
So many words, so many thoughts, perspectives, and opinions. Thank You
Due Diligence. Due diligence is a blog site which attempts to refine the news and to provide bits of irony in the course of every-day events. Due Diligence. ..trying to work for truth
Merkley: Wants salmon protections that don't threaten livelihood of farmers. Has said in the past that he would study some hydropower dams for elimination to help salmon -- now says we need to preserve hydropower. Supports government aid for devastated fishing industry.
Smith: Worked in 2002 to keep water flowing to Klamath Basin farmers despite fears that fish would suffer. The diversion caused a massive fish kill. Strong backer of the Bonneville Power Administration and its desire to keep water flowing through its hydropower dams. Helped secure $230 million in emergency assistance to Oregon's coastal communities after salmon stocks collapsed, and supported a variety of bills to improve salmon habitat in Oregon and beyond.
-- Harry Esteve; harryesteve@news.oregonian.com
-- Charles Pope; charles.pope@newhouse.com
Experts wonder if another rescue next for automakers
BY SUSAN TOMPOR
FREE PRESS COLUMNIST
After this week's mind-numbing market meltdown, the big question for Michigan is: Are General Motors Corp. and Ford Motor Co. the next in line to need a government bailout? Or will a merger partner be needed?
Who would imagine that we'd speculate on such an odd question -- especially after the federal government's guarantee of $25 billion in loans for the auto industry?
But clearly, these are not normal times. The Dow Jones Industrial Average had its worst week ever.
The Dow tumbled 700 points early Friday. But the Dow ended the day down 128 points, or 1.5%, to close at 8451.19 points.
Since Sept. 30, the Dow is down nearly 2,400 points -- or 22%.
"People are just incredibly shell-shocked here," said Dana Johnson, Comerica Bank's chief economist.
But Johnson, who maintains that a recession is inevitable, said he's growing increasingly confident that the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury will be successful through extraordinary efforts and not allow lending to collapse.
Johnson is one of the few who said he's seeing a way out of this credit crunch. He is not putting a timetable on that recovery, though, because the situation is so complex.
"I have an overriding faith that the amount of lending that the Fed can do is literally unlimited," Johnson said.
Disaster is feared
Market watchers, though, are debating whether extraordinary efforts that the government is making for banks and financial firms could need to extend maybe even to automakers.
Could automakers be viewed as too big to fail, especially if the credit markets do not rebound soon enough?
The overwhelming fear is that automakers could be headed for disaster unless the credit markets are revived.
Reports late Friday said that GM and Chrysler LLC were exploring a merger. But it's unknown how long that could take or whether it could work.
GM closed at $4.89 on Friday -- up 13 cents or 2.73%.
Ford closed at $1.99 on Friday -- down 9 cents or 4.33%.
Both companies continue to stress that they have enough cash to last through the slump and into better economic times.
This past week, stocks for GM and Ford got crushed on forecasts that sales will slump further in the United States and abroad. The credit squeeze, if it continues, could only make things far, far worse.
"The bad news is a lot of people are losing their jobs -- and it's hard to get loans to buy cars," said David Wyss, chief economist for Standard & Poor's in New York.
The silver lining, of course, is that gas prices have pulled back considerably during the market meltdown.
"It's not all bleak," said David Healy, a veteran auto analyst with Burnham Securities. He noted that news out of the auto industry does not justify the sizable sell-off.
Betting against automakers
Yet the bond market is betting big-time that GM and Ford would have to file for bankruptcy.
What triggers a default, experts say, is running out of cash and not being able to refinance. If a company is able to refinance short-term liabilities, it would not go bankrupt.
As the credit crunch lingers, the worries build that automakers would have a hard time refinancing their short-term liabilities. And experts say those worries about GM and Ford are playing out in the bond market.
"The bonds represent almost a 100% chance of bankruptcy," Jim Cramer, host of "Mad Money" on CNBC said in an e-mail.
Edward Altman, a finance professor at New York University's Stern School of Business, said bond markets are looking at an extremely high probability of bankruptcy for GM and Ford -- but not as high as 100%.
