The Working Families Party, an infamous ACORN front group notorious for corruption, was instrumental in organizing the Occupy Wall Street protests, according to radical journalist Laura Flanders of Free Speech TV.

The protests, which have spread to several other large U.S. cities, are part of what ACORN’s neo-communist founder Wade Rathke calls an “anti-banking jihad.”

Working Families Party (WFP) organizer Nelini Stamp has “been here since day one and she is part of the organizing team and the outreach team that has managed to bridge the distance between that first day and this day and between the grassroots folks here and the labor movement,” Flanders said at the protest in lower Manhattan.

We are “actually trying to change the capitalist system we have today because it’s not working for any of us,” Stamp told Flanders in an interview. Demonstrators are asking “how do we really reform and bring revolutionary changes to the states?”

(more…)

[Ed Note: This is the first post to run at BigGovernment. It was published two years ago today. It still seems relevant.]

In 1995, President Bill Clinton stood before the nation and proclaimed, “The era of big government is over.” The following year, the federal budget deficit stood at 1.4% of GDP. Thirteen years later, in 2008, the deficit had doubled, to just over 3% of GDP. This year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal budget deficit will equal 11.4% of GDP.

As George Will would say, “Well.”

This is the real source of our “summer of discontent.” Yes, millions of Americans spent the month of August holding Tea Parties, attending town halls, organizing, marching and protesting against ObamaCare, i.e. Congressional and Administration proposals to reconstruct the entire health care sector. But to suggest that health care alone is at the root of this backlash is to miss the forest for the trees. To paraphrase Democrat strategist James Carville, “It’s the big government, stupid.”

Since last September when the financial markets stumbled, we’ve seen a Wall Street bailout, government takeovers of AIG, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and numerous banks. The Federal Reserve has opened its discount window to almost all-comers and has taken the unprecedented step of aggressively buying up the federal government’s own debt. Congress rushed through a “stimulus to nowhere,” moved closer to a “cap-and-trade” remake of the energy sector and openly talked about higher taxes and more regulation.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel famously said that, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Ronald Reagan said, “Government isn’t the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” The administration has turned this observation upside down, proclaiming that Big Government will lead us to a better world. In August, we heard America singing, “Enough!”

The mainstream media and politicos from both parties were caught flat-footed by the push-back from average citizens. Each news-cycle brought a new theory for the protests: “astroturf,” angry “mobs,” distortions and misinformation, kooks and conspiracy nuts, and, inevitably (and perhaps most offensively) racism (MSNBC amazingly even cut the head off a black man holding a gun to make the point that white racist extremism was behind the entirety the protests).  The elites have convinced themselves that, once Congress is safely cocooned on Capitol Hill, and engaged in some Kennedy-esque legislating—a tweak here, a nip-and-tuck there—ObamaCare will be back on track and the Administration can continue its march to reshape America.

The elites are whistling past the graveyard. The ground has shifted. It could just be that deficits above 10% of GDP are the new $4 a gallon gas, i.e. the tipping point that awakens the silent majority and recalibrates political dynamics. Americans are setting aside parochial self-interest and reaching to reclaim the legacy of the Founders.

(more…)

This month the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report on the financial crisis and came to the same conclusion as Judicial Watch: The government has failed to provide a rationale for its unprecedented intrusion into the private sector through the massive bailout scheme initiated in 2008. And more transparency is needed to get to the truth.

When questioned about their rationale for the bailouts (by Judicial Watch, the GAO and others), government officials simply repeat their standard line: There were “unusual and exigent circumstances” that warranted extreme measures.

Those extreme measures included the Federal Reserve authorizing credit to “troubled” private financial institutions. (Not since the Great Depression had the Fed authorized a loan to a non-banking entity.) If such measures were not taken, we were told, the institutions would collapse, thereby spreading a “contagion” throughout the global financial system.

