New Plan Vying for the Limelight in Finance Reform

Washington, D.C. (5/27/2009) -- John L. Thornton, Chairman of the Brookings Institution and co-chairman of the Committee on Capital Markets Regulation (CCMR), stated that the CCMR’s recommendations for the Obama administration, are not part of a fix-all plan.

            “We are under no illusion that this is the only answer,” said Thornton. “We are trying to make a substantial contribution to the discussion.”

            In a press conference Tuesday at the National Press Club in Washington D.C., the CCMR,  a non-partisan, independent research center released a new comprehensive report titled, “The Global Crisis: A Plan for Regulatory Reform.”

            The report, physically resembling a one inch bound book, contains 57 recommendations, summed up by the committee members in four critical objectives. These objectives include: Reducing systematic risk through regulation; increasing investor protection and market stabilization through further disclosure; defining accountability lines and transparency for consumers by creating a unified regulatory system; viewing these regulations on a global level and implementing an effective system of international financial oversight.

            “Our work is based entirely on empirical data,” said Thornton, recommending a need for Federal intervention on market regulation, especially when it pertains to anything directly affecting systemic risk.

            This recommendation hits a particularly tender spot in American politics, at a time when U.S. policy making is leaning towards increased federal power with the democratic majority in the Senate. Under the Obama administration, the republican representation in on Capitol Hill is suspicious of further governmental power, especially in financial regulation.

            But the CCMR committee members argued that increasing federal power would only level the playing field and ensure that all financial institutions were operating under the same regulations. And there was no one in the room willing to play the devil’s advocate.

            “That’s the problem with present economy; there is too much ill-defined responsibility,” said Hal S. Scott, Nomura Professor and Director of International Financial Systems at Harvard Law School. Scott offered federal regulation as the answer to overarching accountability to avoid “continued problems of the past.”

            Committee members noted that a past push for a financial council is no longer the most advantageous route of action.  Scott said that when a council in involved there are too many people working together with too many differing opinions.

 (The committee witnessed this in the development of their own plan, as they attempted to collaborate amongst their 25 members to reach a consensus to produce the final document of recommendations discussed at the press conference.)

Scott noted that a council can be an affective form of regulation when it is monitoring function of financial institutions. In this situation, there is a great need for collaboration between entities. However, when it comes to dealing with these institutions on an operational level, Scott believes that someone has to take responsibility. And for Scott, and much of the CCMR committee, that someone is the Feds.

One main item on the agenda for the CCMR is their recommendation for the listing and trading of certain standardized high-volume Credit Default Swaps (CDS’s) during exchanges. This would provide the government with greater transparency and liquidity of CDS markets, as well as a greater assurance to the American people of a presiding system of “checks and balances.”

The CCMR committee believes that within the CDS regulation reform, there needs to be a privacy clause: keeping the activity of hedge funds private, while at the same time, opening its dealings up for criticism and reprimand, should the federal government notice suspicious behavior that could be potentially compromising to the U.S. economy.

“Our plan dove-tails very well with Obama’s call for greater transparency,” said Glenn Hubbard, the Dean of Columbia Business School and co-chairman of the committee. Hubbard said that the committee has presented the Obama administration with the plan and it is keeping them updated on its development.

Hubbard added that he is optimistic that policy makers will embrace the bold reform, saying that when it comes to regulation, the Obama administration is using the word “encourage,” where the committee is using the word “require.” The words are a few degrees different in severity, but on the same page.

As far as the average American citizen goes, the CCMR’s recommendations may not appear to have any great immediate influence on day to day life. That being said, the committee hopes that the plan will increase economic stability, which would decrease the likelihood of future regulatory failure. It would highlight greater counter party positions, making them more apparent for the average citizen.

“There would suddenly be much morel light out there,” said Roel Campos, the partner in charge of Cooley Godward Kronish’s Washington, D.C. office and the fourth member of the panel representing the CCMR. He referred to the effects of the plan as creating a “new dawn” in the American economy.  Making the argument that consumer and investor psychology is a more important factor in economic stability than it appears in the process of policy making.

When people have more confidence in the economy in both the present and the future, they are more willing to invest. This may seem like a no-brainer, but it is vital to economic stability and will inevitably be an important factor in any plan for regulation reformation.

The CCMR continued to push its endorsement of government intervention in economic regulation, concluding with the idea that it is necessary for the federal government to be involved with increased regional regulation dialogue between the United States and other countries.

