The Great Debate

Lviv, Ukraine.  11.30 PM

I can't sleep.

I got up at 3:30AM last night to watch the U.S. Democratic Debate live from Ukraine. I wanted to see it live so I wouldn't be influenced by media reports before I made my own judgments.  However, after spending an hour not being able to get the streaming video from CNN, I gave up and went back to bed.

Then at 7 AM this morning I went down to breakfast and got to see the debate on YouTube before I read about it in the news.  And I'm glad I did.

I believe we are at a critical point in the history of my country, the U.S.A.  Like in Ukraine where the people are trying to overcome the huge level of corruption and get democratic control of the government

In the U.S. we have our own corruption.  At the highest level.  With our government controlled by Wall Street and big Corporate money. Not the democratic will of the people.

Our economy in the U.S. is in bad shape, far worse than we realize.  And we are vulnerable to another financial meltdown like occurred in 2008. The worst since the Great Depression in 1929.

One of the topics discussed in the Debate without being explained was the Glass-Steagall Act, a piece of legislation passed by Congress to prevent another Great Depression.  This Act was repealed during the Clinton presidency and so without the protections of the  Glass Steagall Act we got a big financial meltdown in 2008

Simply stated the Glass-Steagall Act separated the high risk Investment Banking business from the Commercial Banking business which holds  all the depositors money.  Without such protection the depositors money was at risk if the Banks' Investment Banking activities lost money.

Which is exactly what happened in 2008.  The Banks knowingly enticed borrowers into borrowing loans that the borrowers did not have the income to repay.  Then the banks repackaged these bad loans and sold them to institutions fraudulently claiming they were sound investments. And they did this on a scale big enough to bring down the entire world financial system. The biggest financial fraud in history.

So what happened to those responsible for the biggest financial fraud in history? Did they go to jail? No.
.
Did they lose their jobs?  No.

Instead those responsible for these criminal activities which caused the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression paid themselves huge bonuses!

How did the Government respond?  It filed criminal charges against the banks.  The banks admitted their criminality in settling and paying billions in fines.  But who paid for the fines?  Not the CEO's responsible for the criminal activity who instead paid themselves big bonuses.

The money to pay the huge fines came from the banks holdings of money,  reducing their assets and thus the value of the banks to their owners, the stockholders. And these stockholders  included large institutions with investments from pension funds, the retirement money of people wholly innocent of any wrongdoing.

And how did the government justify this failure to prosecute those responsible for the crimes?  The U.S. Attorney General at the time said that it would be too difficult to  prosecute those responsible. Well of course it was much easier for him to get the CEOs to pay off the government with someone else's money and avoid going to jail.  And where is this Attorney General now?

He left government to return to his former Wall Street defending law firm with commendation from President Obama who called him "the people's lawyer".  Yea right.  If you define "people" as Wall Street CEOs.

And having learned from the experience of the financial meltdown did the Congress restore the Glass-Steagull Act to prevent a re occurrence of the financial collapse. No they didn't. Why? Because Wall Street which controls the politicians in Congress with its financial contributions told them not to.

So the perpetrators were given a strong message to continue to take huge risks with depositors and ultimately taxpayers money having learned there is no accountability for doing so and if they fail they will continue to prosper.

And without the safeguards of the Glass-Steagall Act  we face another financial collapse. Except this time it is likely to be far worse.  Worse than the collapse in 2008.  Worse maybe even than the Great Depression.  Why? Because the government having taken on huge amounts of debt is in far worse shape to deal with another bailout.

So with all this in mind, it was with great anticipation that I began to watch the debate. The big issue in my mind is whether the voters can get the country back or will big money continue to control the government.  Just like here in Ukraine.  And will the American people show the level of interest in taking back their government as Ukrainians have here.

Here is what I saw in the debate -

Bernie Sanders clearly cares.  He's on a mission.  He's not just another politician.  As a former CFO I can tell you I believe in capitalism but not the crony capitalism we have in the U.S. and the crony capitalism that has cost Ukraine so much.

Normally I wouldn't be drawn to a professed Democratic Socialist.  But with the people power he's demonstrated and his desire to change the corrupt system I find Bernie Sanders appealing as one who could actually make a difference.

Hillary made clear, at least to me, that she isn't going to take on the "Banksters".  She gets a lot of her financing from them.  She's not going to push for stopping the banks gambling with taxpayers and depositors' money.    She will not break up the big banks and they will remain too big to fail and their CEOs too big to jail.