This thin explanation is simply not good enough said the GAO. You can read the full report here. In my view, here are two key takeaways (as reported by CNBC):

1. In explaining the basis for these exceptional credit extensions, Federal Reserve Board officials cited the continuing strains in financial markets and concerns about the possible failures of these dealers at the time. However, the Federal Reserve Board could not provide documentation explaining why these extensions were provided specifically to affiliates of these four primary dealers.
2. …without more complete documentation, how assistance to these broker-dealer subsidiaries satisfied the statutory requirements for using this authority remains unclear. Moreover, without more complete public disclosure of the basis for these actions, these decisions may not be subject to an appropriate level of transparency and accountability.

On this subject of transparency, Judicial Watch has launched a comprehensive investigation of the government’s rationale for the bailouts on behalf of our client and former Federal Reserve employee Vern McKinley. We have a number of lawsuits related to the bailouts of Bear Stearns, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and others working their way through the system. And, in fact, on July 18, we filed a “Petition for Rehearing En Banc,” with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in our lawsuit over the Bear Stearns bailout (McKinley v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, Case No. 10-5353).

Like the GAO, with this FOIA lawsuit Judicial Watch simply wants to know the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System’s justification for authorizing the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to provide “temporary emergency financing” to Bear Stearns through JP Morgan. (JW did learn from Treasury documents we unearthed that Bear Stearns was considered “worthless” at the time the Federal Reserve Bank of New York handed JP Morgan $30 billion to take over the company.)

The government is stonewalling our request, saying that information related to this question is protected under the “deliberative process privilege” of FOIA law (Exemption 5). As you might imagine, documents supposedly relating to the “deliberative process” can be most the most illuminating about government decision-making and whether it is on the up-and-up.

Unfortunately, an appellate court panel bought the government’s argument.

On June 3, 2011, the panel ruled that if a government agency simply makes the claim that information can be withheld under Exemption 5 the courts must assume that releasing the information will harm the agency’s decision making process – even if no proof of harm is put before the court.

Judicial Watch is now requesting that the appellate court hear the matter en banc (or in full, rather than merely a three-judge panel). Here’s a squib from our brief.

By substantially lowering the government’s burden of demonstrating that material may be withheld under the deliberative process privilege, the panel created a sweeping exemption that is in direct conflict with decades of decisions holding that material may be withheld under the deliberative process privilege only if a government agency demonstrates that disclosure of the withheld material would harm the agency’s decision-making process. [Emphasis added.]

Really this boils down to a very simple issue. We believe the American taxpayers deserve to know how and why the government committed trillions of dollars of their money to prop up failing financial institutions. But the government says it’s none of our business. (Just like the Obama administration says their debt ceiling “crisis” plans are none of our business either.) Unfortunately, if allowed to stand, the panel’s ruling could severely undermine FOIA law.

The government’s position on these bailout documents is offensive and corrupt. And we’re glad the GAO has called attention to that with its report.

From the 1^st quarter through the 4th quarter of 2010, GM’s lobbying expenses more than doubled from $1.8 million to $3.89 million – a 113% increase.  After all, when the government is your largest shareholder, your company execs will inevitably be spending an inordinate amount of time cozying up to Washington politicians.

Moreover, GM’s lobbyist team reads like a who’s who of the government bailout business.  And why wouldn’t it?  When you’re lobbying Washington to privatize gains for your clients and socialize their losses among taxpayers, you hire those firms with the most experience representing other notorious companies that received massive bailouts by U.S. taxpayers — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, AIG and others.

(more…)

Private saving and investment are the heart and soul of the dynamic market process. Together they provide and allocate the resources used to augment the economy’s productive capacity, generate sustained long-run economic growth, and thereby make possible a rising level of living. Economic crises interrupt this process by discouraging investors and causing them to consume their resources or to employ them in relatively safe, low-yielding ways. Absent entrepreneurs willing to take the great risks that characterize investments in great technological and organizational innovations, the growth process fades into economic stagnation or even decline.

The present recession starkly displays this characteristic crisis-related abatement of the economy’s investment process. Indeed, the decline of private investment during recent years has been much greater than most observers realize. Consider the following data, taken or derived from the most recently revised National Economic Accounts prepared by the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (Tables 1.1.5, 1.1.6, and 5.2.6).