Altman, the creator of the Z-score mathematical formula that measures bankruptcy risk, said it is hard to say whether the real troubles would pop up in six months, one year or 18 months.
He said Ford is on slightly stronger footing, but he said both companies are increasingly on the verge of bankruptcy.
"They're the only ones who say they are not," Altman said Friday.
Mike Krushena, senior portfolio manager for Munder Capital Management in Birmingham, said the bond market is forecasting a very dire outlook for automakers right now.
Krushena said he thinks the odds are very low that GM and Ford would file for bankruptcy.
"I don't think bankruptcy is an option for either company right now," Krushena said.
Contact SUSAN TOMPOR at stompor@freepress.com.
GENERAL MOTORS tumbled to its lowest in New York trading in 58 years and Ford Motor fell to almost a 26-year low as the US car sales outlook worsened and Standard & Poor's said it might cut their debt deeper into junk.
The market researcher J.D. Power & Associates has estimated that US car and light-truck sales will fall to 13.6 million this year and 13.2 million next year. The total was 16.1 million last year, and it has not been as low as the 2009 projection since 1992.
An S&P analyst, Robert Schulz, said: "These companies certainly wouldn't choose to file bankruptcy but they could find themselves at a point where their liquidity reached the point where they no longer could run their businesses. We think they could be pushed into that."
The pressure on GM and Ford, the largest US car makers, comes after the industry's vehicle sales tumbled 27 per cent last month, the biggest monthly drop since 1991.
The credit crisis has reduced access to loans for potential buyers after sales had already been hurt by petrol prices that rose to a record in July and by the housing slump that sapped consumer confidence. S&P, which rates debt of GM and Ford six steps below investment grade at B-, said both car makers had "adequate liquidity" for this year while facing a "serious challenge" next year. The ratings company put both on credit watch with a negative outlook.
"We were fortunate to go to the markets at the right time," said a Ford spokesman Mark Truby, referring to $US23.4 billion ($35 billion) borrowed in late 2006.
The company is reviewing its liquidity and would give an update when it released third-quarter financial results, he said. Ford has not said when the release, typically later in October, will be.
Renee Rashid-Merem, a GM spokeswoman, said: "We face unprecedented challenges related to uncertainty in the financial markets globally and weakening economic fundamentals in many key markets. But bankruptcy is not an option General Motors is considering."
GM fell 31 per cent to $US4.76 in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, the lowest close since March 30, 1950. Ford slid 22 per cent to $US2.08, the lowest since October 1982. "Buyers are both voluntarily and involuntarily exiting the US new-vehicle market," said Jeff Schuster, executive director of automotive forecasting for J.D. Power.
"The global market in 2009 may experience an outright collapse."
Shares of GM and Ford were on the list for the US Securities and Exchange Commission's three-week ban on short selling, which ended on Wednesday. In a short sale, traders borrow shares, sell them and hope to make a profit by buying back the stock at a lower price and returning it.
Kevin Tynan, an analyst at Argus Research Corp in New York, said the automotive industry before the financial crisis "was perceived as the most troubled sector. Investors are circling back and saying this is pretty bad."
GM and Ford shares this week were cut to "sell" by Citigroup Inc. GM has not posted a full-year profit since 2004, and Ford has not done so since 2005.
Both have lost sales as fuel prices shifted consumers away from large pick-up trucks and sports utility vehicles. Neither car maker has said when it expects to return to profit.
Bloomberg
In a barely noticed development, a US Army unit is now training for domestic operations under the control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. An initial news report in the Army Times newspaper last month noted that in addition to emergency response the force “may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.” The military has since claimed the force will not be used for civil unrest, but questions remain. We speak to Army Col. Michael Boatner, future operations division chief of USNORTHCOM, and Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive magazine. Guests:
Col. Michael Boatner, Future Operations division chief of USNORTHCOM.
Matthew Rothschild, Editor of The Progressive magazine.
