AUSTIN, Texas -- 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 lead 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:
-- "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." (New
York Times)
-- "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." (New
York Times)
David Cay Johnson of the Times reports that despite corporate
claims that moving to Bermuda is done to benefit shareholders, the biggest
beneficiaries are often the chief executives on the companies.
-- And The Wall Street Journal, favorite reading of all good
populists, is reporting abuses by the big currency traders, derivatives
companies and the usual run of scoundrels and cheats.
There has been much twittering amongst liberals since David
Brock's book, "Blinded by the Right: the Conscience of an Ex-Conservative"
came out as to whether there actually is a vast right-wing conspiracy. As
Izzy Stone noted years ago, they don't need a conspiracy -- they do it all
right out in the open. It's on the front pages. But the country seems to
have lost its gag reflex.
One is reminded of poor Bob Dole in the '96 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 non-scandal in history. What a tragic waste
of perfectly good anger. Another source of rampant apathy (a coinage that
reminds me of New York Assembly Speaker Stanley Steingut's immortal, "an
avalanche of creeping paralysis") 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
plaintively, "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?"
To find out more about Molly Ivins and read features by other
Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web
page at
www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2002 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.
