Last week, Mitt Romney and President Obama traded insults in a most amazing way, reminding us that success in American politics these days requires two things: saying the most absurd things with a straight face, and maximizing the appearance of differences with your opponent, while minimizing their reality. Consider …
Obama:
“I’ve learned some lessons. Most important is you can’t change Washington from inside, only from the outside.”
Romney:
“He said he can’t change Washington from inside. He can only change it from outside. I can change Washington. I will change Washington. We’ll get the job done from the inside.”
Obama:
“What kind of inside job is he talking about? Is it the job of rubber-stamping the top-down, you’re-on-your-own agenda of this Republican Congress? Because if it is, we don’t want it … We don’t want an inside job in Washington.”
Well, Romney’s a pretty obvious case of Mr Insider. But let’s look at Obama. He doesn’t want an inside job? Over the last four years, Obama has appointed nothing but insiders – many of whom had actively contributed to the financial crisis and profited from it – to his administration’s senior regulatory, law enforcement, and economic policy jobs. The head of the SEC, Mary Shapiro, was fresh from running the investment banking industry’s “self-regulator”, Finra, which gave her a $9m severance bonus to soften the pain of a low government salary. Her director of enforcement, Robert Khuzami, had been general counsel for the Americas of Deutsche Bank during the bubble.
The head of the justice department criminal division, Lanny Breuer, had been in charge of the white-collar criminal defense practice of Covington & Burling, a law firm that represents and lobbies for nearly every major bank. The head of the office of management and budget, Jacob Lew, made millions as the chief financial officer of Citigroup Alternative Investments, even as that group lost billions for Citigroup. As head of the National Economic Council, we got Larry Summers, who as Clinton’s treasury secretary pushed through the repeal of Glass-Steagall and a law banning regulation of OTC derivatives, and who then proceeded to make $7m from financial services firms in the year prior to joining the Obama administration (including $135,000 for a single speech to Goldman Sachs). Other senior jobs went to Goldman Sachs lobbyists, investment bankers, private equity executives, and the former chief lobbyist of Fannie Mae.
And beyond Obama’s personnel, there were his policies. He did nothing about the obscene $14bn in bonuses awarded in early 2009 by banks that would literally have been bankrupt without federal bailouts; he failed to prosecute even a single bank or financial executive despite clear evidence of rampant, systemic fraud; and he has since attempted only the most pitiful of systemic reforms.
Nor is this pattern restricted to the financial sector: despite the worst oil spill in history, one that killed 11 people, and a lethal mine disaster that followed deception of safety inspectors, there have been no prosecutions of energy executives, either. And it all shows: in this campaign, Obama has actually raised more money than Mitt Romney, the poster boy of plutocracy.
Well, I’ll be the first to admit that I have a personal axe to grind. Like, how do I know all this stuff? Well, two years ago, I made a documentary film about the financial crisis, followed recently by a book. The film, based on a year of research and nearly 100 on-camera interviews, chronicled the thoroughly bipartisan process of deregulation, political corruption, and lack of law enforcement that paved the way for the financial crisis. It concludes with a detailed examination of the Obama administration’s abysmal record.
The film won the Academy Award for best documentary in 2011; in my Oscar acceptance speech, I called out the lack of criminal prosecutions, to audience applause. The title of this film? I never thought you’d ask.
Inside Job.
So there you have it – my real gripe is that Obama stole my title for his petty spat with Romney, each of them pretending to be the guy who would fix Washington corruption – when, of course, neither of them would.
But the sad truth is that the more the two candidates pretend to be at each other’s throats, the more similar they are in reality, at least where money is concerned. They would both let America’s new financial oligarchy run amok, at the nation’s great expense. This is just one domain among many in which both candidates avoid the truth, preferring to trade blows in the theater of the absurd.
IndenturedServant says:
Apologies for hi-jacking the thread but look at this and note the near mirror opposite trading activity from yesterday (red line) to today (green line). And silver is not being manipulated……uh huh!
I_S
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
5 
0
26th September 2012 at 6:49 pm
2012 ELECTION – ANOTHER INSIDE JOB « The Burning Platform | Online Study Zone says:
[...] the original here: 2012 ELECTION – ANOTHER INSIDE JOB « The Burning Platform var addthis_config = [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
26th September 2012 at 7:20 pm
sangell says:
When one looks at our government today one is reminded of William F. Buckley’s quip that ‘he would rather be governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston Telephone Directory than the faculty of Harvard”. His quip, unfortunately, came to pass in the years since in substance if not exclusively from the faculty of Harvard but certainly from the law and business schools of the Ivy League.
No matter who wins this presidential election it will further extend the lock Harvard and Yale graduates have had on the US presidency since 1988. That most of the other top officials of the US government now come, almost exclusively, from the alumnae of these and other Ivy league schools gives the US perhaps the most inbred, elitist government in G-7 if not the world today!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
9 
0
26th September 2012 at 1:17 am
Novista says:
Argh, if I see one more “repeal of Glass-Steagall” statement, I am gonna spew.
That canard is a “look over here” misdirection, not sure why, maybe along the lines of what Mary Malone’s been working on. Interesting, I haven’t finished Andrew Ross Sorkin’s “Too Big to Fail” due to three weeks of a guest, but I am getting the sense that the true meaning of toxic assets came to light before the fall of Lehman Bros. Sorkin has just TWO slight mentions of G-S in 573 pages.
Oh, yes. There was an inside job. The dots connect from 1995 when MERS was cobbled together. And the 2006 legal justification. The legal firm Holder was a partner of. And QEnfinity burying the remaining evidence.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
26th September 2012 at 7:37 am
flash says:
Speaking of inside Job, this low life POS need to be flogged with a rubber hose until his toenails bleed.
Israeli Lobbyist Blatantly Suggests a False Flag Event for War With Iran
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M84l19H68mk
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
26th September 2012 at 7:51 am
Queceracera says:
I guess in our 2 party system, who you vote for comes down to who will give you a reach around.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
26th September 2012 at 10:12 am