Scott said, “Since these are international agencies, regulations should exist at the highest level…the federal government should have the last say.”

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Meghan's Not the Only One...She Just Happens to Be in the Limelight

 

New York Times' Op-Ed. columnist, Judith Warner, writes in this morning's NYT:

 

"You can’t afford to tweet about licking Stephen Colbert’s face, or to call the Republicans “an awesome party to be part of,” as though the party of Lincoln were some kind of super-fun co-ed fraternity.

You can’t do these things because they’re just stupid and, when you’re already a sitting duck, particularly one who at some point in her career could very well rise to make a valuable contribution, you just can’t afford to look stupid.

You can’t because you end up sounding like a much younger, much dumber (which you’re not), much less savvy (which you are) version of Sarah Palin — whose candidacy was the one topic that you declared, smile dimming, off-limits to Colbert."

I've met Meghan McCain. Last fall I made a feeble attempt to support the political party that I thought I was voting for in the 2008 Presidential elections. One of the only other girls in my sorority with republican tendencies joined me volunteering down at the Boston Headquarters for the Republican Party.

(I did end up voting McCain, after much inner debate-- but at the time, I was both unenthusiastic about parts of his campaign, as I was timid to 'come out of the closet' as a campus republican at a very liberal Boston University).

Casey and I got dressed up in our cute little skirts, cardigans, and pearls (which we believed made us look very appropriately conservative) and headed down to Boylston Street. One of the perks of volunteering on this particular day was the chance to meet presidential candidate John McCain's daughter, Meghan, as she toured through the Boston area. 

So, therefore, we obviously had an agenda. I am sorry to say that my priorities may not have been in the  right place, however, my reaction to Meghan McCain was surprisingly similar to Judith Warner's. Meghan seemed to me to be just like any other young adult, college student exploring life. In essence: she didn't really have herself pulled together...yet. 

I emphasize the yet, here, because what  twenty-five year old really does have all of their ducks lined up in every area of their lives? (I'm not twenty-five yet so maybe I should withhold my judgement...) Ok, some kids seem to have the full package, but I would argue that underneath their outward perfection, they are still struggling with the same issues and learning the same lessons that everyone else is. They are simply putting a heck of a lot of energy into masking their immaturity. So, yes, Meghan McCain is young and perhaps stupid at times, but only because she is human. And on top of that, she is in a unique position that puts her in the public eye; something that most young adults in their twenties don't deal with.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Photo courtesy of www.topnews.in 

Still Their Cross to Bear: American War Veterans Fight to Keep Their Memorials

Washington D.C. (5/21/2009)--Seventy years ago, a group of World War I veterans erected a seven-foot tall veterans’ memorial in the Mojave Desert Preserve. The white cross, seen by The Veterans of Foreign Wars as a universal symbol of gratitude for military service, is now under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

            The National Press Club in Washington D.C. held a Media Advisory meeting Thursday to shed light on the issue and its upcoming Supreme Court Case, Salazar, et al. v. Buono.

            According to Major Joe Davis, the director of public affairs for the Washington Office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Frank Buono, a disgruntled former employee of the National Park Services (NPS), took offense to the cross memorial because of its presence as a religious symbol on government property. Buono joined forces with the ACLU in 2001 and filed a suit for the removal of the cross, claiming that it violated the establishment clause.

            An audience of about 25 people listened to the panelists argue that the memorial should be restored to its location where they believe it belongs. There was no representation by the opposition from the ACLU or the plaintiff.

            “This is something unusual,” said Kelly Shackelford, the founder of the Liberty Legal Institute in Texas. Shackelford, representing the veterans in the case, alluded to the ACLU’s attack on a war memorial as a bit out of character. The ACLU would not normally attack a historical monument. It’s “something near and dear to the hearts of veterans and their families and I believe a majority of the American people.” Historically Shackelford has fought cases to protect first amendment rights, religious freedom, and family values. 

            The Mojave Desert Cross was erected in 1934 and is one of five lawsuits that the Liberty Legal Institute cites as the result of recent attacks on veteran memorials. In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with both sides of the argument, voting twice to allow the memorial to remain and twice to remove the religious object from public property. This upcoming vote could be a historical tiebreaker.

            The solemn faces of the veterans sitting in the audience revealed little physical reaction to Shackelford's remarks, however, the continuous swallows of many of the men and women in the room revealed that they were repressing quite a bit of inner emotion.

