Banking on The Double-Standard

Yesterday, federal prosecutors in New York announced that the operators of a global online currency exchange, similar to PayPal, ran a $6 billion money-laundering operation, which acted as a central hub for criminals trafficking in everything from child pornography to identity theft.

Federal officials said that Liberty Reserve was able to successfully operate outside of the traditional confines of U.S. and international banking regulations, in the largely gray area of cyberfinance.

Liberty Reserve traded in virtual currency, and provided anonymous and easy access for criminals to conduct their business, according to officials. 

Over a period of seven years, Liberty Reserve conducted more than 55 million transactions for millions of “customers” around the world, including 200,000 here in the U.S.

Federal prosecutors are calling the case the largest online-money laundering case in history, and Richard Weber, head of the IRS’ criminal investigation division said that the case heralds in the arrival of, “the cyber age of money laundering.”

On Friday, officials in Spain arrested Liberty Reserve founder Arthur Budovsky.

Budovsky is among 7 people arrested and charged in the case. Two people charged in the case remain at large in Costa Rica, where Liberty Reserve was incorporated.

All of those charged face counts of conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to operate an unlicensed money-transmitting business and operating an unlicensed money-transmitting business.

The money laundering count carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, while the other two charges carry 5 year maximum sentences.

So, it looks like those responsible for the biggest online cyber money laundering case in history will be held criminally accountable for their actions.

If only the same thing could be said for money launderers who operate off-line, in big banks, like HSBC.

Back in December of last year, Department of Justice and U.S Treasury officials announced that big bank HSBC had allowed some of the most notorious international drug cartels to launder billions of dollars across international borders, while also illegally conducting transactions on behalf of customers in Iran, Libya, Cuba, Sudan and Burma.

At the initial news conference announcing the bust, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Lanny Breuer said that, “HSBC is being held accountable for stunning failures of oversight. The record of dysfunction that prevailed at HSBC for many years was astonishing.”

But what does “being held accountable” really mean?

Does it mean sending banksters who helped to perpetuate a bloody drug war or HSBC executives who lost total control over their bank to jail?

No.

“Being held accountable” means signing a “deferred prosecution agreement,” or DPA, with the Department of Justice, under which no criminal charges will be brought against the bank provided that it meets certain conditions.  Those conditions include paying a $1.9 billion dollar fine.

Despite laundering billions of dollars illegally, dealing with some of the world’s most notorious drug cartels, and moving money for customers in nations that the U.S. has no diplomatic ties with, HSBC is getting off with a slap on the wrist from the Department of Justice.

Even Republicans find the notion of HSBC getting off with what amounts to a slap on the wrist, despite committing blatantly criminal actions, appalling.

Back when the settlement was first announced, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley hammered the DOJ, saying that it was “inexcusable” that they had not brought criminal prosecutions against the bank.

In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, Grassley said that, “What I have seen from the department is an inexplicable unwillingness to prosecute and convict those responsible for aiding and abetting drug lords and terrorists. I cannot help but agree with an editorial in the New York Times that 'the government has bought into the notion that too big to fail is too big to jail’.”

Fortunately, the HSBC slap-on-the-wrist agreement with the DOJ appears to have stalled.

Judge John Gleeson, who’s overseeing the case, is now believed to be considering rejecting the so-called settlement and deferred prosecution agreement, which could open up HSBC to being criminally prosecuted and losing its charter to do business in the U.S.

Regardless of whether or not Judge Gleeson rejects the deal, how is that a big bank that launders billions and billions of dollars for criminals can potentially get off without any major punishment, but a shadowy online currency exchange company that launders billions for criminals can have its CEO arrested and prosecuted, along with several other executives?

It’s because Liberty Reserve isn’t a real bank, and its employees aren’t real “banksters,” so they can’t get off with pleading guilty, signing an agreement and paying a fine.

Since the executives at Liberty Reserve weren’t the Jamie Dimon’s and Lloyd Blankfein’s of the world, they’ll face the full force of the American justice system.

Right now, there are two justice systems in America: One for the wealthy elite, corporations and big banks, and one for everyone else. 

Thanks to this double-standard, corporations like Wal-Mart that dump toxic waste in our environment get off with a fine, but if an American citizen, and actual person, did the same exact thing, they’d face years in jail. 

It’s time to kill this double-standard!

Corporations and big banks need to be held accountable for their actions, just like everyone else.

Banksters that launder money for drug cartels and hostile foreign nations need to be facing jail time, and not just a slap on the wrist.

Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan deregulated the S and L’s, investigated and prosecuted thousands, and sent several hundred banksters to jail.