In 2006, gross private domestic investment reached its most recent peak, at $2.33 trillion (in constant 2005 dollars), or 17.4 percent of GDP. After remaining almost at this level in 2007, this measure of investment fell substantially during each of the next two years, reaching $1.59 trillion, or 11.3 percent of GDP, in 2009. This decline is severe enough, but it does not give us all the information we need to gauge the extent of the investment bust.

The greater part of gross investment consists of what the statisticians call the capital consumption allowance, an estimate of the amount of money that must be spent simply to offset wear and tear and obsolescence of the existing capital stock. In a country such as the United States, with an enormous fixed capital stock built up over the centuries, a great amount of funds must be allocated simply to maintain that stock. In recent years, the private capital consumption allowance has ranged from $1.29 trillion in 2005 to $1.46 trillion (in constant 2005 dollars) in 2009. Thus, even in the boom year 2006, about 60 percent of gross private domestic investment was required merely to maintain the economy’s productive capacity, leaving just 40 percent, or $889 billion in net private domestic investment, to augment that capacity.

(more…)

This past week I gave a speech to a group of investors. The organizer of the event e-mailed me the night before, asking that I please try to be optimistic. Well, that’s my usual habitat. But optimism has been hard for me this year. Our muddle-through economy and lackluster stock market, challenged by so many taxing, spending, and regulating problems coming out of Washington, are the reasons why.

In fact, until recently, I’ve been advising people to take profits in the stock market, rather than buy-and-hold. You should keep your money before the Obama IRS takes it from you.

But following the tea-party primary victories in Delaware, New York, and New Hampshire this week, I’m once again getting energized.

Free-market capitalism is on the comeback trail. That’s one of the key tea-party messages. And make no mistake about it: The free-market power of the tea-party political revolt is totally bullish for stocks and the economy.

In short, this is a revolution.

(more…)

From the Boston Globe:

Fannie and Freddie were once the most powerful forces in the US housing industry. They pumped liquidity into the sector by buying up mortgages written by banks and mortgage companies. That kept the cost of capital low and increased the volume of mortgages. Government backing allowed the two to borrow money at lower rates than anyone else in the housing financing market.

While Fannie and Freddie operated under some form of congressional oversight, they ultimately answered to their stockholders. Their business was making money. They joined Wall Street firms in making record profits — and hauling in record bonuses — by buying, securitizing, and reselling subprime mortgages that never should have been written in the first place.

The housing market’s collapse sowed destruction and put the nation’s biggest banks on a government lifeline. No lifeline has been bigger than the rope the feds threw Fannie and Freddie, though. In September 2008, the two firms received a bottomless line of credit. So far, their tab stands around $148 billion — more than AIG, the company that insured all of Wall Street’s worst housing bets, is in hock for.

In January, the Congressional Budget Office said the total cost to taxpayers could reach $373 billion.

(more…)

Remember all of those bold statements that the so called “Troubled Assets Relief Program” (TARP), the Bailout of Wall Street Bill, was a one time deal and our federal government should and will never do it again.  Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner testified in January of this year before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform:

Many Americans look at what happened with AIG, and the rest of the financial rescue, and simply ask:  Why was it necessary?  Why was it fair for the government to take taxpayer money and put it into an institution that had mismanaged itself to the edge of collapse?  The answer is that it was not fair, and it was not something our government should ever have to do.  But those Americans, those families and business owners who played by the rules and played no role in giving rise to this recession, should understand that if the government had failed to act, that failure would have unleashed substantially greater damage upon them.

If TARP “was not fair” and not “something our government should ever have to do,” then why is Congress trying to impose the TARP model on small business?  Congress will consider legislation this week to establish TARP, Jr. for small businesses to be administered and run by none other than Secretary of the Treasury Tim Geithner. The House is considering H.R. 5297, the Small Business Lending Fund Act that provides “temporary authority to the Secretary of the Treasury to make capital investments to eligible institutions in order to increase the availability of credit for small businesses.”