            Colonel Jim Sims, the national senior vice commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart emphasized that the issue here is not merely the removal of one memorial from federal property. It is about a much larger issue regarding the amount of honor and respect paid to those who have served our country. 

            For Henry and Wanda Sandoz, however, the fate of the Mojave Desert Cross has a slightly different significance. Mr. Sandoz, a small man in a wide-brimmed cowboy hat and a deep southern drawl, has been the unofficial caretaker of the memorial since 1984 when he gave his word to his dying friend Riley Bembry that he would maintain the memorial that Bembry built. The present threat to the cross does not just symbolize a lack of respect for fallen heroes, but it is also reminiscent of history.

            Over the past 25 years, Sandoz said that he has watched the memorial be torn down four times-- although he considers these incidents acts of sheer vandalism and, therefore, not of the same nature as the present circumstances.

            Now the U.S. government wants to take it down for good. When asked by the press if he got discouraged and why he didn’t just allow the memorial to be deconstructed, Sandoz was adamant in his reply.

             “I told them ‘hell no!’ because I put it (the statue) up to stay. I am a Christian person so for me to say that, I meant it,” said Sandoz.

            Colonel Sims voiced the consensus of the panel that the upcoming Supreme Court date in October will set a precedent for veteran war memorials. It could also have a large impact on the multitude of memorial sites within the region surrounding the nation’s capitol.

            Colonel Sims pointed out that there are religious symbols inscribed on almost every one of the gravestones in the nearby Arlington Cemetery, to name just one of the military tributes within the Washington D.C. area.

            Shackelford asked that if this particular Mojave Cross located out in the middle of nowhere is unconstitutional, then what is the federal government going to do about every other religious symbol on government memorials all over the United States? Will they be torn down as well?

            Mark Seavey from The American Legion agreed that the attack does not make sense.  He then accused the ACLU of attempting to ultimately “secularize all parts of American Life.” Seavey, who returned from serving in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2005, said that the Ninth Circuit of the Appeals Court has been a “keen and willing ally of the ACLU.”

            In 2005, The Ninth Circuit of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision to enforce the injunction against the memorial, covering the memorial in plywood until the time of intended removal. Subsequently, Liberty Legal appealed to the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear the case this fall.

            In an act of precaution, Major Davis deliberately pointed out that American veterans and Liberty Legal are not calling the ACLU or the U.S. Congress “the enemy,” per se. They are merely fighting against an ideology and not an entity.

            “They (the ACLU) are just dead wrong on this particular issue,” said Davis.

            Shackelford added that he believes that the ACLU is so “blinded by their fervency that they don’t care about the collateral damage to veterans.”

            In the event that the Liberty Legal Institute Loses the Supreme Court Case, Shackelford felt that the results would be devastating.

            “The decision will wreak incredible havoc and hostilities towards veterans,” said Shackelford.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Photos Courtesy of www.christianpost.com and www.ericreedphoto.blogspot.com

Acceptance is Everything

Washington D.C. (5/22/2009)--It didn’t matter if you were a democrat or a republican; Elizabeth Edwards’s message to the American public seemed to be universal. When Edwards spoke Thursday night at the Willard Hotel in downtown Washington D.C., she warned women not to grow up expecting a fairy tale life. Instead, she said that life is all about making adjustments and being willing to “accept the new normal.”

            Sharing her struggles and her life coping skills by reading excerpts from her new book, Resilience, Edwards allowed herself to appear human to the three hundred people in attendance at the event sponsored by the National Press Club.

            “Sometimes when we face hurdles in our lives, we just want to turn around and go back to the life we were living before,” said Edwards, speaking from her own experience. “Sometimes our lives are not the straight lines we expected.”

            Edwards openly shared examples of situations in her life that have forced her to find a way to survive on her own. She did warned people, however, that they could not simply use her experience as a recipe for dealing with their own problems. Everyone has to figure it out for themselves.

            “You can’t just find out someone else’s recipe for change,” Edwards said. “You have to find your own answers.”

            When her athletic father suffered a stroke and was diagnosed as “brain dead” in 1990, Edwards was struck for the first time with feelings of intense grief. Edwards read from her book sections describing her panic when she received news from the doctors that her father would never walk again.

