Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Wall Street, Bain and the need for regulation

Visual source: Newseum

Paul Krugman at The New York Times:

[H]ere's the thing: If Wall Streeters are spoiled brats, they are spoiled brats with immense power and wealth at their disposal. And what they're trying to do with that power and wealth right now is buy themselves not just policies that serve their interests, but immunity from criticism.[...]

Think about where we are right now, in the fifth year of a slump brought on by irresponsible bankers. The bankers themselves have been bailed out, but the rest of the nation continues to suffer terribly, with long-term unemployment still at levels not seen since the Great Depression, with a whole cohort of young Americans graduating into an abysmal job market.

And in the midst of this national nightmare, all too many members of the economic elite seem mainly concerned with the way the president apparently hurt their feelings. That isn't funny. It's shameful.

Eugene Robinson at the Washington Post explains why examining Mitt Romney's Bain record is the right thing to do:

President Obama is right to raise this issue now. I wish he had done so during the debate on financial regulatory reform ' only now is he posing the kind of fundamental questions that needed to be asked ' but better late than never. In his defense, a tough reelection campaign does tend to focus the mind.

There's nothing inherently wrong with private equity, which plays an important role in the economy. And, of course, there's nothing wrong with wealth; those who risk their capital in private-equity ventures should be rewarded when those deals pay off. No one begrudges Romney his offshore investment accounts, his mansions or his wife's Cadillacs.

But as Romney himself acknowledges, free markets need rules and regulations in order to function. Some kinds of dealings are prohibited or even criminalized ' insider trading, for example, because of the way it benefits a select few at the expense of other investors.

Gail MarksJarvis at the Chicago Sun-Times examines the massive amount of debt burden carried by low and middle income families:

The 2008 financial crisis was a brutal wake-up call for many, as banks abruptly shut down cards and cut debt limits at the same time companies were tossing millions out of work. About 39 percent of households surveyed by Demos experienced some cuts in their credit, and about half of those reduced spending as a result. But 28 percent have taken on more debt in the last year.

Now, the average debt on cards held by low- and middle-income people is $7,145, compared with $9,887 in 2008, according to the survey. Fifty-one percent said cost-of-living expenses contributed most to their current card debt. [...]

The greatest debt burdens are being carried by older Americans, with people 65 and over averaging $9,283 in credit card debt, according to the survey. Demos attributes problems to the financial crisis, which slashed household savings in 2008 and 2009 and left individuals insecure at retirement. [...]  Medical bills have also contributed to problems for seniors and others, Demos said. Nearly half of households carried debt from medical bills on their credit cards, with the average expense at $1,678.

The New York Times Editorial Board looks at the failure of austerity:

By this point, there should be no debate: Austerity has been a failure, shrinking economies and making it ever harder for indebted countries to repay their debts.

The political costs are also rising. In parliamentary elections earlier this month, Greece's voters rejected candidates from the two major political parties that had agreed to a German-dictated 'rescue' package, and the country has been unable to form a government since. In that vote, the far-right party, Golden Dawn, whose xenophobic members perform Nazi salutes, did frighteningly well ' a warning that no responsible political leader in Europe can afford to ignore.

Meanwhile, the unthinkable becomes increasingly imaginable: Greece fails to meet the conditions of its bailout and drops out, or is forced out of the euro zone. The financial chaos could quickly spread, spooking investors and destabilizing the banks and economies of other struggling European nations, with knock-on effects for the global financial system and the world economy.

Tom Engelhardt at the New Yorker writes about the history of Memorial Day and the war in Afghanistan:

And yet, when it comes to the major war the United States is still fighting, now in its 11th year, the word remembrance is surely inappropriate, as is the 'Memorial' in Memorial Day.  It's not just that the dead of the Afghan War have largely been tossed down the memory hole of history (even if they do get official attention on Memorial Day itself).  Even the fact that Americans are still dying in Afghanistan seems largely to have been forgotten, along with the war itself.

As the endlessly plummeting opinion polls indicate, the Afghan War is one Americans would clearly prefer to forget ' yesterday, not tomorrow.  It was, in fact, regularly classified as 'the forgotten war' almost from the moment that the Bush administration turned its attention to the invasion of Iraq in 2002 and so declared its urge to create a Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East.  Despite the massive 'surge' of troops, special operations forces, CIA agents, and civilian personnel sent to Afghanistan by President Obama in 2009-2010, and the ending of the military part of the Iraq debacle in 2011, the Afghan War has never made it out of the grave of forgetfulness to which it was so early consigned.

Count on one thing: there will be no Afghan version of Maya Lin, no Afghan Wall on the National Mall.  Unlike the Vietnam conflict, tens of thousands of books won't be pouring out for decades to come arguing passionately about the conflict.  There may not even be a 'who lost Afghanistan' debate in its aftermath.

Alex Koppelman at the New Yorker looks at the birther controversy dynamic and the fact that it benefits Democrats:

Anger is a great motivator. Political campaigns rake in the money when their supporters are enraged at their opponents; media outlets that lean to one side or the other often do best when their audience is looking for a fight. (If you've ever been puzzled as to why Glenn Beck was such a success on Fox News for a little while, this is your answer.) And birtherism inspires a whole lot of anger on the left. That's why, when there are more birther outbursts as Election Day draws closer, you're likely to see the Romney campaign running for the hills'and people from the Obama campaign gladly talking about them. Now that they're reasonably sure independents don't doubt the President's eligibility, they can use the issue to excite a comparatively apathetic base, and do some fundraising. It's why you're far more likely to see the issue come up on MSNBC than you are to see it on Fox News. And it's why, if you were paying attention, you saw Talking Points Memo and its blogs'which were driving forces behind the Bennett controversy'beating this particular story to death.
By my count, over the six days between May 18th, when TPM started covering Bennett, and yesterday, its blogs devoted at least thirteen posts either fully or partly to the story. That's more than three posts per business day, and that number doesn't include one post about the state of the birther controversy generally and another that was just the document Bennett received from Hawaii.

Here's follow-up from the Chicago Sun-Times on the Joe Ricketts/Rahm showdown:

It looks like the controversy over Joe Ricketts' conservative politics will not stand in the way of a $300 million deal to renovate Wrigley Field, but it could pave the way for Mayor Rahm Emanuel to play hardball with the Cubs.

With Cubs Chairman Tom Ricketts running around doing damage control and admittedly in a weakened political position, it's advantage Emanuel, which is precisely where Chicago's controlling mayor likes to be. [...]

But, Emanuel said 'the point has been made' and he sees no need to prolong the dispute, nor will he allow the controversy to sabotage Wrigley negotiations that were rounding third and heading home before Joe Ricketts started the political fire.