The legislation creates a federally run new bureaucracy called the “Small Business Lending Fund. ”  To qualify a financial institution has to have less than $10 billion in assets and the new creation would have up to $30 billion in new investment authority.  This allegedly temporary program is set up “without further appropriation of fiscal year limitation,” i.e. not temporary, to purchase “preferred stock and other financial instruments” from small business as a means to infuse money into local banks with the condition that they lend to failing small business.  Local banks will be lending in exchange for equity small business, therefore these banks will be using federal monies to buy equity in companies.  This is an idea born from socialism and one that will harm the free market for small business, because failure will be rewarded by federal subsidies while success will be punished.

(more…)

As long as the Democrats continue to control Congress, we’ll have to endure an endless procession of initiatives for the federal government to take over industry after industry. Health insurance and college loans went under federal hegemony with passage of a single bill, known as “ObamaCare.”

Now, a new bill, referred to by the name of its chief sponsor, the ethically challenged Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, aims to consolidate a federal takeover of the nation’s entire network of financial institutions.

As Peter Wallison of the American Enterprise Institute notes:

Does the bill, as [Republican Senate leader Mitch] McConnell said, “institutionalize too big to fail?” Of course. There can’t be any reasonable doubt about this. The bill authorizes the Fed to regulate all non-bank financial institutions that are “systemically important” or might cause instability in the U.S. financial system if they failed. . . .

The market will see immediately that the government has created Fannie Maes and Freddie Macs in every sector of the financial system where these large companies are designated for Fed regulation, including insurance companies, hedge funds, finance companies, bank holding companies, securities firms, and any other kind of financial institution the government wants to regulate. Since these firms will be too big to fail, they will be seen in the market—as Fannie and Freddie were seen—as ultimately backed by the government and thus safer firms to lend to than small firms that are not government backed. This will permanently distort the financial market, favoring large companies over small ones, and eventually force a consolidation of each market where these firms exist into a few large competitors operating under the benign supervision of the government.

In other words, this is another huge step toward fascistic corporatism, completing a de facto government takeover of today’s nominally “private” financial firms. These corporations would be reduced to the status of politically managed public utilities.

(more…)

This week we broke the story of possible criminal wrongdoing in the government takeover of insurance giant AIG. In the last several months, the US government has tried, unsuccessfully, to throw out plaintiff Kevin Murray’s case, alleging that the government’s takeover of AIG puts it in the position of supporting and promoting Islam and Shariah finance.

This past Tuesday, Federal district court judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff rejected the Treasury Department’s and the Fed’s effort to prevent any further discovery while the government attempts to convince the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to overrule Judge Zatkoff’s earlier ruling rejecting the government’s motion to dismiss the federal lawsuit challenging the government’s takeover of AIG on First Amendment-Establishment Clause grounds.

Tim Geithner: The “extraordinary move to depose a sitting Treasury Secretary”

The lawsuit, captioned Murray v. Geithner et al., was brought by attorneys David Yerushalmi and Robert Muise, representing the plaintiff, Kevin Murray, a tax payer and former combat Marine who served in Iraq. The federal lawsuit alleges that the U.S. government’s takeover and financial bailout of AIG was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

(more…)

Yesterday we broke the story of possible criminal wrongdoing in regards to the bailout of AIG by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, then Director of the New York Federal Reserve, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke.

It appears that, through it’s 77.9% control of AIG’s equity and voting rights, the NYFed “sought to accomplish an illegal financial transaction through false means” by creating an “independent”: trust that was in fact not independent, placing it “in violation of federal anti-money laundering statutes (18 USC § 1956).” Here we elaborate a bit further, laying out the issue in the text of a letter submitted to Neil Barofsky, Special Inspector General for TARP (SIGTARP)– as the government takeover of AIG was accomplished using funds provided to the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