AMY GOODMAN: In a barely noticed development last week, the Army stationed an active unit inside the United States. The Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Team is back from Iraq, now training for domestic operations under the control of US Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command. The unit will serve as an on-call federal response for large-scale emergencies and disasters. It’s being called the Consequence Management Response Force, CCMRF, or “sea-smurf” for short.
It’s the first time an active unit has been given a dedicated assignment to USNORTHCOM, which was itself formed in October 2002 to “provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts.”
An initial news report in the Army Times newspaper last month noted, in addition to emergency response, the force “may be called upon to help with civil unrest and crowd control.” The Army Times has since appended a clarification, and a September 30th press release from the Northern Command states: “This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control."
When Democracy Now! spoke to Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Jamie Goodpaster, a public affairs officer for NORTHCOM, she said the force would have weapons stored in containers on site, as well as access to tanks, but the decision to use weapons would be made at a far higher level, perhaps by Secretary of Defense, SECDEF.
Well, I’m joined now by two guests. Army Colonel Michael Boatner is future operations division chief of USNORTHCOM. He joins me on the phone from Colorado Springs. We’re also joined from Madison, Wisconsin by journalist and editor of The Progressive magazine, Matthew Rothschild.
We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Why don’t we begin with Colonel Michael Boatner? Can you explain the significance, the first time, October 1st, deployment of the troops just back from Iraq?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: Yes, Amy. I’d be happy to. And again, there has been some concern and some misimpressions that I would like to correct. The primary purpose of this force is to provide help to people in need in the aftermath of a WMD-like event in the homeland. It’s something that figures very prominently in the national planning scenarios under the National Response Framework, and that’s how DoD provides support in the homeland to civil authority. This capability is tailored technical life-saving support and then further logistic support for that very specific scenario. So, we designed it for that purpose.
And really, the new development is that it’s been assigned to NORTHCOM, because there’s an increasingly important requirement to ensure that they have done that technical training, that they can work together as a joint service team. These capabilities come from all of our services and from a variety of installations, and that’s not an ideal command and control environment. So we’ve been given control of these forces so that we can train them, ensure they’re responsive and direct them to participate in our exercises, so that were they called to support civil authority, those governors or local state jurisdictions that might need our help, that they would be responsive and capable in the event and also would be able to survive based on the skills that they have learned, trained and focused on.
They ultimately have weapons, heavy weapons and combat vehicles and another service capability at their home station at Fort Stewart, Georgia, but they wouldn’t bring that stuff with them. In fact, they’re prohibited from bringing it. They would bring their individual weapons, which is the standard policy for deployments in the homeland. Those would be centralized and containerized, and they could only be issued to the soldiers with the Secretary of Defense permission.
So I think, you know, that kind of wraps up our position on this. We’re proud to be able to provide this capability. It’s all about saving lives, relieving suffering, mitigating great property damage to infrastructure and things like that, and frankly, restoring public confidence in the aftermath of an event like this.
AMY GOODMAN: So the use of the weapons would only be decided by SECDEF, the Secretary of Defense. But what about the governors? The SECDEF would have—Secretary of Defense would have—would be able to preempt the governors in a decision whether these soldiers would use their weapons on US soil?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: No, this basically only boils down to self-defense. Any military force has the inherent right to self-defense. And if the situation was inherently dangerous, then potentially the Secretary of Defense would allow them to carry their weapons, but it would only be for self- and unit-defense. This force has got no role in a civil disturbance or civil unrest, any of those kinds of things.
AMY GOODMAN: Matt Rothschild, you’ve been writing about this in The Progressive magazine. What is your concern?
MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, I’m very concerned on a number of fronts about this, Amy. One, that NORTHCOM, the Northern Command, that came into being in October of 2002, when that came in, people like me were concerned that the Pentagon was going to use its forces here in the United States, and now it looks like, in fact, it is, even though on its website it says it doesn’t have units of its own. Now it’s getting a unit of its own.
And Colonel Boatner talked about this unit, what it’s trained for. Well, let’s look at what it’s trained for. This is the 3rd Infantry, 1st Brigade Combat unit that has spent three of the last five years in Iraq in counterinsurgency. It’s a war-fighting unit, was one of the first units to Baghdad. It was involved in the battle of Fallujah. And, you know, that’s what they’ve been trained to do. And now they’re bringing that training here?
