Greasing the Outstretched Palms of the Candidates
Sunday, 11 September 2016 00:00 By Michael Winship, Moyers & Company | News
Analysis
Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a campaign rally at Veterans Memorial
Coliseum in Phoenix, Arizona, on June 18, 2016. (Photo: Gage Skidmore)
The recipe could not be simpler. Mix cynicism with greed, quickly stir and
voila! American politics and government served up on a platter to the
highest bidder.
Call it low cuisine. And it doesn't get any lower than what we've seen
during this wretched campaign season -- a presidential contest that, as one
friend in Washington recently said, pits "the unethical versus the
unhinged."
For sure each of the two candidates is the byproduct of crony capitalism run
amok. Donald Trump started out boasting that his much-flaunted wealth meant
that he could self-fund his campaign and that this made him incorruptible, a
feckless notion that went flying out the window as soon as he became the
presumptive, official party nominee and went running to fat cat funders with
his diminutive hands out.
As The Washington Post's Matea Gold reported Sept. 1, "The New York
billionaire, who has cast himself as free from the influence of the party's
donor class, has spent this summer forging bonds with wealthy GOP financiers
-- seeking their input on how to run his campaign and recast his policies
for the general election, according to more than a dozen people who have
participated in the conversations."
To see more stories like this, visit Moyers & Company at Truthout.
And let's not get started on the wacky world of Trump's actual finances, his
bragging about using cash to buy political favors, his failure to release
tax returns, his dodgy connections with overseas banks, Russian plutocrats
and organized crime. ". It is safe to say," The New York Times recently
reported, "that no previous major party presidential nominee has had
finances nearly as complicated." Now there's a classic Times understatement
for you.
"As president, Mr. Trump would have substantial sway over monetary and tax
policy, as well as the power to make appointments that would directly affect
his own financial empire. He would also wield influence over legislative
issues that could have a significant impact on his net worth, and would have
official dealings with countries in which he has business interests."
What a swell idea to put him in charge.
Not that Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are polestars of virtue. They seem
to have gone out of their way to favor the wealthy and make sure they
themselves always have a well-upholstered seat at the groaning banquet table
of foundation, government and political largesse.
There's plenty of history here. Back in the day, in many ways Bill Clinton
was the most helpful president the rich have had since Andrew Carnegie, JP
Morgan and John D. Rockefeller bankrolled William McKinley's 1900 campaign
and had their own bought-and-paid-for pal in the White House.
Harken back to 1993, the first of William Jefferson Clinton's eight years in
office. An alleged reform was passed that in reality contained one of the
best escape clauses ever.
The White House capped the tax deductibility of CEO compensation at $1
million, theoretically to cut down on runaway executive salaries. Good idea.
But raise my rent, look here -- there was a loophole large enough to drive a
fleet of Brink's trucks through. Banks could still deduct stuff like stock
options, cash bonuses and other kinds of "performance pay." So compensation
could run wild -- and did. Wall Street's fat cats got enormous raises at the
expense of the rest of us poor suckers, er, taxpayers.
When we staggered into financial freefall in 2008, the Clinton-era loophole
was closed until the banks paid off what they owed for the massive
government bailout. As a result, the banks rushed to pay the debt back at an
unseemly fast rate, even as mortgage holders lost their homes and millions
their jobs. Once they paid what they owed, the good times rolled even bigger
and louder for the rich and comfy bankers of Wall Street. And taxpayers paid
the price for the financial industry's massive write-offs.
In a shocking new report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), "The
Wall Street CEO Bonus Loophole," co-authors Sarah Anderson and Sam
Pizzigatti write:
"The more US corporations hand out in CEO bonuses, the less they pay in
taxes. After getting out from under the bailout limits on deducting
executive compensation, the top 20 US banks paid out more than $2 billion in
fully deductible performance bonuses to their top five executives between
2012 and 2015. At a 35-percent corporate tax rate, this translates into a
taxpayer subsidy worth more than $725 million over the four-year period, or
$1.7 million per executive per year on average."
The leading culprit was Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf: "Between 2012 and 2015,
years in which the bank faced $10.4 billion in misconduct penalties, Stumpf
pocketed more than $155 million in fully deductible performance pay. This
works out to $54 million in tax subsidies for Wells Fargo -- just for one
man's bonuses." And this at a time when the bank was holding some 85,000
mortgage loans in foreclosure.
Many of the other bank CEOs, the men we've come to love to hate -- and
big-dollar contributors to the Clinton Foundation and various Clinton
campaigns -- also make an appearance in the IPS report. Jamie Dimon of the
nation's largest bank JPMorgan Chase -- the fellow said to Barack Obama's
favorite banker -- "cashed in $22.9 million in stock options in February and
March 2010, at the peak of the foreclosure crisis."