First, however, some context: Crucially, these facts were discovered while securities litigator David Yerushalmi and the Thomas More Law Center was representing Iraq War vet Kevin Murray in Murray vs. Geithner, et al. Mr. Murray is rightfully horrified that the very doctrines of the enemy he faced in combat would be promoted by the US government. Specifically, prior to the U.S. government’s takeover of the insurance giant AIG, the company was the world’s leading promoter of Shariah-compliant finance products and businesses. Bailing out and forcefully (and illegally) taking ownership of AIG put the American taxpayer in the position of advocating Shariah-compliant finance, which is troubling on many levels:

(more…)

This afternoon on Secure Freedom Radio we announced a breaking news story concerning the Administration’s ongoing cover-up of AIG financial wrong-doing.  In an interview with David Yerushalmi, senior litigator on the Murray v. Geithner et al lawsuit, we expose possible fraud, money-laundering and criminal activity.

As Yerushalmi says in the interview, “So here’s what we find out in the midst of discovery when we depose the Treasury Department’s deponent and the Fed and get documents, here’s what we’ve learned: The Federal Reserve Bank of New York at the time that it structured the debt that it was going to give AIG insisted that not only did it get the debt, not only would it get principal and interest payments and collateral for that, it wanted 80% of AIG, precisely 77.9% of the shares and the voting rights.  But the Federal Reserve Bank and Geithner knew that it was illegal for the Fed system whether there’s a Fed or the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to own that, so what did they do….”

(more…)

We saw their fury throughout 2009:  “Capitalism is Dead”, “Kill the Corporation”, “Bust Up Big Banks”, “Greed Kills”, “Bank of America, Bad for America”.  The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) led an all-out assault on Wall Street – and on capitalism and corporations – coining words and phrases that have since become common staples in the vocabulary of the bank-bashing craze.  That fury hit a fever pitch last March when word of the AIG bonuses went public.  It was the SEIU out in front of the protests, at AIG offices, and bussing protestors to the homes of AIG executives.

The months that followed saw more of the same.  In April, SEIU hailed the ousting of General Motors CEO Rick Wagoner.  That same week, it stepped up its battleplan with the Mother of all Corporate Campaigns against Ken Lewis, Bank of America CEO and Chairman – complete with videos, rolling billboards, smear sites, petition drives, letter campaigns, media blitzes and more, while it placed equal attention on Bank of America, forcing the company to respond with a $40 million image boosting campaign of television and print ads.

(more…)

Sources on the Hill tell Big Government that the nomination of Ben Bernanke to remain Chairman of the Federal Reserve is in deep trouble.  A Senior Capitol Hill Staffer said to Big Government, “if [Senate Majority Leader] Reid does not file for cloture tonight, I don’t think they have the votes to confirm him.”  The Wall Street Journal thinks the vote will be “tight,” yet the White House is spinning that they have the votes.  Hill sources say that this nomination is trending in the wrong direction for the Obama Administration and many on the Hill are stunned by the news that, according to CNBC, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has announced her opposition to the nomination.  There is growing opposition to this nominee remaining in charge of the Federal Reserve for a second term.

Senators have made public statements indicating that there may be non-public information that is hurting this nominee.  Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) said that “the Fed continues to stonewall Congress and the public.”  Senator Jim Bunning (R-KY) referenced “ongoing examinations by Congress and the GAO of the Fed’s AIG bailout” and that there are “unpleasant facts for the Fed and Chairman Bernanke” that will come out after “full public disclosure of all information about the AIG bailout” that has only been shared with “select Congressional Committees and the GAO.”  Senator David Vitter (R-LA) said, “it is vitally important that Congress has the ability and time to adequately review the Federal Reserve’s bailout of AIG.  Although some of our offices have had time to review some of the documents, not all are available at this time and Congress should wait until GAO’s review before proceeding with his nomination vote.” (more…)

The voters are getting angry at The One. A majority disapprove of how he’s handling health care “reform” AND the economy. The AP reports that the billions spent on road construction has done nothing to lower unemployment. The “most popular government program” in years, Cash-4 -Clunkers was actually, predictably, a flop. Unemployment is way higher than they said it would be if we didn’t rush through the borrow and spend porkulus bill.

