Uncle Raymond Clinton

By coincidence I have recently been reading two books simultaneously. I picked up Living History by Hillary Rodham Clinton at the local used book sale (a fundraiser for local seniors). I figure if Hillary is going to be President, which is likely, then I should know more about her. She’s an okay writer, and presents herself well, but the book began to wear on me as I read past page 300.

So I started re-reading The Money and the Power, the Making of Las Vegas and Its Hold on America, by Sally Denton and Roger Morris. I had already read it once, and I had forgotten that the Clintons play a small role in it. Basically, the book is about how the vast sums of money made by organized crime, especially from bootlegged alcohol during Prohibition, was eventually cycled into the Las Vegas we know today. It is a colorful story, filled with the names of famous gangsters like Benjamin Segal and Meyer Lansky, but also meticulous in connecting organized crime to politics, including most of the post-Prohibition Presidents of the United States. (It was published in 2001, so Barack Obama makes no appearance in it.)

Now Hillary (admittedly, by her own representation) was a good girl. Her father owned a small business, and she grew up church-going, Republican, and upper-middle class. She went to a swanky girls-school private college, Wellesley, then on to Yale Law School. I spotted no obvious discrepancies in her story. She was influenced by the turmoil of the 60s, in particular the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War. By 1972 she had changed over to the Democratic Party.

The anomalies I spotted were in her descriptions of her eventual husband, Bill Clinton. Now I had thought Bill Clinton was supposed to be from a poor family. He was supposed to be a bright kid who won scholarships, including a Rhodes scholarship to study in England. Well, I would tend to admire that, since I was a bright scholarship kid. But I also know that scholarship kids typically are penniless until they get their first real job after they graduate from academia. Unlike the kinds of students who typically attend places like Wellesley and Yale, they don’t own cars and they work paid, usually menial jobs each summer as well as during the school year. They can’t accept glamorous unpaid internships that give the upper class kids inside tracks to the most desirable jobs.

What struck me first was the car. They have just started dating in the spring of 1971, at Yale Law School. “We spent long hours driving around in his 1970 burnt-orange Open station wagon.” What was an unpaid law student doing with a new station wagon? And where did the money come from that summer, when he and Hillary lived in Berkeley, California, and it is clear he did not have a job? There was more, but that was enough to remind me that Hot Springs, Arkansas was a notorious center of organized crime activity. I knew Bill was from Hope, which is not far from Hot Springs; I wondered if his easy money meant he had already been bought.

Of course it is not really a secret that William Jefferson Blythe III, aka Bill Clinton actually spent most of his childhood in Hot Springs, and graduated from Hot Springs High School. Although his step father, Roger Clinton had owned the Hope Buick Dealership, he was an alcoholic and gambler, and had sold his share of the dealership in 1955. His worked as a parts manager for his broth Raymond after that. He died in 1967, before Hillary even met Bill. Uncle Raymond Clinton owned the Hot Springs Buick dealership with his partner Earl T. Ricks, who eventually also became Brigadier General of the Arkansas National Guard. Ricks died in 1953.

So the Opal likely was a gift from a generous uncle who owned a car dealership. Nothing wrong with that. But according to Denton & Morris, Raymond Clinton had other sources of income besides the dealership. He “ran slot machines in the town for the Marcello family.” [D&M page 376]

When Bill Clinton showed up in Arkansas in 1974 to take an appointment as a law professor and run for Congress, Bill raised more money in the Democratic Party primary than his far-better-established opponents. It was Raymond who helped him raise the money, and if it is true that he was mob-connected, then the money was largely mob money from drugs, prostitution, and gambling. Clinton lost to the Republican. In 1976 Bill ran for state Attorney General and won. He did not become known for prosecuting or even noticing the organized crime still rampant in Hot Springs.

Later, as President of the United States, Clinton would quietly kill a proposal for a 4% federal gambling tax.

That helped President Clinton raise large sums of money in Las Vegas for his 1996 re-election campaign. Gambling interests, led by Brian Greenspun and Steve Wynn poured money into the Clinton campaign and the general Democratic Party war chest. One $25,000 per attendee party sponsored by Wynn raised $650,000 for the Democrats [D&M page 371]. Just in case, Wynn and friends also gave very large sums of money to Republican Party nominee Bob Dole.

