derivatives

by Bill Kavanagh: Anyone who has spent time trying to understand the financial meltdown of 2008 has learned about derivatives and credit default swaps. What the general public probably hasn't learned is that nothing has happened since the markets went haywire to make the complicated and opaque derivatives market safer. No new regulatory legislation has passed and the legislation that has been introduced has loopholes big enough to burst a bubble in.

Today's NY Times editorial sheds some additional light on why derivatives need to be regulated and how the financial lobby has worked to prevent effective regulation from getting in the way of their lucrative— and unsafe— market in exotic products:

A big part of the problem is that derivatives are traded as private one-on-one contracts. That means big profits for banks since clients can’t compare offerings. Private markets also lack the rules that prevail in regulated markets — like capital requirements, record keeping and disclosure — that are essential for regulators and investors to monitor and control risk...

The big banks claim that derivatives are used to hedge risk, not for excessive speculation. The best way to monitor that claim is to execute the transactions on fully regulated exchanges, pass rules and laws to ensure stability, and appoint and empower regulators with independence and good judgment to enforce compliance.

Without effective reform, the derivative-driven financial crisis in the United States that exploded in 2008, and the Greek debt crisis, circa 2010, will be mere way stations on the road to greater calamities.

(Kavanagh cross-posts at Bill's Big Diamond.)

Putting the Fear Back in Fundraising

posted by Bill: If you were wondering what's wrong with Washington, check out this little tidbit. While creating jobs and keeping Americans in their homes has taken a backseat to posturing over who's to blame, election-year fundraising is in the ascendancy.

Case in point:

A Republican left RNC Finance Chairman Rob Bickhart's how-to-fundraise Powerpoint presentation in a hotel ballroom in Florida on February 18. Politico's Ben Smith reports on its contents.

In neat PowerPoint pages, it lifts the curtain on the often-cynical terms of political marketing, displaying an air of disdain for the party’s donors that is usually confined to the barroom conversations of political operatives...

The presentation explains the Republican fundraising in simple terms.

"What can you sell when you do not have the White House, the House, or the Senate...?" it asks.

The answer: "Save the country from trending toward Socialism!”...

In a section called "RNC Marketing 101," the following categories and motivations for giving were outlined:

"...small donors who are the targets of direct marketing are described under the heading “Visceral Giving.” Their motivations are listed as “fear;” “Extreme negative feelings toward existing Administration;” and “Reactionary.”

Major donors, by contrast, are treated in a column headed “Calculated Giving.”

Their motivations include: “Peer to Peer Pressure”; “access”; and “Ego-Driven.”

GOP Senator Ceases Stomping on the Unemployed

by Deb Cupples |  Via Memeorandum, Roll Call tells us:

"Under increasing pressure from Democrats and members of his own party, Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) Tuesday night abandoned his one-man filibuster of a one-month extension to unemployment benefits and other programs....

"The Senate is expected to vote Tuesday night on the short-term bill, which also includes payments for doctors and highway spending as well as other items.

"Thousands of federal highway employees who had been furloughed as a result of Bunning’s filibuster will likely be able to return to work later this week, and unemployment insurance checks will be sent to recipients after several days of delay."

There's something seriously wrong with a taxpayer-funded politician who would even think about acting in a way that would compound the troubles of our nation's unemployed.

Perhaps Sen. Bunning was not aware of the nation's unemployment rate, which was  9.7% in January (statistics for February are due out in a few days). 

Perhaps Sen. Bunning was not aware that nearly 15 million people are out of work (through no fault of their own)  -- and that most of them likely do not have enough money to treat unemployment as a welcome vacation.

When did it go out of fashion to empathize with others who are truly in need -- i.e., to have a heart?

Scott Brown

by Bill Kavanagh: Frank Bruni's NY Times Magazine piece on Scott Brown makes one think more gently of the new Senator from Massachusetts. While Brown says little in his interview with Bruni to change a general impression of intellectual shallowness and political opportunism, he is nonetheless a subject engendering personal sympathy. I'm not sure that's what Brown was going for as he embarked on a career in the US Senate, but while the Republican flavor-of-the-month isn't going to win any policy initiative contests, his personal history makes for great copy.

The weird stuff we've all heard about, the Cosmo centerfold, the reckless insinuations about the President's parentage, setting up the general public with his daughters, this stuff isn't really better understood after reading Bruni's piece. What is interesting, however, is the illumination of a childhood seriously lacking in male role models, coupled with Brown's ability to overcome lots of emotional (and physical) blows to his young pysche. Brown, like Bill Clinton or any number of love-starved political stars, seems to have started out as the kind of kid you couldn't help rooting for, a boy who managed, despite a troubled childhood, to make good and to win over teachers and neighbors, who helped him to become a successful adult.

One wonders if we wouldn't all be better off if guys like Brown (or Clinton) ended up as grownups helping to resolve the personal and societal issues that made them who they are, perhaps publicizing efforts to combat domestic violence or promoting summer educational programs, instead of looking for substitute love from the electorate. But, hey, that's American politics— and we'll probably see guys like Brown forever, till we get off the politics-as-celebrity kick...assuming that ever happens. Meanwhile, we're taking bets that Brown's dysfunctional story hasn't completely played out in public yet...

Check it out here.

(Kavanagh cross-posts at Bill's Big Diamond .)

Could FDR Fix Our Mortgage Crisis?

by Bill Kavanagh: North Carolina Congressman Brad Miller has proposed an interesting solution to the seemingly intractable mortgage crisis affecting a vast number of American homeowners. Rather than creating a new program to deal with mortgages currently in foreclosure or underwater, Miller suggests reviving a Depression-era entity, the Home Owner's Loan Corporation (HOLC).

