Worst Congress Ever, Almost Completely Co-opted by Wall Street
By Sean Kerrigan The Wall Street Journal recently called the current 111th Congress, “the worst congress in modern history” and although I fully admit that I lack the historical context to declare it the worst congress in all of American history, you'd be hard pressed to find a congress that has done more to damage the nation's fiscal situation, undermine confidence and sell out to corporate influence. A recent Gallup Poll has congressional approval at 13 percent, the lowest in it's history. I would ask, “why is it even that high?” The Journal charges congress with complete contempt for the American people, a claim hard to ignore when you consider it nearly passed a $1.1 trillion omnibus spending bill after that same congress took a “shellacking” at the ballot box only a month ago largely because it can't control its spending. Congress's most recent offensive was thwarted after the press began covering it and Republican senators suddenly remembered their campaign promises. This didn't stop many of them them from including billions for their own earmarks, just in case it did pass. The phoneys had to be shamed into intellectual honesty. As troubling as our fiscal situation is, it's only icing on a giant cake of government corruption this congress has baked. The congressional record over the last two years has been worse than abysmal. How so? First you need to understand what Congress really is. In today's America, Congress is Wall Street. The vast majority of special interest contributions doesn't come from labor unions, lawyers, oil companies, pharmaceuticals or multimedia conglomerates; it comes from the financial industry, mostly banks, but also real estate and insurance companies. Congress will wag it's finger at the monolithic entity in the same way it will criticize itself from time to time, but as we've seen with the earmarks, its all rhetoric. For example, consider the Cap and Trade bill passed by the House of Representatives last year. The plan is deceptively called a “market-based solution” to offset global climate change. It puts a cap on the amount of emissions power plants produce and then creates a new commodities market for carbon-credits, which allow certain plants to produce more emissions. Investment banks collect carbon credits at low cost when they are first introduced and wait for the government to lower the cap (subsequently raising the price of carbon credits). It's a new artificial commodities market that is guaranteed to increase in value as the government gradually lowers the cap. It's a completely artificial market bubble controlled by the government (which in turn is controlled by Wall Street).
Were not finished; not only would the bill have enriched bankers at the expense of the American public, but according to the EPA, cap and trade wouldn't have even worked as a climate change solution. EPA administrator Lisa Jackson said, “I believe the central parts of the [EPA] chart are that U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels,” and that cooperation with other nations such as China and India would be required to pass similar laws to have an appreciable effect on the environment. Finally, if cap and trade had passed, it would make us more dependent on foreign oil. The cap would most significantly harm high emission coal plants, which make up the largest part of America's energy production capability. Artificially increasing the cost of coal production would necessitate a need to switch to other forms of energy like oil. Since we're not likely to drill for more, additional imports from middle eastern nations, Venezuela and Russia would be required. The harm that was nearly done to America's economy would have been immeasurable. Only partisanship and a desire to move ahead on health care reform prevented the bill from passing, but Wall Street has succeeded in other ways since the failure to pass cap and trade, most recently in the form of “financial regulation reform.”
The Dodd-Frank act, written by two representatives directly responsible for the lack of financial oversight that led to the 2008 banking failure, was touted as a bipartisan step to solve the problem of “too big to fail” banks, heighten scrutiny over their dealings and prevent future bailouts. In reality, the bill does little of the above. The bill doesn't prevent future bailouts. It actually includes an automatic mechanism for the government to allocate funds directly to failing banks. No need for future votes. Furthermore, it indirectly consolidates more power in large financial institutions. Banks that don't qualify for bailouts will be dissolved with their remains ending up in the hands of government run Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac or other institutions that will buy their assets, making them bigger and even more indispensable. There is no trigger that would allow or cause these monopolies to be broken up. According to the Financial Times, community banks that provide a large amount of loans to small businesses will struggle under this bill and are likely to reduce lending since much of the act's new regulations are easily handled by large institutions like Goldman Sachs. “Growth in financial concentration via these paths will reduce competition enormously. Fees for all sorts of activities and financing costs will increase. One-stop shopping will become the hidden prerequisite for many demanders of credit. The large, dominant institution will, among other things, press also to be the investment banker, lender, pension portfolio fund manager, and deposit provider.” Small banks will find it difficult or unprofitable to lend to start-up or growing businesses. Small businesses (those with fewer than 500 employees) hire the vast majority of Americans. The long term consequences of this bill will result in slower economic growth. How was this allowed to happen? Of course nothing like this happens in a vacuum. According to a report by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund, Goldman Sachs lobbied heavily during the bill's creation and debate. Did it help? Well a Goldman Sachs top executive says it might not be hurt at all by the new regulations. Some market analyst predict the bill will actually benefit their bottom line. Right before the financial crisis began in 2008, New York Times columnist David Brooks wrote, “Over the past few years, people from Goldman Sachs have assumed control over large parts of the federal government. Over the next few they might just take over the whole darn thing.” Well, they seem to be on their way. The only way to slow the advance of special interest who want to enslave us is to invest in closely divided government. It stopped Cap and Trade after all. Think about that next time you feel the urge to kick that other party out of Washington. |