Bill Clinton and then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich could sometimes put aside partisan discord to accomplish something together. Due to the movement to legalize gambling outside Nevada, by 1996 a backlash was growing. Pushed by non-profit groups, Congress decided to create a Gambling Impact Study Commission. Critics pointed out that gambling “took billions, addicted thousand at great physical and human cost, and siphoned spending from local businesses to the point of ruin, all while giving back nothing of social or economic value.” [D&M page 373].

Such committees in Congress always have the power to subpoena witnesses. But gangsters and casino corporate executives (if there is any difference) alike remembered the Kefauver hearings and Robert Kennedy hearings with great distaste. Clinton, Gingrich and politicians whose campaigns had been slushed up with gambling profits made sure the committee did not have the usual powers. In the end the Gambling committee accomplished nothing.

When did Hillary become aware of her husband’s organized crime connections? My best bet would be never. After all, Uncle Raymond ran a legitimate business, an automobile dealership. Hillary had her own law practice to worry about. Most people can look the other way when it is convenient to them, and Hillary seems to not be an exception.

Hillary and Bill are independently wealthy now, but not so wealthy that they can finance another Presidential campaign without a lot of donated money. Hopefully the women who love Hillary and the Democratic Party can make enough donations to her campaign that she will not be beholden to any particular person, or private interest group, when she is making decisions that affect us all.

I expect Bill Clinton to hang around the White House, and he does have some talents. But I expect Hillary to make her own decisions. As the first female President, I hope she turns out to be one of the rare peace Presidents. I hope the feminist core of her following holds her to that standard.

Other sources:

The next Stop after Hope (Progressive Review)

Frontline Interview with Roger Morris about Partners in Power, The Clintons and Their America.

House of Cards, 2014 Deal

Deadlock has characterized the Government of the United States since the midterm elections of 2010. Not much got done during 2009 and 2010, either, despite Democratic Party control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. In 2009 the Great Recession was in full swing. The national deficit was unprecedented: tax receipts were low and payments for social services hit record levels.

Now the economy is back to something approaching normal, and so is politics. Armies of people who thought they were getting rich in the real estate market, and then lost their life savings, are no longer marching around with pitchforks threatening to tar and feather, or at least un-elect, incumbent politicians.

No one noticed the resilience of the system that was set up as the result of the compromise between free-market capitalism and socialism that is still known as the New Deal. The Federal Reserve probably should have done more to prevent the crisis, but in the end muddled through. Congress should have done more, but in the end muddled through. Businesses mostly muddled through. Workers got the shaft as usual, but are a tough lot and mostly muddled through.

Deadlock does not mean there is no policy. It means federal policy will remain the same as it has been since the Democratic Party, led by Bill Clinton, tried to destroy the welfare state, figuring it was no longer needed to elect Democrats to office. What choice did the welfare bums and working poor have, voting Republican?

For 2015 and 2016 we can expect business as usual. Obscene amounts of money will be spent on the War on Terror. A new federal Highway/Transportation deal will be made, because both parties get paid off by the contracting companies. Food stamps won't go away, but as employment rises less people will get them. The Affordable Care Act won't go away, because the Insurance Companies are making more money than ever, as are the doctors and hospital administrators.

The only real difference is Fracking. Complain about water pollution if you will, but Fracking has given the U.S. post-imperialist economy a second wind. The first effect of fracking was a big increase in incomes in the gas and oil states. That helped local economies and even the federal deficit. Now, after a few years of ramping production, everyone is benefiting from lower gasoline and natural gas prices.

Meanwhile, Chinese workers got big raises every year between 2008 and 2104, so now the cost of labor is not that big of an advantage for China any more. Their advantage is that almost all of the factories were moved to China in the meantime. We are not going to see many factories move back to the U.S., although new ones are already opening here to take advantage of the proximity to oil production and a huge consumer base.

After the election the Keystone Pipeline will be approved. Environmentalists will be mad, but soon they won't have Barack Obama to kick around any more. And why, really, was the Keystone different than any other pipelines? Why not demand existing pipelines be torn up, or people just move so they can huddle around North Dakota for warmth?