On top of that, one of the commanders of this unit was boasting in the Army Times about this new package of non-lethal weapons that has been designed, and this unit itself is going be able to use, according to that original article. And in fact, the commander was saying he had even tasered himself and was boasting about tasering himself. So, why is a Pentagon unit that’s going to be possibly patrolling the streets of the United States involved in using tasers?
AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Boatner?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: Well, I’d like to address that. That involved a service mission and a service set of equipment that was issued for overseas deployment. Those soldiers do not have that on their equipment list for deploying in the homeland. And again, they have been involved in situations overseas. And having talked to commanders who have returned, those situations are largely nonviolent, non-kinetic. And when they do escalate, the soldiers have a lot of experience with seeing the indicators and understanding it. So, I would say that our soldiers are trustworthy. They can deploy in the homeland, and American citizens can be confident that there will be no abuses.
AMY GOODMAN: Matt Rothschild?
MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, you know, that doesn’t really satisfy me, and I don’t think it should satisfy your listeners and your audience, Amy, because, you know, our people in the field in Iraq, some of them have not behaved up to the highest standards, and a lot of police forces in the United States who have been using these tasers have used them inappropriately.
The whole question here about what the Pentagon is doing patrolling in the United States gets to the real heart of the matter, which is, do we have a democracy here? I mean, there is a law on the books called the Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act that says that the president of the United States, as commander-in-chief, cannot put the military on our streets. And this is a violation of that, it seems to me.
President Bush tried to get around this act a couple years ago in the Defense Authorization Act that he signed that got rid of some of those restrictions, and then last year, in the new Defense Authorization Act, thanks to the work of Senator Patrick Leahy and Kit Bond of Missouri, that was stripped away. And so, the President isn’t supposed to be using the military in this fashion, and though the President, true to form, appended a signing statement to that saying he’s not going to be governed by that. So, here we have a situation where the President of United States has been aggrandizing his power, and this gives him a whole brigade unit to use against US citizens here at home.
AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Michael Boatner, what about the Posse Comitatus Act, and where does that fit in when US troops are deployed on US soil?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: It absolutely governs in every instance. We are not allowed to help enforce the law. We don’t do that. Every time we get a request—and again, this kind of a deployment is defense support to civil authority under the National Response Framework and the Stafford Act. And we do it all the time, in response to hurricanes, floods, fires and things like that. But again, you know, if we review the requirement that comes to us from civil authority and it has any complexion of law enforcement whatsoever, it gets rejected and pushed back, because it’s not lawful.
AMY GOODMAN: Matthew Rothschild, does this satisfy you, editor of The Progressive magazine?
MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: No, it doesn’t. One of the reasons it doesn’t is not by what Boatner was saying right there, but what President Bush has been doing. And if we looked at National Security Presidential Directive 51, that he signed on May 9th of 2007, Amy, this gives the President enormous powers to declare a catastrophic emergency and to bypass our regular system of laws, essentially, to impose a form of martial law.
And if you look at that National Security Presidential Directive, what it says, that in any incident where there is extraordinary disruption of a whole range of things, including our economy, the President can declare a catastrophic emergency. Well, we’re having these huge disturbances in our economy. President Bush could today pick up that National Security Directive 51 and say, “We’re in a catastrophic emergency. I’m going to declare martial law, and I’m going to use this combat brigade to enforce it.”
AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Michael Boatner?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: The only exception that I know of is the Insurrection Act. It’s something that is very unlikely to be invoked. In my thirty-year career, it’s only been used once, in the LA riots, and it was a widespread situation of lawlessness and violence. And the governor of the state requested that the President provide support. And that’s a completely different situation. The forces available to do that are in every service in every part of the country, and it’s completely unrelated to the—this consequence management force that we’re talking about.
AMY GOODMAN: You mentioned governors, and I was just looking at a piece by Jeff Stein—he is the national security editor of Congressional Quarterly— talking about homeland security. And he said, “Safely tucked into the $526 billion defense bill, it easily crossed the goal line on the last day of September.