HOLC was originally created in 1933 by the Roosevelt Administration. It's mission was to buy up distressed mortgages from the banks and then restructure them in negotiations with homeowners. HOLC eventually turned a slight profit, according to Miller, by the time its last mortgages were paid off in 1951, but in the first years of its existence, the agency was credited with averting a threatened collapse of the 1930's real estate market and with keeping homeowners in their houses— thereby avoiding mass evictions and suffering across the country.

Current programs, like the Obama Administration's HAMP program, are not doing the job of stabilizing real estate markets and helping homeowners to make loan payments workable on salvageable mortgages. HOLC, on the other hand, has a record of being able to intervene to make terms with homeowners, whether by reducing the principle of a loan in an underwater market, renting a home back to the family living in it on a long-term basis, or devising a payment restructuring as needed.

If the program were revived, homeowners would apply to HOLC, which could pick workable situations to become involved in. The banks would then relinquish the mortgage to HOLC in exchange for a percentage of the full value of it (through eminent domain), thereby restoring some sense of reality to the balance sheets of mortgage holders. Then, negotiations between the homeowner and the agency would be agreed upon. The restructured mortgages would be signed by HOLC and the homeowner, replacing the old mortgage with one that would be more workable and be serviced by HOLC.

I'm not an expert in mortgages, but the outline of the proposal has the appealing aspect of a history of effectiveness, unlike the programs not currently working. I'd like to hear readers' thoughts on it.

Here's a link to an article in the New Republic by Congressman Miller about his proposal.

(Kavanagh cross-posts at Bills Big Diamond.)

Financial Industry Donations: for Whom has our Government Been Working?

by Deb Cupples | Most of us watched how the no-strings-attached bank-bailouts (TARP) worked.  Most of us have read articles about or looked at campaign-finance data over the years.  Thus, I really don't need to ask for whom has our government been working? because the answer has been obvious for so long.

Frankly, I just couldn't conjure up another title.  As you read this post, remember that 1) our nation's economy is still bad; 2) our unemployment rate is still high; and 3) bank executives are still looking for ways to raise your credit-card interest rates, even if you pay on time. 

And apparently, Congress is willing to let them do it.  No surprise: for years, Congress has been willing to let them do pretty much whatever they wanted.  At any rate, via Memeorandum, the Washington Post reports:

"Commercial banks and high-flying investment firms have shifted their political contributions toward Republicans in recent months amid harsh rhetoric from Democrats about fat bank profits, generous bonuses and stingy lending policies on Wall Street.

"The wealthy securities and investment industry, for example, went from giving 2 to 1 to Democrats at the start of 2009 to providing almost half of its donations to Republicans by the end of the year, according to new data compiled for The Washington Post by the Center for Responsive Politics.

"Commercial banks and their employees also returned to their traditional tilt in favor of the GOP after a brief dalliance with Democrats, giving nearly twice as much to Republicans during the last three months of 2009, the data show. At the same time, total political donations by the major banks and investment houses alike dropped in the waning months of that year...."

"Republicans, meanwhile, are soliciting Wall Street for donations with the argument that Democratic proposals would hurt the bottom lines of major financial institutions. House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) told reporters this month that he was urging Wall Street executives to 'help our team' oppose the 'bizarre policies' coming out of the Obama administration.

"One senior Republican staff member on Capitol Hill, who discussed contributions on the condition of anonymity, said: 'Democrats in Washington are clearly trying to move legislation that would be very damaging to that industry. It was almost like there was a free ride time. But now they're starting to see the real negative impact of Democratic proposals.'

I must interject.  Is there a more blatant example of an industry seeking to buy politicians -- and our politicians' willingness to play ball?   Did millions of American voters send people to Congress to protect a few thousand financial-industry executives' personal wealth at our expense?  the Washington Post continues:

"Obama had unusually strong backing from Wall Street for a Democratic presidential candidate. He raised more than $18 million from bank and brokerage employees, for example, compared with rival John McCain's $10 million. (Obama did not accept money from PACs.) Prominent among Obama's bundlers -- individuals who raised at least $50,000 -- were private equity executives and hedge fund titans, including billionaire Kenneth C. Griffin of Citadel Investment Group, who had previously backed Republicans.

"But Obama soon encountered stiff opposition from the financial industry -- and some fellow Democrats -- over proposals to curb executive pay, tighten rules on financial derivatives and create an agency to protect consumers of mortgages, credit cards and other financial products. Financial executives have also bristled at the president's increasingly populist tone over the past year, including his quip in December that he did not run for office to help 'fat-cat bankers on Wall Street.'

"The industry has responded with its own change in attitude, according to contribution data and interviews. For some prominent executives, the final straw came in January, when Obama proposed a fee on big banks to recoup losses from the government's $700 billion program to bail out financial firms. When the president followed up a few days later with another plan to restrict the growth of large banks, some on Wall Street said they regretted their earlier support. "I'm not voting for him again," one said.

"Still, others said they would not switch alliances just yet. "I understand people are not happy about this. Wall Street did pour a lot of money into the campaign, some of which I solicited," said one Wall Street executive and Democratic bundler, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic. 'Having said that, we're kind of responsible for a lot of what went down.'"

Yeah, except not a whole lot has actually "gone down" in terms of protecting hundreds of millions of Americans against the relatively few individuals who make out like bandits in the financial industry. 

Mostly, it was just words -- on the part of politicians who wanted voters to think that said politicians were actually fighting against abuses by the financial industry.  Smoke and mirrors.  Shuck and Jive.  Sticks and stones.

Jon Stewart summed it up well back in January:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Clusterf#@k to the Poor House - Wall Street Bonuses
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis