I was watching the Goldman Sachs hearings, and enjoying Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) rip into the G-S executives.
With his righteous anger, Ben Franklin glasses, and potty mouth, Levin was doing a 1st-class acting job.
Meantime, the Senate Banking committee (whih has oversight of this stuff), was nowhere to be seen.
So, knowing that these shananigans have been going on for a long time, are we supposed to be impressed with Levin’s little act?
I have to admit, the G-S guys made perfect villains-they looked clueless when Levin went on and on about “ethics”-gee, is this the guy who took all that cash from them ($24K this year).
I have no sympathy for G-S. But to say that the buyers of these crap investments that G-S was peddling, had NO knowledge of what they were buying is a bit much.
Or don’t Havard MBAs mean anything?
NPR reported that the financial industry has given members of congress $320 million since 1979-you would think that wpould buy some pretty good relationships.
Personal opinion: Yes.
I’m sure there are senate hearings where things really are researched and debated, but the ones that get on TV are generally, that I have ever been able to tell, little more than a chance for someone to “give a talking” to whoever it is who’s been told to come in.
I watched part of the Guantanamo hearings and it made me sick. If they want us to see it then it’s for a reason. If it’s something we want to see they will never air it.
It is to give us a feeling that we somehow have a voice in our government.
Are you saying you don’t think it was a great day for democracy when politicians were chewing out an industry whose excesses and misbehavior they refused to regulate for years? I thought it was almost as terrific as the major league baseball steroid hearings.
ralph124c, what is your source for Carl Levin receiving $24,000 from Goldman Sachs this year? Was this information ever published in The Wall Street Journal? Was it published in official government accounting records?
I know there is a lot given in the way of “contributions,” but I haven’t seen an exact dollar figure from Goldman Sachs from a reliable and established source. Do you believe that any politician or office holder who takes contributions is unethical? If the source of the contributions is later discovered to have been possibly criminal in their dealings, then is having accepted the contributions unethical somehow in hindsight?
Are you aware that Levin’s “potty mouth” was actually quoting what a Goldman Sachs executive said about the investments they were selling? “Shitty” was their word for the investments. Levin was throwing it back at them.
Do you think that most of the investors were Harvard MBAs? Do you think that Harvard MBAs have insider information about the moneymaking schemes of Goldman Sachs? What about agents who simply handle accounts for state employee pensions? What possible reason would any of these people have for throwing money at these executives? Do you think that most investors know exactly what investments are in their portfolios?
Your initial questions was about whether hearings ever do any good. Not as often or as quickly as I would like. But sometimes they make a big difference. Nixon and Watergate is probably the best example. But people will always remember the cigarette company executives all saying that they didn’t believe that nicotine is addictive. It was chilling. They knew that everyone knew they were lying. There was the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities. (Ouch!) Impeachment hearings. There are many others that come to mind.
Short answer: Yes. Long answer: Yes, but they also placate an electorate more interested in spectacle than the actual business of government. If I were G-S, I’d be happy for the Senate to vent similar impotent, TV-friendly rage on a daily basis–it’s red meat for the electorate that reduces their appetite for more dangerous reform.
I can guess the source, but does it really matter? As long as there’s a fig leaf the pro-bank crowd can parade around in (read: taken even semi-seriously by the media-industrail complex), there’s no real need for the bankers to worry.
I’m looking at campaign donation lists, and I’m not finding evidence that Levin took donations from Goldman-Sachs. A lot of other people did, but I’m not seeing him. Of course, I could just be missing it, so I’d also like to know where the 24k figure comes from.
I don’t think you can legally contribute 24k to a candidate in a single year.
Which STILL has me confused, why on Earth would Congress care about steroid abuse in baseball. Fuck it, they care for votes, why would they even have jurisdiction?
Did you see the one with the oil execs? There was no question who worked for who that day, and nobody complained about what mode of transportation they used to get to D.C.
Since this thread is old enough I won’t be accused of hijack, let me describe a Senate hearing I watched 16 years ago. I caught it by chance on CSPAN while clicking the TV remote. I’ve watched few other hearings so this is just anecdote, and the moral of the story isn’t about Hearings in general, but why I’m not a member of the Teddy Kennedy was a Great Statesman bandwagon.
The hearing was about employer-provided health insurance. I’m no fan of that, and certainly not mandates for that; I think employer mandates set back the cause of UHC.
I don’t remember if Kennedy was Chairman of the Committee but he certainly dominated the part I watched. He’d called two witnesses: the CEO of McDonald’s and the CEO of some Pizza company (I don’t remember which, call it Pizza Shack). The McDonald’s CEO was outside the country so offered to send his CFO (who might have had better answers for the economic questions Kennedy wanted to ask) but that was unacceptable to the Committee so they placed a paper bag with Big Mac and fries in front of the empty witness chair where McDonald’s CEO would have sat.
Pizza Shack actually had a health-insurance program that long-term employees could buy into, and their CEO had excellent answers for Kennedy’s questions:
(“You’re worried about competition, but your competitors would also have to provide health insurance.”) “No, Senator. Our important competition is Chef Boy-ar-dee and other eat-at-home options.”
(“Don’t you think you have a moral obligation to provide insurance like GM does?”) “It’s not a matter of morality; GM signed a covenant with its employees; we didn’t.”
Every time Kennedy thought he was losing the debate (which must have been after almost every question) he repeated his little screed about MacDonald’s CEO not condescending to appear, while the CSPAN cameras obediently focused on the paper bag with Big Mac and fries.
I was not impressed.
Reminiscent of Kennedy’s performance during the Bork hearings.
It was rather obvious that he was reading off a list of questions prepared for him by his staff. No matter what Bork said, Kennedy simply went on to the next question, no matter whether or not Bork had already covered the topic or what he had said about it.
Then Kennedy finished with a peroration that was clearly written long before the hearings began.
There was a confirmation hearing for a federal judge that Kennedy participated in which made a difference, but it didn’t turn out the way Kennedy wanted.
Regards,
Shodan
When Brooksley Born testified in front of a senate committee and it was high drama. She wanted her office the Comm.Futures Trading Commission to oversee derivatives and swaps. She warned that leaving them unpoliced could result in a financial calamity. Greenspan, Summers and Rubin treated her with disdain. They practically laughed at her for not understanding the obvious truth ,that the market was self correcting. The senators were nasty and derisive to her. She stood up to them all.
Of course they gutted her power right after that. They taught her a lesson.
Oddly ,this week the Senate held hearings on the, Financial Crisis and Banking Regulation. Brooksley Born was questioning Henry Paulson ,who has suddenly become pro regulation and oversight. He says the top 6 banks should not control 65 percent of the industry as they do. He is decrying the consolidation that keeps happening. He made about a billion ,so he can afford to be honest now. He says as things are, the next crisis in inevitable. But, if you watch the hearings, you can learn a lot.
Being an expert neither makes you right or wrong, it just entitles you to have an opinion worth listening to. Ultimately, in every case where something goes wrong, it’s because the majority vote got it wrong.
The majority vote is, generally, going to be the closest thing to a compromise all the individual opinions can get. The minority remainder will be divided into any number of alternate ideas, possible hundreds. One of these minority views may be the one that could have prevented the issue, but how else are you supposed to know which of all of them to look at except by asking the experts for their best (compromise) answer?
She was not unique. She just had an opportunity to face the reckless financial “experts”. There were plenty of economists who were warning us of the potential disaster. There were some inside the financial industry who saw it coming. They were making so much money they did not want anybody raining on their parade. But Greenspan and a few others claimed the market was self correcting and needed no regulation. How dumb was that? I argued with people on this board who made the same claim. It was illogical and dangerous.
She was not unique. She just had an opportunity to face the reckless financial “experts”. There were plenty of economists who were warning us of the potential disaster. There were some inside the financial industry who saw it coming. They were making so much money they did not want anybody raining on their parade. But Greenspan and a few others claimed the market was self correcting and needed no regulation. How dumb was that? I argued with people on this board who made the same claim. It was illogical and dangerous.
I recall that hearing! Kennedy was supposed to have the sharpest staff people in the Senate-but he came across looking like a simpleton.
Evidently, they hadn’t done a dress rehearsal.
Here’s a clue: it begins with “his” and ends in “ass”, and has a space in the middle.
Here ya go…
Total Campaign Contributions Received: $5,737,896
Top 10 Interests Funding
Interest Contributions
Interest Contributions
Lawyers/Law Firms $786,826
Pro-Israel $366,378
Real Estate $315,847
Automotive $172,749
Business Services $168,870
**Securities & Investment $163,550 **Education $127,100
Misc Finance $126,740
Health Professionals $119,700
Misc Manufacturing & Distributing $106,550
Contributions from political parties and
From maplight.org