Why Goldman Sachs Guys Should Not Be Regulators
Do you think that Goldman Sachs guys have taken cognizance of their part in bringing about the financial crisis of 2008? Do you think they really want to reform the financial system when any of their guys are in a position to regulate banks? It appears from the articles below that Goldman have not learned any lessons; they do not plan to change their ethical stance; they still place profit-making above all other things.
Take, for example, the role of William C. Dudley, an economist who spend a decade working at Goldman Sachs, who is now the head of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. He has faced criticism for his lack of regulation of Wall Street. During the financial crisis the NY Reserve Bank under Geithner “was primarily concerned with saving Wall Street from collapse.”
Problems of regulation at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York have persisted since then.
William Dudley has his own views on how banks should be regulated and what powers should accrue to the Federal Reserve.
Below, Mike Whitney discusses Dudley’s position and makes suggestions for reform of the banking system:
Power Grab at the Fed
by MIKE WHITNEY
Are you ready for a good laugh?
The head of the New York Fed wants Congress to grant the Central Bank extraordinary new powers to deal with future financial system emergencies like the bank run that followed Lehman Brothers collapse in September 2008. Here’s the story from the New York Times:
“[William] Dudley’s concern is about a little-noticed piece of the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that actually reduced the central bank’s authority in one crucial area: its ability to provide emergency funding to strapped financial firms.
The Fed arrested the 2008 financial crisis by using this authority to create a series of unprecedented programs that offered emergency financing not just to American banks – its traditional flock – but also to foreign banks, and not just to banks but to other kinds of financial companies as well, and indeed to other kinds of companies entirely.” (“Equipping the Fed for a Future Crisis”, New York Times)
It’s true, congress did clip the Fed’s wings after the last great debacle by putting limits on the Fed’s authority to hose down the entire system, regulated or not, with trillions of dollars of taxpayer-funded bailouts. And congress should be applauded for that action, after all, why should the US government underwrite the high-risk trading activities of financial institutions which operate on mere slivers of capital? That’s crazy! If they go bust, tough luck. Here’s more from the Times:
“Congress responded to this performance by making it difficult to repeat. Dodd-Frank imposed new restrictions on the Fed’s ability to make emergency loans, or to keep money flowing, outside the banking industry. One basic reason was that Congress had never really intended to give the Fed such broad power in the first place.” (NYT)
Uh, huh. Is that hard to grasp? TARP was unpopular. The bailouts were unpopular. People don’t like the idea of handing over free money to crooked bankers every time they get themselves into trouble.
The author seems genuinely puzzled by the fact that our democratic system is not supposed to proffer unlimited “power of the purse” to the swinish agents of the robber class at the central bank. The system has gotten so convoluted that journalists cannot even recall earlier times when policy was set by the elected representatives of the people and the banks played a subordinate role. Today, that all sounds like sentimental gibberish about “America’s idyllic past”. Here’s more from the Times:
“Many – myself included – have drawn from the financial crisis the conclusion that government safety nets should be drawn tightly so that only a very few, very tightly regulated firms get as little liquidity support as possible,” Karen Shaw Petrou, a close watcher of financial regulation who drew my attention to Mr. Dudley’s speech, wrote to clients of her firm, Federal Financial Analytics.
A more inclusive policy, she continued, “will open the safety net, wide, wide open to all sorts of actors who, smiling sweetly, will rob us blind.” (NYT)
Ms. Petrou is a dreamer. The Fed does what it wants, when it wants”. It answers to no one, which is why their books still remain closed to public inspection despite the myriad legal challenges to pry them open.
Sure, the Fed will “rob us blind”; that’s their job, isn’t it? Let me jog your memory a bit: Do you remember the Repo 105 scandal? Think back to April 2010 when the New York Fed (which Dudley now heads) was directly involved in a cover up by the nation’s largest banks that were engaged in shady accounting activities to conceal the amount of debt on their balance sheets. According to the Wall Street Journal:
“Major banks have masked their risk levels in the past five quarters by temporarily lowering their debt just before reporting it to the public, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. A group of 18 banks….understated the debt levels used to fund securities trades by lowering them an average of 42 per cent at the end of each of the past five quarterly periods, the data show. The banks, which publicly release debt data each quarter, then boosted the debt levels in the middle of successive quarters.” (“Big Banks Mask Risk Levels”, Kate Kelly, Tom McGinty, Dan Fitzpatrick, Wall Street Journal)
The “repo 105″ flap was further complicated by suspicions that Lehman was assisted in its effort by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York which, at the time, was headed by former Secretary of the Treasury, Timothy Geithner. Here is a short recap of what transpired between the Geithner’s NY Fed and Lehman according to ex-regulator William Black and former NY governor Eliot Spitzer from an article on Huffington Post:
“The FRBNY [i.e., New York Fed] knew that Lehman was engaged in smoke and mirrors designed to overstate its liquidity and, therefore, was unwilling to lend as much money to Lehman…
The Fed’s behavior made it clear that officials didn’t believe they needed to do more with this information. The FRBNY remained willing to lend to an institution with misleading accounting and neither remedied the accounting nor notified other regulators who may have had the opportunity to do so…… We now know from Valukas and from former Treasury Secretary Paulson that the Treasury and the Fed knew that Lehman was massively overstating its on-book asset values.” (Time for the Truth” William Black and Eliot Spitzer, Huffington Post)
Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism summed it up perfectly at the time:
“The NY Fed, and thus Timothy Geithner, were at a minimum massively derelict in the performance of their duties, and may well be culpable in aiding and abetting Lehman in accounting fraud and Sarbox violations…at a minimum, the NY Fed helped perpetuate a fraud on investors and counterparties. This pattern further suggests the Fed, which by its charter is tasked to promote the safety and soundness of the banking system, instead, via its collusion with Lehman management, operated to protect particular actors to the detriment of the public at large. And most important, it says that the NY Fed, and likely Geithner himself, undermined, perhaps even violated, laws designed to protect investors and markets.” (Naked Capitalism)
Repeat: “Culpable”, “collusion”, “aiding and abetting Lehman in accounting fraud and Sarbox violations.” And these are the guys who want unlimited power to bailout anyone at anytime regardless of the cost?
Don’t make me laugh!
What Dudley really wants is the power to put out the fires which the serial arsonists at the Fed have started with their shabby, easy money policies and “light touch” regulation. They need to get their own house in order before they go asking congress for more favors.
Here’s a novel idea: Why not just fix the system? Why not create regulations that actually work, that increase stability and make the system safer?
Nah, that would cut into profits, so it’s a non-starter. Isn’t that what’s going on here; Dudley’s trying to shrug the costs onto taxpayers so he doesn’t ruffle feathers on Wall Street. It’s all about the bottom line. Here’s more from the Times:
“[Dudley] argued in his recent speech that it would make no sense to draw a line between banks and other kinds of financial firms if both were playing essentially the same role in the broader economy.
Both should be regulated, and both should be backstopped.
“If we believe that these activities provide essential credit intermediation services to the real economy that could not be easily replaced by other forms of intermediation, then the same logic that leads us to backstop commercial banking with a lender of last resort might lead us to backstop the banking activity taking place in the markets in a similar way,” he told the New York Bankers Association.” (NYT)
Hold on there, Dudley; “essential credit intermediation” can mean anything from issuing short-term loans to productive businesses to off-loading dodgy Collateral Debt Obligations (CDOs) to gullible investor groups. Are we going to throw a lifeline to every snakeoil salesman and scamster in the industry?
Yep. That’s the Dudley method. Bail ‘em all out and start over! What’s a few trillion among friends? It’s all funny money anyway, isn’t it? More from the Times:
“Banks and other financial companies increasingly draw money from sources that do not have similar backstops, including the sale of commercial paper to money market funds and complicated arrangements called “triparty repos” that basically allow financial firms to borrow money by pledging assets as collateral.
These are short-term loans that must be renewed regularly, often daily. As a result, panic among investors can almost instantly undermine financial stability, which is exactly what began to happen in 2007: Panic spread, financing disappeared, and the global financial system came perilously close to complete collapse.
There is broad agreement that something should be done to improve the stability of money-market funds and the triparty repo market. So far, nothing much has happened.” (NYT)
This is really rich. The author of this story knows exactly why “nothing much has happened” to make money markets safer. It’s because the big Wall Street banks–who are the Fed’s primary constituents–have fought any changes to the existing system tooth and nail. They don’t give a ratsass whether the markets crash or not. What they care about is boosting quarterly profits so they can add a few zeros onto the Xmas bonus check. Here’s the story from Bloomberg:
“Money-market fund companies have doubled lobbying efforts to convince regulators and lawmakers that they aren’t a threat to the financial system. The money may have been well-spent…
The companies are seeking to block new rules championed by Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro that are headed for a vote before a divided commission as soon as this month…
“If the industry blocks this plan and something else bad happens and people on Main Street lose money, they’ll be kicking themselves for not fixing this,” Douglas W. Diamond, a finance professor at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business, said in a telephone interview. “The current structure does potentially have systemic risk, and it’s the kind of thing that could happen very quickly given the situation in Europe.” (“Doubling Down to Block Money Market Reform”, Bloomberg)
And these are the guys that Dudley wants to save, these self-serving miscreants who’re doing everything in their power to make the system more less safe, more unstable, and more crisis-prone?
The reason the money markets are so vulnerable is NOT because there’s no fix, but because the big money is blocking even modest changes to the existing system. Wall Street would rather put the whole system at risk, then lose even one-thin dime in profits.
More from Dudley: “The sheer size of banking functions undertaken outside commercial banking entities – even now, after the crisis – suggests that this issue must not be ignored. Pretending the problem doesn’t exist, or dealing with it only ex post through emergency facilities, cannot be consistent with our financial stability objectives.”
In other words, the Fed has no idea of how leveraged this gigantic, unregulated shadow banking system really is. All they know is that it poses unseen risks that WILL lead to another disaster. So, rather than implement rules that could improve stability–as one might expect from the nation’s chief regulator–Dudley wants a blank check to spend whatever-it-takes to prop up this ghastly system.
MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Goldman Sachs Has Massively Benefitted From Its Fraud
Rob Urie has written an article called Masters of Fraud (The Untouchables) that details how corrupt bankers like Goldman Sachs profited from their fraudulent CDOs while at the same time causing economic calamity for millions of people around the world who lost their jobs, their homes, their pensions and their savings.
The so-called recovery has benefited only the top 1% of income earners who are otherwise known as the ruling plutocracy of which Goldman Sachs is the exemplar.
Masters of Fraud
by ROB URIE
The most telling line from PBS’s Frontline piece ‘The Untouchables,’ on the absence of criminal prosecutions for the large-scale bank lending fraud behind the financial crisis of 2008, came when the head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Enforcement division, Lanny Breuer, voiced his concern that bringing criminal charges might cause thousands of bankers to lose their jobs. This came after voluminous evidence was provided that senior bankers, including former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, were culpably aware the mortgage securitization businesses they were running were purchasing, packaging and re-selling trillions of dollars of mortgage loans that were never intended to be paid. It also came after it was known the economic calamity caused by corrupt bankers cost tens of millions of people around the globe their jobs, homes, life savings and all hope for a better future.
As with nearly all reporting on the economic debacle of 2008 – 20??, the story behind the piece was placed in the past tense as regrettable events that should have been attended to but weren’t. But a number of economic reports in recent weeks place the ongoing debacle in the economy squarely in the present. The first was an update on income distribution since the Great Recession began from U.C. Berkeley economist Emmauel Saez illustrating that the benefits of the economic ‘recovery’ have gone exclusively to the reigning plutocracy, the top ‘1%’ of income earners. The second report came from retailer Wal-Mart– the initial iteration of the ‘Grand Bargain’ struck in Washington to raise taxes on the top 0.3% of income earners, that more pointedly ended the payroll tax ‘holiday’ for the working poor, caused Wal-Mart sales to materially stall. The link between the two stories is the Federal government’s role in keeping Wal-Mart’s customers shopping via the payroll tax cut and transfer payments.
Following the airing of ‘The Untouchables’ Mr. Davis tendered his resignation—a coincidence assuredly unrelated to his public explication (and implementation) of the ‘Geithner Doctrine’ of unfettered delivery of public resources to, and immunity from prosecution for crimes committed by, culpable bankers. The ‘Geithner’ in the eponymously named Doctrine refers of course to Timothy Geithner, Mr. Obama’s Treasury Secretary and ‘our man in Washington’ as he is known to Wall Street. It was Mr. Geithner who, after delivering several trillion dollars in bailout money and ongoing guarantees to the Wall Street bankers behind the most gargantuan epic of lending fraud in human history, warned of the ‘moral hazard’ of allowing portions of the mortgages taken out by defrauded borrowers to be written down to current house values lest it set a bad precedent for the newly defrauded borrowers soon to come. (Some proportion of borrowers were undoubtedly complicit in the fraud, but (1) assessing the ability to repay loans is the charge / skill of lenders, not borrowers and (2) the systematic nature of the fraud, with masses of loans preemptively identified by bank credit departments to be fraudulent ‘waived in’ by these same banks to feed their securitization pipelines, is evidence senior bankers were looting ‘their’ banks with their securitization businesses).
