Today’s NY Times has discovered the Crown Prince of Lessig’s Lesterland. That would be Eugene Ludwig, founder and head of Promontory Financial Group. First read through the article about the conflicts between K Street and better government regulation http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/for-former-regulators-a-home-on-wall-street/?hp and then replay Lessig’s description of the interplay between serving in government and applying that experience to serving corporate America, especially the financial sector. Why the banks? As was said long ago, “Because that’s where the money is.”W. Sutton c.195?.
Here is just one quote from the Times’ article which says more than the speaker intended. “I consider my client to be the board members, who are keenly aware of their responsibilities and want an unvarnished and independent view,” said Peter Bass, a managing director at Promontory. Mr. Bass, once a State Department official, added that he was “in the business of telling inconvenient truths.” I guess Mr. Bass has not been keeping up with all the concern about the ineffectiveness of Boards of Directors at so many corporations.
And the result of Mr. Ludwig’s hard work since forming the company after a stint in the Clinton administration? “From the beginning, Mr. Ludwig cemented the firm’s ties to Washington and Wall Street. Mr. Ludwig has occasionally invited Fed governors and other top officials to parties at this 13,000-square-foot Washington home, an $11.5 million estate replete with a tennis court and a modern art collection. Mr. Ludwig, a former executive at Bankers Trust, is also a regular at the Four Seasons restaurant in New York, where he is known by name and salad order. Promontory said that Mr. Ludwig entertains regulators on occasion but that “there is no discussion of current matters.”
No, no discussion of current matters. Just a get together for friends in high places to experience the fruits of approved regulatory over sight. The question is what is one’s definition of the approved nature of such over sight. And this intersection of government, industry and consultancy gets very little airing. As Lessig is suggesting it may be the heart of the problem. There is too much money floating around that intersection.
On Diane Rehm this a.m., Dean Baker, Robert Greenstein, Nancy Cook and Kevin Hassett were discussing the President’s chained CPI proposal. One of the guests, I believe Greenstein, said that while the chained CPI would result in cutting benefits over time, there is also in the budget a means that would INCREASE benefits for those 70+ by 5%, effectively making it a wash. Does anyone have any information on this, because it sure isn’t making it to the MSM.
Sandi, consistent with what you heard, the budget document proposes the chained CPI and adds “the Budget includes protections for the very elderly and others who rely on Social Security for long periods of time, and only applies the change to non-means tested benefit programs.” I cannot find more details, which is where the devil lies. (Notice that the statement might or might not be a reference to Social Security benefit calculations.)
Somehow the Democrats’ sophisticated data analytics program has decided that I live and vote in Hawaii.
Today, I wish i did live in Hawaii.
Today’s NY Times has discovered the Crown Prince of Lessig’s Lesterland. That would be Eugene Ludwig, founder and head of Promontory Financial Group. First read through the article about the conflicts between K Street and better government regulation http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/for-former-regulators-a-home-on-wall-street/?hp
and then replay Lessig’s description of the interplay between serving in government and applying that experience to serving corporate America, especially the financial sector. Why the banks? As was said long ago, “Because that’s where the money is.”W. Sutton c.195?.
Here is just one quote from the Times’ article which says more than the speaker intended.
“I consider my client to be the board members, who are keenly aware of their responsibilities and want an unvarnished and independent view,” said Peter Bass, a managing director at Promontory. Mr. Bass, once a State Department official, added that he was “in the business of telling inconvenient truths.”
I guess Mr. Bass has not been keeping up with all the concern about the ineffectiveness of Boards of Directors at so many corporations.
And the result of Mr. Ludwig’s hard work since forming the company after a stint in the Clinton administration?
“From the beginning, Mr. Ludwig cemented the firm’s ties to Washington and Wall Street.
Mr. Ludwig has occasionally invited Fed governors and other top officials to parties at this 13,000-square-foot Washington home, an $11.5 million estate replete with a tennis court and a modern art collection. Mr. Ludwig, a former executive at Bankers Trust, is also a regular at the Four Seasons restaurant in New York, where he is known by name and salad order.
Promontory said that Mr. Ludwig entertains regulators on occasion but that “there is no discussion of current matters.”
No, no discussion of current matters. Just a get together for friends in high places to experience the fruits of approved regulatory over sight. The question is what is one’s definition of the approved nature of such over sight. And this intersection of government, industry and consultancy gets very little airing. As Lessig is suggesting it may be the heart of the problem. There is too much money floating around that intersection.
Rep. Martha Roby is introducing the Working Families Flexibility Act of 2013, which is very pro-labor–if we completely we redefine “pro-labor.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-a-budget/292329-working-families-flexibility-act-undermines-40-hour-workweek
On Diane Rehm this a.m., Dean Baker, Robert Greenstein, Nancy Cook and Kevin Hassett were discussing the President’s chained CPI proposal. One of the guests, I believe Greenstein, said that while the chained CPI would result in cutting benefits over time, there is also in the budget a means that would INCREASE benefits for those 70+ by 5%, effectively making it a wash. Does anyone have any information on this, because it sure isn’t making it to the MSM.
Sandi, consistent with what you heard, the budget document proposes the chained CPI and adds “the Budget includes protections for the very elderly and others who rely on Social Security for long periods of time, and only applies the change to non-means tested benefit programs.” I cannot find more details, which is where the devil lies. (Notice that the statement might or might not be a reference to Social Security benefit calculations.)