Immigration policy won't change much either. People will continue to come here illegally. No matter how much overpopulation hurts the environment, the Democrats will turn a blind eye to illegal immigration because they need the votes. No matter how much illegal immigration helps the rich (by creating cheap labor and increasing overall demand) the Republicans will remain anti-immigration because that is one way they keep American workers' anger focused on ethnic issues, rather than on the exploitive economic system.

And war will go on. For the time being Ultraconservative Islam seems to be willing to play the enemy, despite the consequences. But if necessary new enemies can always be found. Turning taxes into the satisfying feeling of being the biggest bully in the world is just too satisfying to too many people for us to ever Hope that situation will Change.

People talk about the Internet of Things. They should talk about the Internet of Lies. All lying, all th time, the art of politics in America.

The Deregulation Era

Just a note that I saw the term "deregulation era" for the first time just now. That does not mean it is the first time it has been used, just the first time I noted it.

It is used by New York Times business columnist Floyd Norris in a article called A Trading Tactic is Foiled, and Banks Cry Foul. Floyd pins the ear as lasting from 1980 until 2008.

Note this was an era where sometimes the Democrats controlled Congress, and sometimes Republicans. It covers the following presidencies: the last year of Jimmy Carter, then all of Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II. As far as I know the most important piece of deregulation, the killing of the Glass-Steagall Act, was engineered by Bill Clinton and his Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin.

Massacre in Mogadishu: July 12, 1993

When the rapacious European empires divided (or re-divided) Africa at the beginning of the 20th century, the British empire grabbed Somalia proper and the Italian empire grabbed Somaliland (north Somalia) to add to its holdings in Eritrea and later Ethiopia.

Independence came in 1960, and of course Somalia became ensnared in the Cold War maneuvers of the American empire and the Russian (Soviet) empire. In a military coup Mohamed Siad Barre set up a socialist government in 1969. The American empire stirred up a rebellion against Barre as the old Russian empire collapsed. Barre went into exile in 1991.

Barre was a member of the Marehan Darod clan, and relied heavily on the clan for support towards the end of his reign despite his Marxist-Leninist ideology. Somalia divided up into areas controlled by clans, often headed by warlords. The second-most powerful clan in Somalia were the Habr Gidr, who led the rebellion against Barre. They were led by General Mohamed Farrah Aidid who had earlier served in Barre's cabinet and who had received military training in the Soviet Union.

The U.S. and its allies thought that the Somalia should become another U.S. franchise, complete with free-market capitalism. General Aidid was not interested in being a U.S. puppet, and the Darod clan and other clans were not interested in subordinating themselves to Aidid, and the country was already shot to hell from the rebellion against Barre.

To enforce U.S. rule President Bill Clinton sent in the stormtroopers. Under the fig leaf of the United Nations, forces attacked Aidid and the Habr Gidr. The clan had the audacity to fight back, with some success. Clinton also sent in a peace negotiator, Jonathan Howe, a former admiral who, like Clinton and all U.S. Presidents, believed in negotiations backed by plenty of firepower.

Responding the the peace offer from Howe, the Habr Gidr decided to call a meeting to talk it over. They would meet on July 12, 2013 at the house of Abdi Hassan Awale in Mogadishu. Almost every important civilian in the clan attended, along with militia leaders. This included businessmen, lawyers and other college educated men, religious leaders, traditional elders and even the clan's best-known poet. Many supported the peace initiative, or were ready to abandon General Aidid.

We'll never know the outcome of the meeting. Learning that the leadership of the clan would meet in one place, the U.S. security apparatus decided to go for decapitation. Eventually Bill Clinton and Admiral Howe signed off on the plan.

TOW anti-tank missiles slammed into the house. Sixteen missiles in all blew up, delivered from helicopters. Then Cobra and Black Hawk helicopters poured machine-gun fire on the survivors. Casualty estimates vary, but mostly likely 73 died and another 175 were wounded. The casualties were mostly civilians, and mostly adult men, but included women and children.

If Americans had not done it, the act would be labeled a war crime. In any case it was incredibly stupid, even from the point of view of furthering U.S. imperial dominance of the globe. The entire Habr Gidr clan rallied around Aidid, and even rival clans were shocked. Who could trust a nation that would do such a thing?

So when stormtroopers went to grab two Aidid senior officials (or Somali government officials, if you can look at it that way) on October 3, 1993, it is really not that surprising that half the city of Mogadishu rose up to fight the Americans. That battle (in which tactics used by Afghanistan veterans to fight the Russians were used by the Somalis ...) is generally known as Black Hawk Down.

Neither Bill Clinton, nor George W. Bush, nor Barack Obama has shown any real learning curve. With Afghanistan winding down (and moving towards a restoration of the Taliban, or of another warlord regime), Africa is an increasing American focus, with Somalia still a center of attention. Every nation in Africa has or is scheduled to soon have an American military presence.

The tactical change is the U.S. is now paying Africans to fight Africans. U.S. troops are still so universally hated in Somalia that they are very rarely used, and only for brief raids. Instead Obama pays a variety of African nations to try to put chains on the people in Somalia.

Note that it has nothing to do with brutality, or the usual propaganda about women (in which we hate the Taliban but love the Saudis, even though they treat women exactly the same.) Obama & crew have no problem with brutality as long as the leader practicing it is pro-American. History has shown the U.S. corporate security state will not put up with the most kindly of governments, if they are not pro-American.

Look at our ally Kenya. It has troops in Somalia, trying to prop up the latest in a series of U.S.-appointed puppet governments. Meanwhile Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta has been indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. President Obama, ever polishing his image while seething with inner corrosion, has refused to meet with Kenyatta in public, but has no problems with training and funding the Kenyan military.

My prediction: more of the same. Hillary Clinton may not have joined Bill Clinton in ordering the Mogadishu Massacre (though she might have whispered in his ear), but she's been around the imperialist block plenty of times, including during her 4 years as Secretary of State. Since most Republican voters always support American war crimes, and since most Democratic Party voters support war crimes if committed by a Democratic President and Congress, you can bet who the imperialist security czars will be backing in 2016.

The only thing that will stop the madness is the national debt, and only if interest rates rise enough. Strangely a strong economy could sink the entire ship, since interest payments would increase faster than tax revenues, leading to a death spiral. Only then will the troops come home and leave the various peoples of the world to sort out their own societies without the threat of U.S. military intervention.

[Much thanks to Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden, particularly pages 71-74 and 94-95]

I Hope You Don't Mind Greek

Riots in Greece, riots in Spain. Greece of course, was the cradle of civilization over well over 2000 years ago. Spain built the world's first global empire in the 1500s before being muscled out by the Dutch, English, French, and eventually we Americans.

Americans have already gotten a taste of Greek Tragedy, starting with the burst of the housing bubble in 2007. It's complicated: there are a lot of characters in our tragedy. No one thought they were doing anything wrong, they just thought they were honestly trying to get rich, or richer. The key criminal mastermind, Robert Rubin, was U.S. Treasury Secretary under President Bill Clinton. Few remember he engineered the repeal of Glass-Steagall, a banking reform act from the early days of the Great Depression. It was like letting all the felons out of prison at once, on promise of good behavior.

From the Great Depression until about the turn of the millennium it was well understood by economists, politicians, and even the public that government spending could act as a counterbalance to the natural, chaotic cycle of pure free-market economies. Free market capitalism tends to boom then collapse. By increasing spending during recessions the federal government could prevent depressions. It borrowed to do that, which was alright as long as it also damped booms by cutting spending and increasing taxes. Bboom-year surplusses then reduced the national debt to tolerable levels.

The resurgence of the "greed is good" crowd, with its bizarre idea that taxes on the rich should be minimized, was a long time coming. In a normal nation the Internet Stock Bubble that burst just in time for the presidency of George W. Bush would have served as a sufficient warning against the new, faith-based economics. Instead the foolish just switched asset classes. After a brief recession, unregulated lending led to the Housing Bubble.

During the bubble tax revenue skyrocketed, especially for local governments that have real estate taxes as their primary source of income. Politicians like to be generous when they can, it tends to get them reelected. They doled out the real estate tax revenue to local, county, and state employees, and promised generous pensions.

Meanwhile, we had the Bush Tax Cuts, not just on income, but on inheritances and capital gains. While the national economy was in a bubble, that seemed fine to most people. We also increased military spending for the "War on Terror." That led to federal deficits during the bubble greater than we would normally have during a recession.