            Edwards said that she realized for the first time that she didn’t have to take one doctor’s viewpoint as reality. Instead, she learned to use skills that her father had taught her to realize that no situation is ever perfect, however, if you readjust your expectations, you can still live a “majestic life.”

            Edwards’s father lived eighteen years after his initial diagnosis predicted his death and eventually improved to the point where he was able to drive and speak—both accomplishments he was supposed to be unable to achieve.

            Edwards said that it was a good thing her beloved father wasn’t perfect and that she was able to see this through his illness, because as a witness to his struggles, she was able to learn that resilience is possible no matter what the circumstances are, no matter the imperfection.

            The death of Edwards’s sixteen year-old son, Wade in 1993, was a major obstacle that Edwards said forced her to re-evaluate her faith, as well as her perspective on life. Losing a child is never easy, as was noted by many of the audience members during the question and answer section of the meeting, but Edwards said that she was eventually able to accept Wade’s death and stop blaming God.

            Taking advice from Bill Moyer’s Genesis program, Edwards said that she found her own answers to her questions. Edwards said, “I realized that you don’t have the God you want, you have the God you have.” She wanted a God who wouldn’t let innocent people die. Edwards said that she had to accept the fact that innocent deaths occur due to human choice and are not always God’s will.

            “I realized that I had a God, instead, who promised me salvation if I lived a good life,” said Edwards. She admitted that this may not synch with everyone’s set of religious beliefs, but they are hers.

            After the death of her son, Edwards continued to face the challenges of life as a politician’s wife and as later as a breast cancer patient.

            “A political spouse has a completely derivative existence,” stated Edwards. Being truthful with her audience, Edwards said that her husband, John Edward’s, political career as a senator and presidential candidate is really the only reason anyone knows who she is.

             For that reason, she said that it was really important for her to find a hobby or an activity that was hers and no one else’s. So Elizabeth Edwards became a furniture collector—something she had always been interested in ever since she was growing up and her mother ran a thrift store. When Edwards could no longer fit the furniture she bought in her own home, she opened her own shop and called it The Red Window.

            Hobbies aside, Edwards, who is also an attorney and practiced law for 17 years, said that she is actually most proud of her role in life as a homemaker. Providing her children with a safe, accepting, and loving environment has proven to be Ms. Edwards’s most important role in life.

            Despite her husband’s infidelity, which Edwards chooses not to dwell on, she said that she still believes she married the right man. Exemplifying her theory of acceptance, Edwards devoted only a small portion of her book to her husband’s affair and refused to play into the media’s desire to resort to “yellow journalism.” Edwards declined interviews with the Associated press for this exact reason: the AP refused to refrain from questioning her about her husband’s mistress. Edwards sees it as unnecessary.

            “Until the day that I think I’m perfect I am not going to expect perfection from others,” Edwards said.

            Instead, Edwards noted that her husband of 30 years remains the center of her life and she, the center of his. His careful attention to her needs after Edwards was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer has meant a great deal to her.

            Together, Edwards said that she and her husband are raising their children to “learn to have wings.” Edwards believes that her role as a parent is to set an example for her children. For this reason, Edwards had remained public about many of her personal struggles and problems. To Edwards, it was important for her children to see that she is not hiding away just because she has incurable cancer and she is not crying in a corner because her marriage is imperfect.

            In fact, Elizabeth Edwards was doing the exact opposite. She opened herself up to the public in a manner that allowed for anyone to put themselves in her shoes. By doing so, she grabbed the attention of America.

By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu

Photo Courtesy of www.babble.com

The Sound of DC.

If I were to evaluate my expectations for  summer 2009 based on one of the five senses, my first day interning in Washington DC would be exactly what I had envisioned...just like it sounds.

Beginning with the clickety-clack of hundreds of high heels hitting the pavement, my day was starting off exactly how I had pictured it for the past half year. The moment I stepped out of my uncle's Monte Carlo Chevrolet , I became one of the masses headed into the capitol for the 9-5 work day. My new grey suit itched a bit as I headed down the escalator and tapped my Smart Card, pushing my way through the Metro system turn styles. Beep...clunk, clunk. Much smoother, I noted, than the Boston "T" system that I am accustomed to.

 The Metro shot out of no where and slid to a smooth stop directly in front of me...almost noiselessly. Suited bodies marched onto the train like military men. I followed, sheepishly pulling off the Banana Republic tag still attached to my pants. Itchiness resolved. 