In a move that drives establishment ‘economists’ right up the wall, actual economist Saez provides his income distribution data sans ‘transfer’ payments like unemployment and disability benefits from the government. What his data does represent is the distribution of income from the ‘private’ economy such as wages and the monetized gains on the stocks and bonds owned mostly by the rich. As establishment economists (and Wal-Mart executives) would have it, the actual plight of the rapidly increasing numbers of poor and near poor has been (marginally) improved by transfer payments and the payroll tax cut. And since Wal-Mart volunteered for the task, it seems that Wal-Mart also benefited from the transfer payments and payroll tax cut—witness the drop in sales coincident with the end of the payroll tax cut. In fact, in a broad sense that is how transfer payments were intended to work. However, the (Keynesian) economics only work if Wal-Mart pays their workers (and suppliers) commensurate with their economic contribution. But not doing so is the entirety of Wal-Mart’s business model. And a (partial) difference between the proportionate wage and what Wal-Mart workers actually earn is a ‘gift’ from we, the people. Another way to put this is the owners of Wal-Mart are the very same reigning plutocrats benefiting from the ‘recovery’ in the ‘private’ economy that, with income distribution data at hand, wouldn’t be without the helping hand of government.
With the remainder of Mr. Obama’s Grand Bargain on (temporary) hiatus, the question for the moment is: five years into a purported economic recovery, why would re-instating the payroll tax to its prior level cause undo hardship among America’s working poor? Mr. Saez provides the answer—in 2007 the incomes of rich and poor alike fell off the proverbial cliff. The incomes of the rich have largely recovered thanks to bank bailouts, stealth transfers, ‘Quantitative Easing’ that lifts financial asset prices and ongoing government guarantees of the financial system, while the incomes of the lower 99% have continued to decline. The only source bridging this shortfall for all but the very rich has been the Federal government. Re-instating the full (regressive) payroll tax appears to be causing a near instantaneous reaction from the American ‘consumers’ who, because of its regressive nature, would be expected to be most affected by the change. Until there is a recovery in the ‘private’ economy that boosts incomes and employment, any reduction in government payments will quickly become evident in the economies of the growing numbers of poor and near poor. And any suggestion from the wealthy that they, the wealthy, are not the ‘dependent’ class is an ignorant lie. Remove government support for the financial economy and stealth wage subsidies for the rich and this would be evident within minutes.
What then is the relation between the bank lending fraud behind the housing bubble, the continuing decline in the economic fortunes of the great majority of the population and government ‘efforts’ to restore a functioning economy? Bank lending fraud produced three main outcomes—(1) wildly inflated house prices, (2) the placement of a significant proportion of the population into permanent debt servitude against houses now worth far less than the money owed against them and (3) crashing the global financial system, and with it the global economy. In the aggregate, those with mortgages now earn less than they did when they took out the mortgages and the houses they bought / re-financed in the housing bubble are worth less than the mortgage amounts owed against them. In this context, government efforts to restore the Wall Street banks behind this fiasco while doing little / nothing to extinguish the ill-gotten debts leaves most Americans (and peripheral Europeans) in a debt-deflationary spiral. Put another way, companies won’t hire despite alleged government efforts to ‘fix’ the economy because as they see it, the economy has still not been fixed. Those that are hiring are systematically underpaying labor because of weak labor market conditions. And banks (thankfully) won’t lend because they’ve turned their prospective retail customers into debt slaves unqualified for additional credit because of the economic circumstances they (the banks) created.