When the bubble burst unemployment skyrocketed. Construction workers and bankers lost their jobs first. Some stimulus was provided by automatic government mechanisms, like food stamps and unemployment benefits, but it was not enough to break the fall. Local governments, suddenly running big deficits, laid off workers. Pretty soon, by late 2008, just about everyone was either out of work or afraid they would be laid off. Barack Obama was elected President.

Up until 2000 or so the government would have fixed the post-bubble mess by borrowing money and spending it until the economy recovered. The additional debt could be paid back when the economy recovered by adjusting taxes. Federal and local spending would have decreased during the recovery because there would not be so much money needed for food stamps, etc. If a recovery were strong enough, and the tax system had not been gutted by the Bush Tax Cuts (which, you should recall, Democrats in Congress went along with at the time), tax increases might have been minimal. But not this time around.

Now we (and don't just blame the bankers and politicians) are up sh-- creek without a paddle. We, the United States, are still running huge deficits, and have a rather significant national debt. If there is a recovery, and interest rates climb, the interest on the national debt would quickly become the largest item in the national budget. There is still stimulus: the annual federal deficit. But sooner or later bond buyers will wise up, as in Greece in Spain, and refuse to buy. Then there can be no stimulus. Even if the economy is growing at that point we would need to raise taxes to pay off the debt and interest.

Taxing the rich, within reason (say up to 70% on incomes or capital gains or inheritance over $1 billion) does not hurt the economy. Keeping taxes on the rich low is like giving welfare checks to the poor. It demotivates them. They are people who need to make and spend money; that is their identity. If someone needs to make a million dollars after taxes to be happy, if they only pay 10% taxes they will hustle to make $1.1 million and then loaf. Increase their taxes to 50%, and they will hustle to make $2 million, so they would still have a million to spend.

The only way out of the current mud trap requires getting people back to work. That will only happen if taxes on the rich are increased. Rich people do not make their own money. They make money by exploiting their workers. To make more money, to compensate for tax increases, they will need to hire more workers. They say it ain't so, but they are lying because they are, as a class, really quite lazy.

But increasing taxes significantly on the rich won't happen, because both major political parties are controlled by the rich and the nearly rich. What will happen is military spending will be increased, because while that is the stupidest economic policy, it is the most politically defensible. As interest rates rise the government will issue more bonds to fund the interest payments, until the bond buyers rebel.

I think U.S. government bonds are worthless, or nearly so. They pay no interest, and if they did start paying interest the government would not be able to redeem them without essentially closing down.

If, like me, you did not get any or much pie during the feeding frenzy, you should be mad. But you should also prepare for Greek style austerity. Don't expect to slide by on unemployment or disability or even Social Security during the next economic downturn. The Tea Party Republicans have been chewing at the public safety net, and the next time it is heavily weighed it will simply disintegrate into chaos.

GOP Ready to Implode?

As I listened to former President Bill Clinton's speech at the Democratic National Convention I agreed with almost everything he said. I had to remind myself that this was the guy whose corrupt regime gutted the old banking laws (like Glass-Steagall). That act led directly to the financial markets implosion of 2007-2008.

Sure, if Clinton had not done it, President W. Bush would have anyway, but the point is that for all his rhetoric, it was Clinton who deregulated the banks, not a Republican president.

Still, I am an it-takes-a-village guy more than an I-created-myself-out-of-nothing guy. I'll vote for the Green Party candidate, Doctor Jill Stein, in November. I will be voting in California, which the Romney-Ryan (RR) team is not even contesting. The only way President Obama won't win California is if it (or at least the coastal cities) sinks into the sea before election day.

I think there is a good chance the GOP (Grand Old Party) of Lincoln will implode in November despite polls showing RR still in the race. I base that on talking to business people, the usual Republican Party leaders, and observing their comments in the media.

Business people, like wage workers and even like welfare bums, come in a vast array of flavors. Some work on their own without employees, some manage vast global organizations. In addition to owners, many managers consider themselves business people, not just employees. Many are Democrats, some are apolitical, but a majority are Republicans. The question I have to raise here is, what type of Republican are they?