Don't get me wrong.  I have great admiration for her personal grit.  And she is a terrific debater.  But this isn't about her it's about what's best for the country.

The other candidates, James Webb, Martin O'Malley and Lincoln Chaffee would all take a hard line on Wall Street.  While Chaffee showed great courage and common sense in being the only Republican to vote against the disastrous Iraq war, he did vote for the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.  His defense of that vote was bizarre to say the least.  He pretty much said he didn't know what he was doing being new to the Senate and his father having just died. Probably the honest truth which in politics is really bizarre.

James Webb who I had thought early on was the best of the candidates in terms of integrity and willingness to take on Wall Street gave, I thought, the poorest performance as a debater. Perhaps debating skills influence Presidential selection too much but that's the way it is.

Martin O'Malley gave the best performance of the three lowest polling candidates but not good enough to make him a contender which is fine with me as I'm no fan of the former Governor having seen him in action in my home state of Maryland.

That left Hillary and Bernie where they were before the debate as the only serious contenders. I've thought for some time that the email controversy should have disqualified Hillary along with her vote for the Iraq war and her coziness with Wall Street. But she's still standing.

After watching the debate I ranked the performance as 1. Sanders 2. Clinton 3. O'Malley.

Then I read what the media said.  Clearly Hillary won according to the Media and Washington "experts".

Well if she did I was thinking Bernie Sanders handed her the nomination and ultimately the election as the next President of the United States since the Republican candidates all seem to me to be running only to their base which is not the majority of voters in the U.S.

Bernie handed the election to Hillary by defending her against the Republican attacks and the Media  questions about her use of private email servers for government business.  A major vulnerability for Hillary for which she is unable to defend herself given her inability to explain why she did this and the serious questions about compromising security and breaking the law it entails prompting the current. FBI investigation.  (Note: It isn't just a Republican attack issue. But the Republicans are doing a fine job of making it seem that way and helping Hillary in the process).

Why did Bernie do this?  Because he's a nice guy?  Don't nice guys finish last?

Did he do this because he believes in what he said?  That there's too much talk about this?    Could be. But if he wants to get elected and deal with the bigger issues he can't let the candidate he opposes, who won't deal with the issues off the hook.

Or was this, in fact, a most brilliant move on his part?  He gets to surprise by being not just another politician.  And he scores with Democrats by defending a fellow leader of his party against the Republicans and the Media.

As for who won the debate.  I got to  thinking maybe the Media and the Washington "Experts" have it wrong.  They've been pretty clueless about the anger around the country and the appeal of Donald Trump.

And then I read that the  social media and focus groups and quick polling indicate the people think Bernie won.  Maybe the people are looking for more than a slick debate performance.  For someone who really does care and will deal with the real problems.

One of the reasons I came to Ukraine is that I find it fascinating to see a country and people who are trying to change things for the better.  Taking on big time corruption.

Maybe that's true of the people and voters in the U.S. too. Maybe they are fed up and aren't going to take it anymore.  Maybe they will actually get out and vote.

As Bernie says, no President alone can change the system. The people will have to get involved, vote and stay involved.  And make their government respond. Like the Ukrainians.

On Sunday evening,  May 24th of last year I watched the Ukraine Presidential election returns come in on a huge TV set up on Maidan Square the scene of the mass demonstrations and the revolution here.  I asked a guy dressed in military fatigues standing next to me  whom he wanted to win.  He said "It does not matter. If they don't do what they should do we will return here".

And how is it going in Ukraine?  In a word - slow.  While things are looking up here in Ukraine with Putin seeming to have backed off here and shifting his attention to new adventures in the Middle East and Syria, the outcome of the fight against corruption could go either way. The forces of corruption are still deeply embedded. Although my bet (hope?) is with the people.  That they will persist and prevail.

As for the U.S., it's also unclear how this will all turn out. Whether people power or big money power will rule.  But I am encouraged that the media may be wrong as to who won the debate and that the Democratic party's establishment candidate may not be a sure thing. It may not continue to be "business as usual" in Washington

But as Yogi Berra said. "It's hard to make predictions - especially about the future.

And if you had told me a year ago that I would be cheering for the "Democratic Socialist" in a debate for the Presidency of United States, I would have said no way.  And yet I was.