Between 1950 and the mid-1970s government transfer payments, including unemployment benefits, bridged lost ‘consumption’ in the temporary recessions engineered by the Federal Reserve to keep labor ‘pliable.’ The Federal Reserve would raise interest rates to dampen ‘inflation,’ a/k/a increasing wage demands, unemployment would rise, the Fed would then lower interest rates and unemployment would fall. Unemployment benefits (transfer payments) were designed to last the approximate length of these engineered recessions. They provided incomes lower than wages but high enough to keep the masses from starvation until the jobs returned. Beginning around 1990 bouts of unemployment began to outlast unemployment benefits. (Source data: St. Louis Fed; 12 month rolling difference Fed Funds versus 24 month forward 12 month rolling difference Civilian Unemployment Rate, 1954 – present). Additionally, proportionally fewer unemployed have been eligible for unemployment benefits in recent decades. Despite extending eligibility for Federal unemployment benefits for up to two years in the Great Recession, millions of unemployed have run out of benefits without finding new employment. And reversing the payroll tax cut is in no way ‘symmetrical’ with raising marginal tax rates by 2% on top earners (the Obama ‘compromise’). As Wal-Mart sales are demonstrating, the economic fragility of the poor and near poor shows up instantly in their inability to buy basic necessities whereas the tax increases on the top 0.3% are not material to levels of consumption given very high levels of income.
Mainstream economists consider all of this—the impoverishment and debt servitude of the masses and the continuing decline in our economic fortunes, to be unfortunate accidents. Liberal economists add that Keynesian policies to support ‘the economy’ could lessen the economic impact of the Great Recession and with it the attendant human misery. Left unsaid is that the bankers who created this circumstance are in every way benefiting from it. Through Bush and Obama administration actions banks received ‘no-strings’ bailouts to recover their ‘businesses’ while those who owe the banks have lost their houses and / or are permanent debt slaves to them as their incomes decline. Bank debts are repaid in the quantity the money was borrowed in whereas declining asset values allow the banks to use that money to buy assets for less money. Weak labor markets allow businesses to systematically underpay labor leaving more revenues with which to repay business loans. And banks have been granted the franchise to create money through the existing debt based money system meaning they control its creation, and through it, the political system and ‘the economy.’ But more than just bankers have seen their incomes recovered—the reigning plutocracy including industrialists, bankers and inherited wealth, a veritable ‘ruling class,’ have seen no effort spared by the Federal government and the Federal Reserve to restore their lot to its former level. Explanations of accidents—both of nature or economic policy, fill the mainstream whereas true accidents wouldn’t so unwaveringly fill the pockets of the rich and connected.
Of current interest is that there is no self-generating economic recovery for all but the very richest, at least none to be found in the income distribution data. Given the only time in prior U.S. history most citizens lost as much income as in recent history was in economic depressions, the 99% entered an economic depression in 2008 that has, outside of help from the Federal government, only gotten worse since then. This help from the Federal government is ending, beginning with restoration of the full payroll tax. The fools, crooks and sociopaths running the banks were left in place and the ‘liquidity’ provided by the Federal Reserve is fueling new and ‘exciting’ speculative bubbles. The banks retain social control through debt servitude and political and economic control through their franchise to create and control debt-based money. The mainstream press reports ‘the world’ is back to business as usual and except for the economic lot of the overwhelming majority of citizens of the West, they are correct.
Current focus by the ‘liberal’ Obama administration on raising the minimum wage is better than a kick in the teeth, but all the solutions being proposed to recover a functioning economy assume ‘the economy’ was functioning before the onset of the Great Recession in 2007. In fact, while it was unknown in 2005 that the banks would need (and receive) trillions of dollars in emergency welfare assistance, history revealed that such was the case. It is this system of massive corporate welfare grants under duress used to restore the fortunes of the already rich that is the only aspect of ‘the economy’ that has been recovered. Additionally, the current system of debt-based finance guarantees environmental rape and pillage to sustain the cash flows required for debt service. At this point in history the world can ill afford more environmental destruction because of global warming. A government jobs program designed to build out an environmentally sustainable economy is likely the only solution to the end-time scenarios currently being orchestrated in the capitols of the West. Such a program could provide guaranteed employment to all comers at the minimum wage adjusted for both inflation and productivity gains (about $16.50 per hour) plus health care through Medicare. Through subsidies and state-granted monopoly power private employers are already receiving the difference between these wages and what they are actually paying ‘their’ workers. As there isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell this program will be implemented short of a credible threat of revolution, please enjoy whatever they’re showing on television these days.
Rob Urie is an artist and political economist in New York
Tomorrow, the bankers and corporate chiefs are planning an historic victory party. With the election of Mitt Romney, their takeover of American democracy would be complete.