The national Chamber of Commerce seems to have been sipping too much Tea lately, resulting in numerous news stories quoting businessmen quoting the Chamber party line with the fervor of a Stalinist tarred by a rival as a Trotskyite being walked to the bloody wall. They aren't hiring, and it's because of President Obama. They don't like ObamaCare with its provisions for employee healthcare. They don't like regulations. They actually could hire people, may even need to hire people, but not unless the nation has the good sense to elect RR. They are not using the term, but they are on an employer strike. They are not kidding. It is one of the main reasons hiring has been slow this year.

On the other hand, many businesses have been hiring. Which means a lot of businessmen are not participating in this (illegal conspiracy of a) strike. It is not just Democrats who run businesses who are hiring.
Some business people actually put profits above partisan politics. If hiring someone before November is going to enable them to serve more customers, and make more money, they are going to do it. They are not against RR. They might even think they will do better under an RR regime. But they are not going to pass up a dollar in the meanwhile.

Then there are the smarter, more complex business people. They know that not everyone can run their business serving the rich and famous. Most business in America serves the middle class of better-paid wage workers, lower-level management, and smaller, marginal business owners. Given the vast numbers of minimum-wage, part-time, and unemployed workers as well as the seniors living on Social Security and, yes, about 4 million welfare bums (more if you include SSI), there are even a lot of businesses that get most or a substantial part of their revenues and profits from serving the lower class.

These business people know through experience that the world is a complex place. They are often moderate Republicans, and they know that destroying the safety net means a hard landing for their businesses. They see the food stamps come into there stores every day. They are landlords who see rent from seniors and welfare mothers and the unemployed. They may even be government contractors.

They are scared of RR and the faction of ideological Republicans RR represents, but they do not want to talk about it, at least not at Chamber of Commerce meetings. They just went through a recession, and they understand all too well how Wall Street screwed them. They may not like regulations, but ask them and you will find that federal regulations don't affect many of them very much, it is local regulations like building codes and health and safety codes that drive them crazy.

Many of them are politically astute, too. They have seen the Tea Party ravage the older, willing to compromise to get things done Republican politicians. They suspect this ultra-ideological victory within the Republican Party could just be setting up a big Democratic Party victory in November. If there is a Republican Party victory, they are worried, really worried, that it could be: BAD FOR BUSINESS.
The fact is that while the Republicans had a good run in the 1920's, the world has changed. Dialing back the clock will probably be an economic disaster. The Democrats have done a much better job handling the economy for the last century. Republicans are the party of microeconomics, but they (the ideological free market, Ayn Rand guys) fail to see that macroeconomics is a whole different game, as different as checkers and chess. Bill Clinton, for all his faults, is a macroeconomics type of guy. RR are microeconomics guys.

If I were hiring someone to manage my scant investments, I'd hire RR. But to run a national, indeed a global economy, the Clinton-Obama team is the clear choice. Not just for me, but for all of us business people. We could do better, but only by stepping outside the current two-party system.

Hopefully, after an Obama victory in 2012, moderates will fight to regain control of the Republican Party by 2014. If they don't, the Republican Party will just get smaller and purer. When it gets too small and too pure it will lose its gravy train, and then it will disappear like the Whig Party before it.

Disclaimer: William P. Meyers is a self-employed consultant and analyst.

Robert Rubin: Exposed

Many citizen activists have tried to inform the public about the criminal activity of Robert Rubin during the Clinton administration. Today, finally, the "paper of record," The New York Times in an article on why Citigroup (aka citi, Citibank, Citicorp) is melting down titled, "The Reckoning – Citigroup Saw No Red Flags Even as It Made Bolder Bets”, (dated November 22, 2008) set out the basic facts for all to see:

"When he was Treasury secretary during the Clinton administration, Mr. Rubin helped loosen Depression-era banking regulations that made the creation of Citigroup possible by allowing banks to expand far beyond their traditional role as lenders and permitting them to profit from a variety of financial activities. During the same period he helped beat back tighter oversight of exotic financial products, a development he had previously said he was helpless to prevent.

" And since joining Citigroup in 1999 as a trusted adviser to the bank’s senior executives, Mr. Rubin, who is an economic adviser on the transition team of President-elect Barack Obama, has sat atop a bank that has been roiled by one financial miscue after another."