“The language doesn’t just brush aside a liberal Democrat slated to take over the Judiciary Committee”—this was a piece written last year—it “runs over the backs of the governors, 22 of whom are Republicans.
“The governors had waved red flags about the measure on Aug. 1, 2007, sending letters of protest from their Washington office to the Republican chairs and ranking Democrats on the House and Senate Armed Services committees.
“No response. So they petitioned the party heads on the Hill.”
The letter, signed by every member of the National Governors Association, said, “This provision was drafted without consultation or input from governors and represents an unprecedented shift in authority from governors…to the federal government.”
Colonel Michael Boatner?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: That’s in the political arena. That has nothing to do with my responsibilities or what I’m—was asked to talk about here with regard to supporting civil authority in the homeland.
AMY GOODMAN: Matthew Rothschild?
MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, this gets to what Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont was so concerned about, that with NORTHCOM and with perhaps this unit—and I want to call Senator Leahy’s office today and ask him about this—you have the usurpation of the governor’s role, of the National Guard’s role, and it’s given straight to the Pentagon in some of these instances. And that’s very alarming. And that was alarming to almost every governor, if not every governor, in the country, when Bush tried to do that and around about the Posse Comitatus Act. So, I think these are real concerns.
AMY GOODMAN: Matt Rothschild, the Democratic and Republican conventions were quite amazing displays of force at every level, from the local police on to the state troopers to, well, in the Republican convention, right onto troops just back from Iraq in their Army fatigues. Did this surprise you?
MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: It did. It surprised me also that NORTHCOM itself was involved in intelligence sharing with local police officers in St. Paul. I mean, what in the world is NORTHCOM doing looking at what some of the protesters are involved in? And you had infiltration up there, too. But what we have going on in this country is we have infiltration and spying that goes on, not only at the—well, all the way from the campus police, practically, Amy, up to the Pentagon and the National Security Agency. We’re becoming a police state here.
AMY GOODMAN: Colonel Michael Boatner, a tall order here, could you respond?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: Well, that’s incorrect. We did not participate in any intelligence collection. We were up there in support of the US Secret Service. We provided some explosive ordnance disposal support of the event. But I’d like to go back and say that, again, in terms of—
AMY GOODMAN: Could you explain what their—explain again what was their role there?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: They were just doing routine screens and scans of the area in advance of this kind of a vulnerable event. It’s pretty standard support to a national special security event.
AMY GOODMAN: And are you saying there was absolutely no intelligence sharing?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: That’s correct. That is correct. [inaudible] we’re very constrained—
MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: But even that, Amy, now the Pentagon is doing sweeps of areas before, you know, a political convention? That used to be law enforcement’s job. That used to be domestic civil law enforcement job. It’s now being taken over by the Pentagon. That should concern us.
AMY GOODMAN: Why is that, Colonel Michael Boatner? Why is the Pentagon doing it, not local law enforcement?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: That’s because of the scale and the availability of support. DoD is the only force that has the kind of capability. I mean, we’re talking about dozens and dozens of dog detection teams. And so, for anything on this large a scale, the Secret Service comes to DoD with a standard Economy Act request for assistance.
AMY GOODMAN: Boatner, in the Republican Convention, these troops, just back from Fallujah—what about issues of, for example, PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder?
COL. MICHAEL BOATNER: Well, my sense is that that’s something that the services handled very well. There’s a long track record of great support in the homeland. If those soldiers were National Guard soldiers, I have no visibility of that. But for the active-duty forces, citizens can be confident that if they’re employed in the homeland, that they’ll be reliable, accountable, and take care of their families and fellow citizens in good form.
AMY GOODMAN: Last word, Matthew Rothschild? Ten seconds.
MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: Well, this granting of the Pentagon a special unit to be involved in US patrol is something that should alarm all of us. And it’s very important to the Army. General Casey, Army chief of staff—
AMY GOODMAN: Five seconds.