Then there's Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, the man infamous for
telling the Times of London in 2009 that his bank was "doing God's work,"
head of the very same gang that gave Hillary Clinton those big six-figure
lecture fees you've heard about.
According to the IPS report, "The value of Goldman Sachs stock has never
regained
the value it enjoyed in the heady days before the market
slide, and so all of Blankfein's $28.9 million in deductible performance
bonuses were cashed in before the bank's
longtime shareholders were out of the red."
Sweet.
Sarah Anderson of IPS says, "Taxpayers should not have to subsidize
excessive CEO bonuses at any firm. [S]uch subsidies are particularly
troubling when they prop up a pay system that encourages the reckless
behavior which caused one devastating national crisis -- and could cause
more in the future."
Hillary Clinton has claimed she wants to get rid of the deductible
performance pay loophole, but there are several bills out there that would
do the job and so far she hasn't endorsed any of them. Why would she when
she already relies so heavily on the counsel -- and campaign cash -- of many
of these bank CEOs and their elite associates at law firms and corporations?
So far, close to half a billion dollars have been raised for her campaign,
$50 million alone during the last two weeks of August at 22 fundraisers.
According to The New York Times, that's an average of $150,000 an hour.
It's all part of a long tradition going back to Bill and beyond. And despite
the objections of those who say there's no evidence of a direct link between
money given and favors granted, remember: It's not just about the quid pro
quo. It's about the web of influence, the nod to the insider, the guy who
knows a guy who knows a guy.
We are dealing, Ryan Grim and Daniel Marans recently wrote at The Huffington
Post, with "a worldwide capitalistic system in which oligarchs, corporate
CEOs and celebrity heads of state mingle to form a global elite that
dictates a global agenda. This can sometimes take the form of quid pro quos,
but it is more often a subtle form of exchange, in which exclusion from or
inclusion within an elite club depends as much on whom you know as the size
of the check you can write.The Clintons did not create this system, but they
have become central players within it."
Which brings me around to a study from two Dutch political scientists,
Bastiaan van Apeldoorn and Nana de Graaff, who took a look at the key
policymaking personnel in the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama
administrations.
"Grand strategy makers" -- GSM -- that's what the researchers call them.
According to Paul Street at the Truthdig website, they found that "23 (more
than 70 percent) of Obama's top 30 GSMs had 'top-level corporate
affiliations' -- executive, director, senior adviser or partner in a law
firm -- prior to their appointment to the U.S. executive branch.
"These 23 were linked through a combination of board memberships, executive
positions and advisory roles to 111 corporations. These 'affiliations in
many cases display a revolving door pattern, indicating that the actors are
not just closely tied to but actually themselves members of the corporate
elite.'"
Seventy percent of George W. Bush's GSMs were linked to 87 corporations and
60 percent of Bill Clinton's were linked to 48.
If you wonder why inequality grew under Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama, all
the numbers in the paragraphs above are some of the reasons. Capital holds a
privileged status over labor, and CEOs are exalted over employees.
How can you be sure a Hillary Clinton White House will be any different?
Given all the evidence, given the billions of dollars in play, you can't.
But here's one hopeful sign: Politico reports, "Sen. Elizabeth Warren and
her allies aren't waiting for Election Day: Months before the votes have
been counted, they're already exerting pressure on Hillary Clinton's
transition team over key hiring decisions. They're vowing to fight nominees
with ties to big banks, and warn against corporate executives assuming
government roles in regulating the industries that made them rich."
Warren believes "personnel is policy." She and her colleagues have reserved
an especially hot place for the Wall Street big shots and corporate nabobs
who fancy a job in the Clinton administration. It's called the "Hell No"
list.
Attention must be paid to that list or with a Clinton back in office it's
four more dreary years of greased palms and the status quo. That could be a
recipe for disaster almost but not quite as horrific as an egotistical
know-nothing with his fingers in the piggy bank and worse, near the button.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
MICHAEL WINSHIP
Michael Winship is an Emmy Award-winning writer, and served as senior writer
of the public television series, "Moyers & Company." He is also a senior
writing fellow at the public policy and advocacy group Demos, and the
president of Writers Guild of America, East.
RELATED STORIES
Money in Politics: Where Is the Outrage?
By Bernard A. Weisberger, Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company | Op-Ed
Money Men Say, "Voters Move Over, It's Not Your Election!"
