The financial industry has always been anathema to
populists. “Bankers all have hearts like caraway seeds” is
one of the mildest populist pronouncements on the
breed, and the pugnacious populist William Brann used
to denounce life insurance companies as “vampire bats.” So I
thought it was just me when reading the financial pages caused me to
wonder, “Is there anybody in this business who is not a crook?”
I don’t think it’s just me.
“Republicans led by Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas and the
accounting industry’s trade group are working to kill a
Democratic measure that would impose new rules on auditors,
companies, and investment banks in the wake of Enron’s
collapse,” reports The New York Times. That would be the same Phil
Gramm who got $101,350 in contributions from Enron and
$927,055 from the financial industry while chairman of the banking
committee. (By way of contrast, the late Henry B. Gonzalez of Texas,
a populist, accepted no contributions from the financial industry
while serving as chair of the House banking committee.)
Gramm’s wife served on the board of Enron, but a
spokeswoman for Gramm announced the reform bill has nothing
to do with Enron and is therefore not a conflict of interest.
The entire purpose of the bill, by Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, is
to prevent precisely the abuses that led to the collapse of Enron.
This cheerful effort to scuttle mild financial
reforms comes amid regular updates on Enron’s frauds and
felonies rigging the market during the California “energy
crisis,” playing games with Global Crossing to disguise loans and
other financial facts, etc. Try these exercises in financial fakery:
n “Using prearranged but undisclosed plans,
executives may sell stock without being accused of insider trading.
Now regulators, worried about the use of fake plans, may
force advance disclosure of them.” (The New York
Times)
n “House Republicans are blocking an effort by
Democrats to force a vote on a measure that would prevent
companies from avoiding income taxes by reincorporating in
Bermuda and other offshore tax havens.” (The New York
Times)
n And The Wall Street Journal is reporting abuses by
the big currency traders, derivatives companies, and the
usual run of scoundrels and cheats.
One is reminded of poor Bob Dole in the 1996
campaign, crying, “Where is the outrage? Where is the
outrage?” I suppose a lot of it got used up as right-wing
demagogues whipped dittoheads into a froth of fury over Whitewater,
the longest-running nonscandal in history. What a tragic waste
of perfectly good anger. Another source of rampant apathy is
the ubiquitous feeling that there’s absolutely nothing we can
do about any of these advanced financial shenanigans.
No point in getting outraged if there’s nothing you
can do. And besides, it’s all very complicated. Most of us
couldn’t explain how derivatives work to save our souls, or how
currency trading works, or how Enron gouged California.
But we do understand buying politicians.
The financial industry is so greed-driven it doesn’t
have the sense God gave a duck. It’s always pushing for
something ruinous to itself and everybody else, like
savings-and-loan deregulation or doing away with Glass-Steagall, so
now insurance companies, securities firms, and banks can
marry each other. Naturally, they’ll be “too big to fail” when
they go under, so the taxpayers will have to bail them out.
Paul Krugman, the economics writer, recently
inquired, “Wouldn’t it be nice, just once, to see the Bush
administration oppose the interests of a privileged elite?” He was referring
to the administration’s foot-dragging on accounting reforms
and Bush’s own declaration that he sides with the CEOs on
not treating their stock options as a business expense. That’s one
of those cute little tax advantages the rich buy for themselves
with their campaign contributions. Don’t forget that George
W. Bush’s biggest campaign donor was Ken Lay of Enron.
Edwin Sherwood once wrote me the following about
Wright Patman, a great populist: “Power tends to corrupt, and
absolute power corrupts absolutely. Instead of applying this rule to
distant dictators, Patman applied it to wealthy and powerful
Americans. Wealth too often opposes the public good in principle
and practice. Do we look to Exxon for our national conscience?”
Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate and the Fort
Worth Star-Telegram.