MATTHEW ROTHSCHILD: —was a drill exercise for this group just last week, or just three weeks ago. It was called—
AMY GOODMAN: We leave it there. We’ve got to leave it there. Thank you to Matthew Rothschild and Colonel Michael Boatner.
In comments which sent share prices in Wall Street tumbling, Hank Paulson warned that the crisis would claim further victims and ruled out a "grand plan" for an international bail-out of the financial system.
His comments came at the end of another fraught day in markets worldwide as investors reacted nervously to unprecedented co-ordinated interest rate cuts by central banks across the Western world.
Mr Paulson, who last week successfully steered his $700bn Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) through Congress, warned that the scheme and the half percentage point interest rate cuts in countries including the UK and the US would not be enough to prevent more financial institutions from imploding.
"One thing we must recognise: even with the new Treasury authorities, some financial institutions will fail," he said. "The EESA doesn't exist to save every financial institution for its own sake."
Neither should investors expect a quick recovery in the markets, he added.
"It is too early to look for encouraging signs in credit markets," he said. "It's going to take a while to work through this problem."
Within minutes of the warning the Dow Jones tumbled from its afternoon peak of 9575 points to close down 2pc or 189 points at 9258.1.
Meanwhile, Treasury yields had their biggest one-day rise in more than a decade.
The comments come ahead of the Group of Seven meeting of finance ministers in Washington tomorrow. Markets had been bubbling with rumours that ministers would hatch a co-ordinated plan to pour public cash into struggling banks, but Mr Paulson dismissed such hopes.
"When you look at the G7 you've got very different countries' economies with different-sized financial systems and different needs so it would not make sense to have identical policies," he said.
He added that the credit squeeze was likely to persevere for some time, and admitted that the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP), which aims to buy up the illiquid financial instruments at the heart of the sub-prime crisis, would take some time to kick into action.
"We expect it will be several weeks before our first purchase," he said.
However, he did not rule out using the powers granted to the Treasury by the bill to move one step further and actively buy banks' shares in order to recapitalise their balance sheets.
Such a move would mirror the dramatic £50bn bail-out confirmed by Alistair Darling for the UK yesterday. Although he insisted the creation of the TARP was going well, he admitted he had not yet found anyone to lead the project.
With a number of US and European banks having collapsed in recent weeks many investors had been hoping for a signal that policymakers would allow no more failures. As it was, Mr Paulson stood by his decision to allow Lehman Brothers to collapse, saying: "Looking back we took the right moves – there was no buyer for Lehman."
The Lehman collapse triggered a chain reaction which helped contribute to the turmoil of recent weeks. Among the victims was insurer American International Group. The Federal Reserve last night arranged a further $37.8bn injection of cash into AIG, which has been effectively nationalised after coming close to failure.
Previously, Mr. Walker was head of Alternative Investment Strategies for Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a partner of the firm. He served on the firm's Partnership Committee.
Mr. Walker serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Local Initiatives Support Cooperation, a vice chair of the Board of Trustees of The New School and a member of the Board of Overseers of the University of Pennsylvania's School of Arts & Science.
Mr. Walker earned his B.A./B.S. from the University of Pennsylvania and an M.B.A. from the Wharton School.
Sen. John McCain (WDCpix) By John Dougherty 9/29/08 5:08 PM
PHOENIX—In April 1987, William Black watched five U.S. senators, including Sen. John McCain, now the Republican presidential nominee, try to strong-arm federal-thrift regulators on behalf of Charles H. Keating Jr., a Phoenix businessman who owned Lincoln Savings & Loan.
At the time, Black was deputy director of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, which oversees the nation’s thrift institutions. He had joined his boss, Edwin Gray, in the meeting with the five senators, who took turns pressuring Gray to exempt Lincoln from a regulation on how much capital the thrift could directly invest in assets — a regulation Keating vehemently opposed.
Gray’s regulators had found that, by the end of 1986, Lincoln Savings had exceeded the investment regulation by $600 million — and had unreported losses of more than $130 million.