What the New York Times failed to mention (and the journalist had much to cover in the article, and limited space), was that Rubin and Alan Greenspan openly engaged in criminal activity. They violated their oaths of office by letting Citigroup and other banks know that they could go ahead and act as if they were already deregulated, even before Congress actually passed the laws that Rubin was pushing. Bill Clinton, of course, was complicit (as were leading Republicans and other leading Democrats including Vice-President elect Joe Biden (the Senator from Mastercard).

Rather than repeat myself, I'll refer you to my earlier postings:

Gramm-Leach, Glass-Steagall, and Bill Clinton

Housing, the Credit Squeeze, and Glass-Steagall Act

You can get some somewhat-sanitized information on Robert Rubin at Wikipedia.

Can we recycle crooks from past administrations to be Barack Obama advisors? Yes We Can!

Bill Clinton, Pius XI, Hitler and Mussolini

No, this is not one of my blogs comparing famous historical persons, with shock value from the juxtapositioning of people Americans are trained to see as saints and demons.

I've added some serious essays to www.iiipublishing.com that have not been posted in this blog. I am just letting you know about them, in case you want to read them.

Yesterday I posted Clinton Era Memories. Remember President Bill Clinton, who was supposed to represent a return to liberalism after a decade of Reagan and Bush? I sure do.

Then there is Pius XI. I am going to be writing a lot more about him because I found a book by Avro Manhattan, The Vatican in World Politics, at a used book sale. This had been very helpful in filling in the factual details about the relationship of fascism to the Roman Catholic Church. Here are the links to the first two articles:

Pius XI and the Rise of Benito Mussolini
Pius XI and the Rise of Adolf Hitler

Look forward to future essays on Pius XI and the rise of fascism in Spain, Austria, Slovakia, Poland, and France. Then there is Pius XII, who helped Pius XI with all that and continued to support fascist regimes during World War II until it became clear that the Allies would win the war.

Gramm-Leach-Bliley, Glass-Steagall, and Bill Clinton

In the last couple of weeks some of the nationally known pundits, and the Barack Obama campaign, have started talking about how the Gramm-Leach-Bliley banking bill, which overturned the Great Depression-era Glass-Steagall act, has played a major part in the mortgage finance disaster of 2007-2008. I posted an article, Housing, the Credit Squeeze, and Glass-Steagall Act, back on February 4, 2008, when no one wanted to talk about the subject.

During an election, if the economy is bad, there is a tendency to blame everything on the party in power. Senator Obama's attacks on Senator McCain about Gramm-Leach-Bliley are not unjustified. However, Obama's party, the Democratic Party, was just as responsible for repealing Glass-Steagall as the Republican Party. Given Barack's spineless political career we can surmise that he would have voted for Gramm-Leach like everyone else, had he been in the Senate or House of Representatives at that time.

At the shallowest level, we are simply seeing the usual political-economic cycles that have been taking place since the first flint ax was traded for the first sea shell. Mixing ordinary banking (taking deposits, making loans) with Wall Street style banking (creating and trading stocks, bonds, and more complex financial instruments) was clearly a cause of the Great Depression. So Congress built a firewall with Glass-Steagall. At the time the bankers were bankrupt and unable to bribe their way out of the situation.

But when no fire transited from banking to brokerage houses, or vice-versa, for a number of decades, pressures began to build. That firewall did not just prevent fires, it prevent people from making quick bucks. Flexible politicians were found, particularly new ones who did not remember the Great Depression. One of the most flexible modern politicians was Bill Clinton, a Democrat. He named Robert Rubin to be his Secretary of the Treasury, and he kept Alan Greenspan as Federal Reserve Chairman. Think of these men as voracious predators with no respect for anything put power and money. Together they put in place the key "reform" that allowed the rapacious mortgage and derivatives frenzy of 2004-2006. Now taxpayers will be further burdened to clean up the mess.

So what is Senator Barack Obama going to do about it if he becomes President? What will Senator McCain do about it if he becomes President? The standard answer seems to be: make the Federal Reserve more powerful. None of the old "power to the people" solutions are even conceived of, except perhaps by Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. But it was the Federal Reserve that helped pressure Congress into repealing Glass-Steagall.

Politicians will say anything to get elected. Congress, not the President, is supposed to write the laws. Most American citizens vote without knowing anything about their representatives in Congress. Until people are better informed and more able to exercise power directly, don't expect any major changes in our system.