So, what to do to keep the rabble from voicing their displeasure? Blame someone else! Obama wants to tax the big bad banks. He says it’s to get our TARP money back and to reduce undue risks by the greedy bankers. The One wants you to believe that the big banks are the kind of guys who would take the last piece of pizza from the birthday boy at Chuck-E-Cheese (see above photo).

Obama has been strident in his criticism of bankers, calling them “fat cats” last month in an interview that aired on the eve of their visit to the White House. With public anger over the bailout still strong, Obama has embraced populist rhetoric in an effort to shame bank executives into paying back the government more quickly and their executives less lavishly.

At the White House on Monday, Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs jabbed at the perceived disconnect between Wall Street executives and their customers. The spokesman said the disparity angered his boss.

(more…)

Former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer took to the New York Times OP-ED page to call for the full release of a AIG corporate e-mails to determine how and why the company crashed.

This is the same Eliot Spitzer who stonewalled attempts by the New York State Senate Committee on Investigations and the New York Commission on Ethics to obtain the E-Mails of Spitzer and his top aides surrounding the abuse of power in his using the New York State Police to spy on his political opponents. Likewise, Spitzer attempted to prevent his top aides from testifying. This man’s hypocrisy knows no bounds.

The idea of former New York Governor and Attorney General Eliot Spitzer criticizing the AIG bailout is ridiculous; Spitzer is responsible for the economic condition of the company for which they needed a bailout. In fact, Spitzer’s crackdown on Wall Street caused the firms to increase leverage because he took away the ability for them to make money in research and underwriting, and they looked for other ways to make money; like securitizing subprime mortgages.

(more…)

President Obama recently reiterated his plan to fix the regulation of Wall Street and said it was time to “put an end to the idea that some firms are too big to fail.”

Amen.

But the president doesn’t need a new law or a new oversight committee, like the one he proposes, to end the concept of too big to fail.  He could, and should, simply make a speech declaring that from this day forward, any company, no matter how big or small, will be allowed to fail. If Bank of America or AIG or Chrysler goes bankrupt, so be it. Obama should unequivocally proclaim, “There will be no more bailouts. Period.”

If given, that kind of speech would surely be the most popular thing Obama’s done since becoming president. Arianna Huffington and other liberals angry that ‘crony’ capitalists are getting corporate welfare would love it. Glenn Beck, Michelle Malkin, and fiscal conservatives who truly opposed President Bush’s $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program bailout would love it. Libertarians and independents would be ecstatic to see the end of a system that protects—and even rewards—businesses that make bad decisions. (Only Wall Street firms enjoying the taxpayer safety net would be upset.)

Unfortunately, while Obama hints at ending “too big to fail” policies, his financial reforms actually continue to encourage the reckless financial behavior that helped get us into this mess.

(more…)

n7h6ycxmg5

[Ed Note: This is the first post to run at BigGovernment. It was published two-years ago today. It still seems relevant.]

In 1995, President Bill Clinton stood before the nation and proclaimed, “The era of big government is over.” The following year, the federal budget deficit stood at 1.4% of GDP. Thirteen years later, in 2008, the deficit had doubled, to just over 3% of GDP. This year, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the federal budget deficit will equal 11.4% of GDP.

As George Will would say, “Well.”

This is the real source of our “summer of discontent.” Yes, millions of Americans spent the month of August holding Tea Parties, attending town halls, organizing, marching and protesting against ObamaCare, i.e. Congressional and Administration proposals to reconstruct the entire health care sector. But to suggest that health care alone is at the root of this backlash is to miss the forest for the trees. To paraphrase Democrat strategist James Carville, “It’s the big government, stupid.”

Since last September when the financial markets stumbled, we’ve seen a Wall Street bailout, government takeovers of AIG, Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, GM, Chrysler, and numerous banks. The Federal Reserve has opened its discount window to almost all-comers and has taken the unprecedented step of aggressively buying up the federal government’s own debt. Congress rushed through a “stimulus to nowhere,” moved closer to a “cap-and-trade” remake of the energy sector and openly talked about higher taxes and more regulation. (more…)