Two years later, press reports about the meeting triggered Common Cause, a non-partisan watchdog group, to request that Congress investigate into whether the senators violated ethics rules by pressuring Gray.
The Senate Ethics committee began an investigation; leading to a high-profile, 23-day hearing in late 1990, during which the media labeled the senators the “Keating Five.” In February 1991, the committee rebuked McCain for exercising “poor judgment” by being at in the meeting — a decision McCain later agreed was appropriate. It was “the wrong thing to do,” McCain acknowledged.
Black, now an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, said in a telephone interview Wednesday that McCain’s long-standing opposition to regulation of the financial markets and his support for relaxed accounting standards that allow institutions to mask losses makes him unqualified to handle the financial crisis that threatens an economic Armageddon for the country.
“McCain has gotten this stuff wrong from the beginning,” Black said. “One his first acts as a member of the House was trying to stop the re-regulation of the thrift industry” by opposing efforts by regulators to increase capital reserves and reduce the amount of money thrifts could invest, as well as other revisions sought by regulators.
McCain was elected to the House in 1982, and served two terms before moving on to the Senate in 1986. “McCain was very much in favor of accounting forbearance — to game the accounting system,” Black said. “That was his position in 1983. And here we are 25 years later. And he’s learned nothing.”
Black asserts that McCain’s behavior remains unchanged because of McCain’s call last March for a meeting of the nation’s top accountants to relax accounting rules that would allow financial institutions to delay accounting for the decline in value of assets.
Black has been a longtime critic of McCain. He labeled McCain the most culpable of the senators who attended the April 9 meeting in the office of former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, an Arizona Democrat. In addition to McCain and DeConcini, Sens. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.), John Glenn (D-Ohio) and Don Riegle (D-Mich) were also there.
The week before, on April 2, Gray had met with McCain, Glenn, Cranston and DeConcini, who kicked off the proceedings with a reference to “our friend at Lincoln.” Keating had ties to all five senators. He and employees of his companies had contributed $1.3 million to the senators’ campaigns and other related groups, including get-out-the-vote efforts.
All five senators had close relationships with Keating. Keating’s holding company, American Continental Corp., was based in Phoenix and was a major employer there — which drew McCain and DeConcini into his circle. Lincoln Savings, meanwhile, was based in Cranston’s home state of California.
Glenn also viewed Keating as a constituent, because the banker had a business headquartered in Ohio and was a protege of the Cincinnati business icon Carl Lindner. Riegle was a member of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, and Keating had a big hotel investment in Michigan.
Lincoln Savings failed in 1989 because of bad loans and mounting losses in direct investments, ultimately costing taxpayers more than $3 billion. Keating was convicted on 73 federal counts of wire and bankrutpcy fraud in 1993, and spent four years in prison before his conviction was overturned on appeal. Faced with a second trial, he pleaded guilty to four counts of fraud, and was sentenced to time served.
While McCain and Glenn received the mildest rebukes from the ethics committee, Black contends that McCain’s long-term relationship with Keating made him the only senator who stood to personally benefit from getting regulators to back off from Lincoln Savings.
McCain’s wife, Cindy, and his father-in-law had a $360,000 investment with Keating and others in a shopping center at the time of the 1987 meeting. If the Federal Home Loan Bank Board moved to enforce the direct investment regulations on Lincoln Savings, Keating may have had to dispose of that property at a possible loss. McCain has dismissed Black’s self-dealing allegation — stating that he and his wife maintain separate finances through a prenuptial agreement.
But Keating was also a close friend of McCain. The high-flying banker had paid for McCain and his family to vacation with him in the Bahamas on several occasions. McCain paid Keating $13,400 to cover expenses after the 11 trips were disclosed, years later.
Keating and employees of American Continental, which controlled Lincoln Savings, had also contributed $112,000 to McCain’s campaigns. The Arizona senator has said that Keating’s contributions to his first House campaign, in 1982, played an important role in that win.
Black says that the two meetings in April of 1987 were among a series of actions, including opposition to increasing capital requirements and tighter regulation of assets, taken by McCain that helped contribute to the S&L crisis, which ultimately required a $125-billion taxpayer bailout.