If Reagan did it, President Obama and his administration can do it too!

Where's the Freedom?

“First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.  Then they came for the socialists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.  Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.  Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.  Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.”

That poem is by Martin Niemoller, a German pastor and theologian born in 1892, who was sent to the Dachau concentration camp by Hitler’s regime in 1937. He was eventually released from the Dachau in 1945 by the Allies.

It reminds us of the dangers of not recognizing creeping incrementalism, when small steps are being taken to bridge our rights, laying the foundation for larger steps to be taken that take away all of our rights.

This is exactly what’s happening right now with the media in America.

Slowly but surely, the government is infringing upon the rights of the media, and eating away at the freedom of the press.

Nowhere is there more evident than with the ongoing AP leaks scandal, and with the new revelation that Fox News reporter James Rosen was investigated by the Department of Justice for his coverage of the State Department and North Korea. 

In both of these cases, the federal government subpoenaed hundreds of emails and phone call records, under the guise of national security.

But what the federal government has seemed to have forgotten is that the freedom of the press is absolute, and that there are no boundaries to how far the protection of that right goes. 

When our founders formed our nation, they only named one industry in the Constitution.

They didn’t argue that the shipbuilding industry needed to be protected at all costs, or the agriculture industry, or even the arms industry.

They didn’t even think the legislative branch was that important.

But, in the First Amendment to the Constitution, our founders wrote that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Our founders wanted to protect the press. They realized that freedom of the press was essential. They recognized that a nation could not be strong without a press able to operate outside of the realm of government oversight and control.

In fact, Thomas Jefferson once famously said that, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

But times have changed since our Constitution was written, and today, what is supposed to be a free press is under attack from the government. 

On Fox News’ “Special Report” last night, Hume said that, “The government has a right indeed, arguably, a duty to protect the nation’s secrets, some of which are more secret than they ought to be.  But that aside, there are legitimate national security secrets that is the government’s job to protect. And when they leak out, the government has a right and a duty to investigate. But what the government has traditionally done in the past is to investigate the leaker and not, if you will, the leakee. That provides the balance between the government’s job to find out what happened and the press’ right to pursue information. That’s the way it’s been done before. That’s the way it seemed to have been going up until now.”

Traditionally, if there have been leaks in the press, the government has investigated, but it has investigated the source of the leak. It has not gone directly after the journalist or reporter that reported on the leak. 

But now, it seems that our government is going after both the source of the leak, and the members of the media reporting on it, and not only is that unprecedented, it’s unconstitutional. 

This should concern us all.

We all have to be careful that we don’t end up channeling Pastor Niemoller and saying something like, “First they came for the AP and Fox News’ James Rosen, but I wasn’t a part of the AP, and I didn’t like Fox News, so I didn’t speak up.”

It’s time to speak up.

Freedom of the press needed to be protected in 1787, and it needs to be protected today.

The Corporate Dictatorship of PBS and NPR

On November 7, 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the Public Broadcasting Act.

The act set up public broadcasting in the United States, by establishing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which led to the creation of the Public Broadcasting Service, or PBS, and National Public Radio.

After signing the act into law, Johnson said that, “It announces to the world that our Nation wants more than just material wealth; our Nation wants more than a "chicken in every pot." We in America have an appetite for excellence, too. While we work every day to produce new goods and to create new wealth, we want most of all to enrich man's spirit. That is the purpose of this act.”

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 states that, “It is in the public interest to encourage the growth and development of public radio and television broadcasting, including the use of such media for instructional, educational, and cultural purposes… it is necessary and appropriate for the Federal Government to complement, assist, and support a national policy that will most effectively make public telecommunications services available to all citizens of the United States.”

When public broadcasting in America was first established, the intent was that Congress would provide funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which would in turn divide that funding up among the various public television and radio stations across the country.

This worked great for years.

The Public Broadcasting System and National Public Radio were able to bring millions of Americans educational programming, independent news and political analysis and a host of other culturally stimulating programs.

But over time, federal funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has been slashed.

Today, Conservative across America are slashing the budgets of their local public television stations, arguing that the wide array of media offerings available today makes public television as we know it obsolete.

Public broadcasting institutions are now being forced to rely more and more on corporate cash as a result of the huge drop in government funding.

This means that PBS and NPR are now forced to filter what they play on their airwaves, so that they don’t piss off their corporate backers. 

This is where the documentary “Citizen Koch” comes in.

“Citizen Koch” is a documentary about money and politics, focusing heavily on the uprising that took place in Wisconsin in 2011 and 2012.  

It talks about how the Citizens United decision paved the way for secretive political spending by major players like the Koch Brothers.

