The Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street movements were both born out of the despair following the 2008 financial crisis, and both have tapped into the public’s anger over the unfairness of bank bailouts and huge bonuses for the risk takers while the rest of the country has struggled with unemployment, falling home prices and anemic economic growth.

Yet the elite media has constantly vilified the peaceful Tea Party as right-wing rabble for prodding politicians to do nothing more than reduce the bloat of government.

Meanwhile, politicians, the press — and now CEOs — have generally celebrated Occupy Wall Street as the second coming of the civil-rights movement — no matter how many times its followers have clashed with police in the name of Mao and Che Guevara.

And the worst part about these unfair depictions of the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street?

There’s no end in sight.

I can’t remember a single instance in which the chief executive of a major bank or conglomerate has said something nice about the Tea Party’s goals of limited government, lower taxes and free markets — the very things upon which this country was founded.

But such business leaders as GE chief executive Jeffrey Immelt and Blackrock chief Larry Fink have been falling all over themselves trying to say nice things about the OWS protesters, their grievances and rants against capitalism — even while the unwashed mob is nearly rioting not far from their corporate headquarters.

(more…)

In today’s New York Post:

There was once a time when trouble in foreign markets, whether in Asia or as now in Europe, would be good for US stocks.

Sure, our markets can get hammered when news like the 1997 Asian currency crisis hits. But we often make a comeback as investors digest the news and come to the conclusion that the best place to bet for future growth is on the companies at the heart of the US economy.

No longer.

And it’s not just the zero-percent job growth and 9.1 percent unemployment we’ve got now.

The mainstream business media will tell you that the problem lies in the “dysfunction of Washington.” In other words, the economic slump and all the market turbulence, including yesterday’s 100-point drop in the Dow, stem from a bipartisan cause — lawmakers and President Obama can’t manage to craft a sensible plan to grow the economy.

But talk to enough investors, and they’ll tell you this isn’t really a bipartisan problem. Rather, it largely remains at the top, meaning with Obama and his economic advisers — who, when they aren’t threatening to raise the taxes of “millionaires and billionaires” who make just $200,000 a year, are offering up the leftovers of previously failed economic policies, such as this “infrastructure bank” gimmick that the president plans to unveil in what’s being billed as a major economic speech later in the week.

(more…)

From today’s New York Post:

The White House narrative on how the country lost its triple-A rating and began a descent toward Third World status goes something like this:

Standard & Poors woke up Friday morning and out of the blue decided to downgrade Uncle Sam’s debt despite the administration’s best efforts to show the wrong-headedness of the S&P analysis.

Don’t buy it.

Yes, last Friday saw lots of meetings in Washington with Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner & Co. haranguing S&P executives with phony evidence that they’re getting a handle on the nation’s $14 trillion and rising debt, and the rotten economy that has squeezed tax revenues. But the fact remains, federal debt is set to grow for the foreseeable future, even with the spending cuts imposed in the recent debt-ceiling deal.

More important, the downgrade should hardly have been a surprise for the administration — it was among the most telegraphed in the history of downgrades.

(more…)

Excerpted from Bought and Paid For: The Unholy Alliance Between Barack Obama and Wall Street. Published by Sentinel. Copyright Charles Gasparino, 2010.

But despite his trials, [Lloyd] Blankfein had taken time out of his grueling schedule to help a firm that wasn’t a Goldman client, not even a prospective one. The firm was ShoreBank Corporation, a small community bank located in Chicago that lent money to inner-city businesses and was exploring the possibility of financing nascent and as-yet-unprofitable “green” businesses through so-called conservation loans and environmental banking, according to the bank’s Web site.

The bank’s self-described mission was to “change the world.” And yet despite its seemingly good intentions, the bank’s urban commercial borrowers were suffering greatly from the lower property values and high unemployment that stemmed from post–financial crisis recession. Without Blankfein’s help (and the help of other
major Wall Street firms) ShoreBank would follow the fate of dozens of other banks during the great recession and face almost certain collapse and government liquidation.

To be sure, helping out a struggling bank that wasn’t even a client was a most un-Goldman-like thing to do. Goldman dealt with only the biggest companies in corporate America or with superwealthy individuals (typically, those with $10 million or more to invest with the firm). More thanthat, this was a firm that had a reputation for screwing just about any company, clients included, when business was on the line. Goldman, of course, would deny that assertion. Even so, in the normal course of business, a bank like ShoreBank, with its modest funds and do-gooder reputation, wouldn’t even appear on Goldman’s radar as a potential customer.

Yet for some seemingly inexplicable reason, Lloyd Blankfein—who had a net worth close to $500 million and until recently had never heard of ShoreBank—started imploring his friends at other firms, like Morgan Stanley, GE Capital, and others, to help this little bank. Not that Blankfein suggested there was money to be made here. Quite the contrary; it was simply the right thing to do.

To any casual observer, this puzzling scenario raises the question: Why would Blankfein possibly want to save ShoreBank?

(more…)

For anyone who thinks that big Wall Street and Big Government aren’t joined at the hip, promoting policies and laws that keep each other fat and happy often at the expense of the American taxpayer, consider the career of Robert Rubin.

Rubin, of course, is largely gone from the public scene after spending 10 disastrous years as a board member and senior executive at Citigroup, the banking giant that epitomizes all that is wrong with American finance, and before that, a largely successful run as Treasury Secretary in the Clinton Administration, which he joined after running another controversial bank, Goldman Sachs. But his legacy looms large, mainly because I believe he was one of the reasons why the financial crisis occurred in the first place.

(more…)

Despite the few voices of caution, risk and leverage had become a national fixation, embraced both on Wall Street and in government. The SEC and the Fed, the main regulators in charge of monitoring the buildup of risky assets on the banks’ books, together with the rating agencies, were the modern-day equivalents of Nero fiddling as Rome burned.The fire in this case was the massive and rapid buildup of mortgage debt on the balance sheets of the banks; by 2006 it was approaching $1 trillion and heading higher without so much as a peep from the traditional watchdogs.

Still, the risk taking and leverage went beyond the brokerage houses and the banks. The GSEs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, were in the game as well. By now, Fannie and Freddie had fully and completely conceded their original mandates to the whims of the Washington political class, which demanded “affordable” housing for all, even those who couldn’t afford it. The politicians were giddy with Fannie and Freddie’s conversion from staid mortgage banks to subprime lenders that would make Angelo Mozilo, the CEO of the largest subprime lender in the markets, Countrywide Financial, envious.

It was an evolution that took years in the making. As HUD secretary, Andrew Cuomo boasted in one report in the late 1990s that the new mandates he was imposing on Fannie and Freddie to ramp up subprime lending “could be of significant benefit to lower-income families, minorities, and families living in underserved areas.”

(more…)