In an interview Tuesday with National Public Radio’s “Here and Now”, Black was particularly critical of McCain’s role to support the Reagan administration’s unsuccessful effort in getting two Keating associates appointed to the Federal Home Loan Bank.
“I’ll tell you the biggest thing Sen. McCain — then Rep. McCain — tried to do,” Black said on NPR. “The administration attempted to give Charles Keating control over the federal agency regulating savings and loans. There were three presidential appointees and there were to be two members chosen by Charles Keating. Sen. McCain was not only aware of that effort but supportive of it. Had that occurred, the savings and loan crisis, instead of being $125 billion to $150 billion, would have been over a trillion dollars. It would have probably still been our worst political scandal in history.”
Black said on the phone Wednesday that McCain opposed the bank board’s effort to tighten regulations on the S&L industry, which had grown rapidly after Congress gave thrifts additional lending powers in the early 1980s.
Thrifts began lending to, and in some cases, making direct investments in, risky projects — including racetracks, office buildings in cities with high vacancy rates and undeveloped land. The boom was not accompanied by enhanced supervision, Black said.
By the mid-1980s, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board sounded an alarm: depositors’ funds — insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. up to $100,000 — were at risk.
To head off a crisis, the bank board regulators moved to institute tougher accounting standards and increase the amount of capital that thrifts had to hold in reserve. But Congress resisted. According to Black, McCain supported the continuation of accounting rules –- dubbed “Keating accounting” by Black– that allowed thrifts to mask their losses for years by overstating the value of their assets, including intangibles like “goodwill” in the thrift’s net worth.
When the subject of the Keating Five came up in McCain’s interview with WKYC-Cleveland reporter Tom Beres last week, the GOP presidential nominee did not say, as he had previously, that attending that April 1987 meeting with Gray was “the wrong thing to do.” Instead, he insisted the “key” to the episode was that Robert Bennett, the lead investigator of the Senate Ethics Committee, recommended that Glenn and McCain be dropped from the case.
“I had done nothing wrong…I was kept in that investigation for political purposes,” McCain told Beres. “It was a very unhappy period in my life,” McCain continued. “But the fact is that I moved forward, and I have been the greatest voice for reform and against corruption in Washington than anybody.”
But Black said McCain has still not learned the lessons of strong financial regulation and strict accounting standards. As evidence, he points to the senator’s March 25 speech on the housing crisis. McCain called for a national meeting of accounting professionals to discuss changing the “current mark to market” accounting system — that requires lending institutions to price assets at current market value.
“We are witnessing an unprecedented situation as banks and investors try to determine the appropriate value of the assets they are holding,” McCain said, “and there is widespread concern that this [mark-to-market] approach is exacerbating the credit crunch.”
These were terrifying words to the former banking regulator, who had witnessed firsthand the consequences of accounting rules that did not accurately value the assets of thrifts. “McCain’s answer,” Black charges, “is to get the accountants in the room to make sure we create phony capital by not recognizing our losses.”
The current financial crisis and credit crunch, Black said, is the result of a loss of trust in financial markets that began when investors and financial institutions refused to take each others’ word that the prices of their assets were accurate. “Once the trust is lost, it’s very hard to get it back without regulation,” he said. “Why would you trust a fellow banker when you know you are cheating?”
But Black isn’t confident that Congress and the administration will come up with an effective plan to unclog the financial system’s arteries. He is no friend of the Bush administration’s $700-billion bailout proposal. He worries that the government will buy toxic assets at prices far above their market value. “The government gets to be the chump in the market and taxpayers get to bear the losses,” he said.
He also isn’t confident that the crisis will spur widespread regulatory reform and tougher accounting rules. McCain, Black believes, certainly doesn’t understand the need for regulatory reform and rigorous accounting.
“When you deregulate, you just are not losing the ability to find individual losses and frauds,” Black said. “You lose the scouting function that tells you the lay of the land.”
Without knowledge of what may lurk over the horizon, disaster can strike. “That’s when you walk into ambushes,” Black said.