They thought they had accomplished that four years ago when they backed Barack Obama (he received more money from Wall Street than McCain; Goldman Sachs was his No. 1 private contributor). And even though he never put a single one of them of any consequence in jail and never signed any bill that would truly stop their out-of-control greed; and even though he placed two of Wall Street’s favorite operatives — Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers — in charge of the Treasury and economic policy; and even though he let them use bailout money — our money — to give themselves lavish bonuses after they wrecked our economy; and even though he didn’t go for a single-payer health care system and made sure that under “Obamacare” no insurance company would be fined more than $100 a day for denying a person with a pre-existing condition (thus removing many of the teeth the new law had); and even though he let them keep their Bush tax cut for another four years — yes, even after doing all of that for the wealthiest 1 percent, it still wasn’t enough for them, so they decided to turn on him in a vicious way. They decided that they could literally buy an election and toss him to the curb. Why? Because he enacted a little “reform.” Because he wants them to pay just a tiny bit more in taxes. Because, deep down, they know what we know deep down — that Barack Obama, if given a second term, is going to put the brakes on them. They know that Barack Obama will appoint Supreme Court justices who will overturn Citizens United. And they know that next time they crash our economy, some of them will, hopefully, be going to jail.
And they believe they can stop him tomorrow by having bamboozled enough of those “47 percent,” those moochers, to vote for one of their own — Mitt Romney. A man who, like them, believes big business should have no restraints. A man who pays next to nothing in taxes. A man who has destroyed the livings of thousands of working Americans. A man who hides his money in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands and won’t show us what’s on his tax returns for the past decade.
This is who they want elected president tomorrow — and if this happens, their goal of complete corporate control of the three branches of government will be complete.
Trust me, if they succeed, we may never get it back.
There were two things in the news these past couple of weeks that unfortunately got little attention. But these two stories say it all about the America we will have unless these people are stopped.
One was a story in The Nation that exposed how Romney, while publicly opposing the auto company bailout, secretly got in on the action with his Wall Street donors — and made more than $15 million, a 4,000 percent return on his investment (which he hid in a blind trust in his wife’s name) by buying up the Delphi auto parts company, the former Delco/AC Spark Plug division of GM where my dad worked. He then — get this — grabbed billions in bailout cash to “transform” it from bankrupt to a “viable business.” Except what he really did was slash retiree pensions, shut down 24 U.S. factories, and ship all 25,200 union jobs to China. You’d think he’d keep quiet about Delphi — but no, he’s got his supporters running ads in Ohio blaming Barack Obama for terminating the Delphi pensions. I kid you not. (When I opposed the Iraq War, Romneyites and the like called me a “traitor”; when Romney does this traitorous act destroying jobs and sending them to China, his reward, in addition to the millions he pocketed, may be the presidency tomorrow.) The other story was a bill passed by the Pennsylvania legislature that would allow businesses to take the state income taxes they withhold from their employees’ paychecks and keep the money for themselves! That’s right. Your taxes that you pay to the state won’t go to the state anymore — they’ll just go right into the pockets of your bosses. I was stunned to find out that other states are already doing this as an “incentive” to lure or keep businesses in their states. Let’s be clear what this is about: the final merging that’s taking place between the corporate and political power structures, coming together as one, and making the workers (serfs) pay tribute to their employer (the overlord). Welcome to the New Feudalism.
So tomorrow it’s High Noon in the USA, a literal showdown on the Main Streets of America between the rich and everyone else. The 1 percenters truly believe they can defeat the 99 percent. As the conservative commentator Stephen Moore (who sits on the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal) said, “Capitalism is a lot more important than democracy. I’m not even a big believer in democracy.” Citigroup, in an internal memo, said that the only thing that stands in the way of the plutocrats is, well, elections: “[T]he rising wealth gap between the rich and poor will probably at some point lead to a political backlash… Whilst the rich are getting a greater share of the wealth, and the poor a lesser share, political enfrachisement remains as was – one person, one vote…[W]e are keeping a close eye on developments.”
We have the chance tomorrow to defeat them. They’re counting on us not even showing up. The line in the sand has been drawn. Please do whatever you can today and tomorrow to get everyone you know to the polls — especially any relatives or friends in swing states. Even if you don’t live in a swing state, you need to make a loud statement that you won’t let this happen. And you need to take the House away from the Republicans so some work in Washington can get done.
To volunteer to walk precincts and get out the vote near where you live, go here. Or make calls to swing state voters. And don’t forget that I need each of you to convince just one nonvoter to vote tomorrow so that we can deliver the million-vote margin that could make all the difference.
Thanks for taking the time to read this. Now go act as if your democracy depended on it – because it does.Michael Moore: Tomorrow.