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Moyers & Company | Op-Ed
Money and the 2016 US Presidential Elections: The $10 Billion Contest
By Jack Rasmus, teleSUR | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Greasing the Outstretched Palms of the Candidates
Sunday, 11 September 2016 00:00 By Michael Winship, Moyers & Company | News
Analysis
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Donald Trump speaks to supporters at a campaign rally at Veterans
Memorial Coliseum in Phoenix, Arizona, on June 18, 2016. (Photo: Gage
Skidmore)
. The recipe could not be simpler. Mix cynicism with greed, quickly
stir and voila! American politics and government served up on a platter to
the highest bidder.
Call it low cuisine. And it doesn't get any lower than what we've seen
during this wretched campaign season -- a presidential contest that, as one
friend in Washington recently said, pits "the unethical versus the
unhinged."
For sure each of the two candidates is the byproduct of crony capitalism run
amok. Donald Trump started out boasting that his much-flaunted wealth meant
that he could self-fund his campaign and that this made him incorruptible, a
feckless notion that went flying out the window as soon as he became the
presumptive, official party nominee and went running to fat cat funders with
his diminutive hands out.
As The Washington Post's Matea Gold reported Sept. 1, "The New York
billionaire, who has cast himself as free from the influence of the party's
donor class, has spent this summer forging bonds with wealthy GOP financiers
-- seeking their input on how to run his campaign and recast his policies
for the general election, according to more than a dozen people who have
participated in the conversations."
To see more stories like this, visit Moyers & Company at Truthout.
And let's not get started on the wacky world of Trump's actual finances, his
bragging about using cash to buy political favors, his failure to release
tax returns, his dodgy connections with overseas banks, Russian plutocrats
and organized crime. ". It is safe to say," The New York Times recently
reported, "that no previous major party presidential nominee has had
finances nearly as complicated." Now there's a classic Times understatement
for you.
"As president, Mr. Trump would have substantial sway over monetary and tax
policy, as well as the power to make appointments that would directly affect
his own financial empire. He would also wield influence over legislative
issues that could have a significant impact on his net worth, and would have
official dealings with countries in which he has business interests."
What a swell idea to put him in charge.
Not that Hillary Clinton and husband Bill are polestars of virtue. They seem
to have gone out of their way to favor the wealthy and make sure they
themselves always have a well-upholstered seat at the groaning banquet table
of foundation, government and political largesse.
There's plenty of history here. Back in the day, in many ways Bill Clinton
was the most helpful president the rich have had since Andrew Carnegie, JP
Morgan and John D. Rockefeller bankrolled William McKinley's 1900 campaign
and had their own bought-and-paid-for pal in the White House.
Harken back to 1993, the first of William Jefferson Clinton's eight years in
office. An alleged reform was passed that in reality contained one of the
best escape clauses ever.
The White House capped the tax deductibility of CEO compensation at $1
million, theoretically to cut down on runaway executive salaries. Good idea.
But raise my rent, look here -- there was a loophole large enough to drive a
fleet of Brink's trucks through. Banks could still deduct stuff like stock
options, cash bonuses and other kinds of "performance pay." So compensation
could run wild -- and did. Wall Street's fat cats got enormous raises at the
expense of the rest of us poor suckers, er, taxpayers.
When we staggered into financial freefall in 2008, the Clinton-era loophole
was closed until the banks paid off what they owed for the massive
government bailout. As a result, the banks rushed to pay the debt back at an
unseemly fast rate, even as mortgage holders lost their homes and millions
their jobs. Once they paid what they owed, the good times rolled even bigger
and louder for the rich and comfy bankers of Wall Street. And taxpayers paid
the price for the financial industry's massive write-offs.
In a shocking new report from the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), "The
Wall Street CEO Bonus Loophole," co-authors Sarah Anderson and Sam
Pizzigatti write:
"The more US corporations hand out in CEO bonuses, the less they pay in
taxes. After getting out from under the bailout limits on deducting
executive compensation, the top 20 US banks paid out more than $2 billion in
fully deductible performance bonuses to their top five executives between
2012 and 2015. At a 35-percent corporate tax rate, this translates into a
taxpayer subsidy worth more than $725 million over the four-year period, or
$1.7 million per executive per year on average."
The leading culprit was Wells Fargo CEO John Stumpf: "Between 2012 and 2015,
years in which the bank faced $10.4 billion in misconduct penalties, Stumpf
pocketed more than $155 million in fully deductible performance pay. This
works out to $54 million in tax subsidies for Wells Fargo -- just for one
man's bonuses." And this at a time when the bank was holding some 85,000
mortgage loans in foreclosure.
Many of the other bank CEOs, the men we've come to love to hate -- and
big-dollar contributors to the Clinton Foundation and various Clinton
campaigns -- also make an appearance in the IPS report. Jamie Dimon of the
nation's largest bank JPMorgan Chase -- the fellow said to Barack Obama's
favorite banker -- "cashed in $22.9 million in stock options in February and
March 2010, at the peak of the foreclosure crisis."