"It's very quiet this morning," said the tanned, farmer like gentleman sitting beside me, with whom I had not initiated conversation. "I think they are all still asleep." Yup, I thought, so let's let them sleep. I smiled, however, and the man seemed satisfied with my response. He was a nice guy, I just didn't really feel like talking. My attention was focused on soaking it all in: the people, the atmosphere, the vibe of the men and women who run our capitol. Okay, maybe not THE men and women who run our nation- their preferred mode of travel is by limo or private vehicle- however, the backbone of Washington rides the Metro every morning and every evening. No I am one of them. 

The train whizzed quickly along the blue line, through Rosslyn, Metro Center, and finally arriving at Capitol South. I gingerly stepped off the train and, pretending I was a regular, I headed off with a determined air in the same direction as the kid who was walking in front of me. He was my age and dressed in a suit coat and tie...he was probably interning like me, right? Wrong. He got on another train and I turned around and retraced my steps.  

Faux pas numero uno. Oh well, I brushed it off- I'm new to this.

Standing at the top of the Metro stairway, I turned towards Independence Avenue. It was a straight shot to the Senate Building, the Library of Congress' Jefferson, Madison, and Adams buildings, as well as the Capitol Building across the way: my summer lay before me. I went to find a Starbucks. 

Rejuvenated with caffeine- which my close friends know is nothing but a code name for a "Venti Non-fat Vanilla Chai Latté"- I headed to the front steps of the LOC (Library of Congress) to meet my fellow NJC interns and start our tour. The steps of the colossal building, fashioned after Italian Renaissance architecture, were already occupied by a group of protesters. Carrying signs reading "Save our Babies" and "Though Shalt Not Kill" posters, about twenty people wearing red t-shirts posed a somewhat difficult obstacle to maneuver. My chai latté and my heavy brief case made me totter on my high heeled shoes. I should have left these ones in Vermont where they'll just sit in my sister's closet. 

The Library of Congress was breath taking. As the largest library in the nation, they receive over 22,000 items per day and they only keep around 11,000 for display. The large domed vestibules are intricately decorated with murals, etchings, engravings, and sculptures chiseled out of marble. Every aspect of the LOC represents an element of American history. Thomas Jefferson's entire collection of books- almost seven thousand volumes (this number may not be accurate) are sitting on shelves in the new library room on display in the Jefferson building. The most striking feature of the facility is the fact that we, the American people own the library. Therefore, as a student, I could request to read one of those very books that Jefferson gathered for his personal collection.

The LOC left me a bit tired from dodging stray elementary school students who had wandered off from their tour groups, so I quickly made a dash for the door when we were released for lunch. Out under the tame May sun, I went off to grab my first capitol lunch. 

Walking the Talk?

"You can't swing a dead cat without hitting a gay staffer." CNN reports tonight, quoting the director of a new film that's really shaking things up (and naming names)...

Kirby Dick includes this line in his new film titled Outrage that outs gay/homosexual politicians in Washington D.C. Mr. Dick actually says that the film does not actually "out" people, but merely reports on hypocrisy on capitol hill. Over a three year period of time, Mr. Dick's research team found hundreds of politicians who vote against gay rights in our country's legislature, however, they are actually gay themselves.

Mr. Dick says that this is hypocritical and harmful to thousands of gay Americans. For this reason, he is not afraid to show his film and he believes that it will actually aid the gay rights movement. 

But what about those names that Mr. Dick is including in his film? I am told that most of these people are not flamboyantly gay, and yet they are now exposed in full light to the American people. Yeah, so these people have the right to live the way they want to live...no doubt about it in my mind. And yes, perhaps they are voting in a hypocritical manner. But what politician isn't hypocritical? These people have the right to their privacy. And even if it is hurting their own future, it is their decision as to whether or not they want to change that. I think that the film could have been made without exposing the names of closeted homosexuals. The film is powerful, but when does that power over step its bounds and infringe on personal issues?

What about the reporters? Should we have reported on this hypocritical trend long ago? Or have we been tactful and respectful (despite tabloid reporting) and refrained from outing anyone? Are we to be reprimanded or applauded? 

I have no idea how much of this information on politicians' sexual tendencies is apparent to the public eye; I have no idea how many reporters knew certain politicians voting against gay rights who were actually gay themselves. I am totally clueless. But I do know that if it was me, I would want to make the decision myself. Just like announcing my wedding some day, or the birth of my first child. That is something that is mine and I want it to come from me.