The documentary was originally supposed to air on PBS stations nationwide, but its funding was abruptly cut off after David Koch became offended by another PBS documentary that had been critical of billionaire industrialists trying to take over the world in the wake of growing income inequality.

But why would PBS care if David Koch didn’t like one of their documentaries?

Because according to several reports, David Koch has donated upwards of $23 million to public television.  And when you donate $23 million dollars to public television, you get more than just a totebag or a coffee mug – you get a great deal of influence over the on-air programming.

This is the kind of influence and control that we see in mainstream media today too. 

Thanks to the giant transnational corporations that own them, mainstream media outlets are forced to tailor their programming to appease their corporate backers.

While we have come to accept and live with this kind of corporate control over mainstream media in America, PBS and NPR have always been a breath of fresh air, free from corporate dictatorship…until now.

It’s time to take back our public airwaves, and cut-off the corporate control over them, so that billionaires like David Koch don’t get to choose what you watch on TV.

And the only way to do that is by stopping the federal funding cuts to public radio and television.

Call your members of Congress, and tell them to protect funding to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, so that it can continue its work to “enrich man’s spirit.”

Go Big or Go Home

Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell decided to block the nomination of Tom Perez, President Obama’s nominee for Secretary of Labor.

And, just days after that decision, Senate Republicans also decided to delay a confirmation vote on President Obama’s nominee to head the EPA, Gina McCarthy.

Of course, this obstruction of presidential nominees is nothing new. 

Senate Republicans, since the day Obama took office, have had one strategy: Sabotage the Obama Presidency by blocking the people selected to work in his administration, and by filibustering any sort of legislation that he might be in favor of.

With Obama’s cabinet nominations, Senate Republicans killed the nomination of Susan Rice to be Secretary of State, delayed the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, delayed the nomination of John Brennan to be CIA Director, and delayed the nomination of Jacob Lew for Treasury Secretary. 

And, right now, thanks to Republican nomination blocking efforts, there are currently 82 vacancies for federal judgeships around the United States, including several vacancies on the highly influential U.S Court of Appeals D.C Circuit.

Then there are the hundreds of bills that Republicans have blocked since Obama took office in 2008.

Just last year, Republicans blocked bills to increase the federal minimum wage, put transparency back into politics, set a minimum tax on millionaires and billionaires, prohibit discrimination in the workplace, protect the equal rights of the disabled, and to ensure women receive equal pay for equal work.

Yet, despite all of the blocked appointments, and all of the filibustered legislation, President Obama is still intent on working with Republicans.

The President still believes he can reach a so-called grand budget bargain with Republicans, despite their absolute refusal to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans. 

He continually invites Republicans to sit down with him, and help him make the decisions that are needed to get our economy turned around, but Republicans just reply by bashing his every move.

Earlier this year, despite knowing that it would cause uproar within his own party, President Obama proposed a reduction in the cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients, in hopes that this would appease Republicans enough so that they would support small tax increases on the rich.

Instead, Republicans, who have wanted cuts to social safety net programs for years, skewered President Obama, calling the cuts to Social Security “draconian” and “a shocking attack on seniors.”

Now, if this was 2004, and President Bush had proposed those same cuts, do you think he would have been met with hostility from Republicans, or a large chorus of cheers?

The bottom-line here is that Republican lawmakers in Washington have only one mission, and it’s not to serve the American people and do what’s right for our country.

It’s to obstruct and sabotage the Obama presidency at every chance possible, regardless of how much damage this obstruction does to the American people. 

And make no mistake about it, President Obama realizes this. He realizes that Republicans only care about making him look bad.

After all, if this wasn’t the Republicans’ only goal, then they wouldn’t be all over manufactured conspiracies like Benghazi and floating around impeachment talk, and would instead be dealing with the pressing issues that our nation faces, like a broken economy, climate change, and gun violence.

But, unlike presidents of the past, President Obama refuses to tell the American people what Republicans really stand for. 

Back in 1936, Franklin Roosevelt gave a speech at the Democratic State Convention in New York, where he told the American people just what Republicans at the time stood for.

Roosevelt warned the nation against the, “smooth evasion which says, ‘Of course we believe all these things; we believe in social security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them- we will do more of them we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.’”

If there is any hope of Congress being productive in the next 3 years, and of tackling the most pressing issues that our nation faces head on, President Obama must tell Americans about the modern-day “smooth evasion” that’s brought Washington to a standstill. 

It’s time for President Obama to stop trying to make nice with Republicans, accept the facts, and tell the American people the truth.

Maybe then, there will be enough pressure on Republicans to force them to come back to the table, and start doing what’s right for our nation.