Then there's Lloyd Blankfein, CEO of Goldman Sachs, the man infamous for
telling the Times of London in 2009 that his bank was "doing God's work,"
head of the very same gang that gave Hillary Clinton those big six-figure
lecture fees you've heard about.
According to the IPS report, "The value of Goldman Sachs stock has never
regained
the value it enjoyed in the heady days before the market
slide, and so all of Blankfein's $28.9 million in deductible performance
bonuses were cashed in before the bank's
longtime shareholders were out of the red."
Sweet.
Sarah Anderson of IPS says, "Taxpayers should not have to subsidize
excessive CEO bonuses at any firm. [S]uch subsidies are particularly
troubling when they prop up a pay system that encourages the reckless
behavior which caused one devastating national crisis -- and could cause
more in the future."
Hillary Clinton has claimed she wants to get rid of the deductible
performance pay loophole, but there are several bills out there that would
do the job and so far she hasn't endorsed any of them. Why would she when
she already relies so heavily on the counsel -- and campaign cash -- of many
of these bank CEOs and their elite associates at law firms and corporations?
So far, close to half a billion dollars have been raised for her campaign,
$50 million alone during the last two weeks of August at 22 fundraisers.
According to The New York Times, that's an average of $150,000 an hour.
It's all part of a long tradition going back to Bill and beyond. And despite
the objections of those who say there's no evidence of a direct link between
money given and favors granted, remember: It's not just about the quid pro
quo. It's about the web of influence, the nod to the insider, the guy who
knows a guy who knows a guy.
We are dealing, Ryan Grim and Daniel Marans recently wrote at The Huffington
Post, with "a worldwide capitalistic system in which oligarchs, corporate
CEOs and celebrity heads of state mingle to form a global elite that
dictates a global agenda. This can sometimes take the form of quid pro quos,
but it is more often a subtle form of exchange, in which exclusion from or
inclusion within an elite club depends as much on whom you know as the size
of the check you can write.The Clintons did not create this system, but they
have become central players within it."
Which brings me around to a study from two Dutch political scientists,
Bastiaan van Apeldoorn and Nana de Graaff, who took a look at the key
policymaking personnel in the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama
administrations.
"Grand strategy makers" -- GSM -- that's what the researchers call them.
According to Paul Street at the Truthdig website, they found that "23 (more
than 70 percent) of Obama's top 30 GSMs had 'top-level corporate
affiliations' -- executive, director, senior adviser or partner in a law
firm -- prior to their appointment to the U.S. executive branch.
"These 23 were linked through a combination of board memberships, executive
positions and advisory roles to 111 corporations. These 'affiliations in
many cases display a revolving door pattern, indicating that the actors are
not just closely tied to but actually themselves members of the corporate
elite.'"
Seventy percent of George W. Bush's GSMs were linked to 87 corporations and
60 percent of Bill Clinton's were linked to 48.
If you wonder why inequality grew under Bill Clinton, Bush and Obama, all
the numbers in the paragraphs above are some of the reasons. Capital holds a
privileged status over labor, and CEOs are exalted over employees.
How can you be sure a Hillary Clinton White House will be any different?
Given all the evidence, given the billions of dollars in play, you can't.
But here's one hopeful sign: Politico reports, "Sen. Elizabeth Warren and
her allies aren't waiting for Election Day: Months before the votes have
been counted, they're already exerting pressure on Hillary Clinton's
transition team over key hiring decisions. They're vowing to fight nominees
with ties to big banks, and warn against corporate executives assuming
government roles in regulating the industries that made them rich."
Warren believes "personnel is policy." She and her colleagues have reserved
an especially hot place for the Wall Street big shots and corporate nabobs
who fancy a job in the Clinton administration. It's called the "Hell No"
list.
Attention must be paid to that list or with a Clinton back in office it's
four more dreary years of greased palms and the status quo. That could be a
recipe for disaster almost but not quite as horrific as an egotistical
know-nothing with his fingers in the piggy bank and worse, near the button.
This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not
be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Michael Winship
Michael Winship is an Emmy Award-winning writer, and served as senior writer
of the public television series, "Moyers & Company." He is also a senior
writing fellow at the public policy and advocacy group Demos, and the
president of Writers Guild of America, East.
Related Stories
Money in Politics: Where Is the Outrage?
By Bernard A. Weisberger, Bill Moyers, Moyers & Company | Op-EdMoney Men
Say, "Voters Move Over, It's Not Your Election!"
By Bill Moyers and Michael Winship, Moyers & Company | Op-EdMoney and the
2016 US Presidential Elections: The $10 Billion Contest
By Jack Rasmus, teleSUR | Op-Ed
Show Comments
