The ultimate crony is back on center stage. James A. Baker III, the single most powerful and most recognized non-elected politico in the U.S. has emerged again to play power politics And once again, Baker is using his influence to hoodwink the American people. This time he's doing it on multiple fronts.
The first hoodwink comes from Baker's new book: Work Hard, Study... and Keep Out of Politics! Adventures and Lessons From An Unexpected Public Life, released in October. The second is found in The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward-A New Approach, the much-ballyhooed document published on December 6. The release of the two books -- and particularly, the attention given to the Iraq Study Group (ISG) report -- has led to Baker's nearly constant presence on TV news, political talk shows and in the newspapers.
And while Baker is, once again, receiving adulatory coverage from much of the mainstream media, the books he has produced are notable as much for what they omit as what they include, and those omissions expose the fundamental dishonesty of both efforts.
Before delving further into the sanitized version of history Baker presents in his book, and the ISG recommendations, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s essential to give the man his due. James Addison Baker III is the Clark Clifford of the modern eraÃ¢â‚¬â€the presidential adviser who never strays far from the corridors of power. Clifford, the ultimate Washington insider, advised presidents from Harry Truman to John Kennedy. Under Kennedy, he served as the head of the PresidentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, the group with access to all of AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s most-secret intelligence. In 1968, Lyndon Johnson appointed Clifford as his defense secretary. Clifford was on the job in the Pentagon during North VietnamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Tet offensive of early Ã¢â‚¬â„¢68, a move that caught U.S. forces off guard and brought the fighting to the streets of Saigon. (In July 1969, after Richard Nixon took office, Clifford wrote that the war in Vietnam was lost and that Ã¢â‚¬Å“Nothing we might do could be so beneficial... as to begin to withdraw our combat troops... we cannot realistically expect to achieve anything more through our military force.Ã¢â‚¬Â) Clifford parlayed his government service into a sizable personal fortune as one of WashingtonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s most prominent lawyer-lobbyists. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s exactly the same business model that Baker has followed.
BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s career at the forefront of presidential politics began in 1976, when he ran Gerald FordÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s unsuccessful campaign to stay in the White House. Four years later, he managed George H.W. BushÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s primary campaignÃ¢â‚¬â€an effort that led to BushÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s selection as Ronald ReaganÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s running mate. Despite being perceived as a foe by some members of the Reagan camp, Baker became a key player in ReaganÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s 1980 campaign. After Reagan won the White House, Baker became his chief of staff. In 1985, Baker left to become ReaganÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s treasury secretary, a job he held until he quit to run BushÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s presidential campaign in 1988. When Bush was elected, one of his first acts was to appoint Baker to be his secretary of state. Baker served in that job during one of the most tumultuous periods in recent world history, a time that included the breakup of the Soviet Union and the first Iraq war.
As secretary of state, Baker demonstrated his toughness while trying to negotiate peace between the Arabs and the Israelis. Like the elder Bush, Baker believed that there was no chance for peace in Palestine if the Israelis continued to build settlements in the Occupied Territories. So Baker issued an ultimatum: The U.S. would freeze all loans to the Israelis unless the construction of new settlements stopped. This led to an outcry from the Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. But Baker refused to budge. Since that time, he has repeatedly stated that the IsraelisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ settlements in the West Bank (which continue to be built) Ã¢â‚¬Å“make peace impossible.Ã¢â‚¬Â
After the elder BushÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s failure to win re-election in 1992, Baker moved back to Houston and began taking jobs that allowed him to cash in on the enormously lucrative intersection of business, legal work, politics, and diplomacy. He became a senior partner at Baker Botts, the law firm founded by his great-grandfather. He became an equity partner and senior counselor at the Carlyle Group, the huge private equity firm. He joined corporate boards, including that of Houston Lighting & Power (now known as Reliant Energy Inc.), and Electronic Data Systems Corp., the Dallas-based information-technology giant. (One of his fellow board members at EDS: Dick Cheney.) Baker signed up to lobby for Enron Corp. on deals in Kuwait, India, Turkey, Qatar, and Turkmenistan. And through all of that work, he helped drive business to Baker Botts. How much business? ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hard to say, but James A. Baker IV, the son of the former secretary of state who is now the managing partner of the firmÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Washington, D.C., office, said a couple of years ago that his father had been Ã¢â‚¬Å“reserved in his business development activities, but it would be disingenuous to say it hasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t been an asset.Ã¢â‚¬Â
In fact, since Baker III joined his familyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s firm, and particularly since George W. Bush became president, Baker Botts has become one of the worldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s most influential law firms. It has become a major player in the energy business, particularly in Russia, where it has worked for the Kremlin-controlled gas giant, Gazprom. The firm now has offices in Austin, Dallas, Houston, Dubai, Hong Kong, London, Moscow, New York, Riyadh, and Washington. BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s job as a rainmaker at Baker Botts probably pays him several hundred thousand dollars per year. But itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s doubtful that his partnership interest in the firm accounts for a substantial percentage of his wealth. More likely, heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s made it by peddling his status as an insider with the Carlyle Group. According to one published account, BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s stake in the private equity firm (which he left in 2005) was worth $180 million. Baker has consistently refused to discuss his finances. In late 2003, I caught up with Baker during a black-tie benefit for the think-tank that was named for him, the Baker Institute for Public Policy at Rice University.
After Dick Cheney, the eventÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s featured speaker, had finished declaring that Saddam Hussein had Ã¢â‚¬Å“an established relationship with al-QaedaÃ¢â‚¬Â and that thanks to the American invasion, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Iraq stands to be a force for good in the Middle East,Ã¢â‚¬Â I was finally able to buttonhole Baker, who had refused my requests for an interview. I asked about the $180 million figure. Ã¢â‚¬Å“ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s bullshit. You print that,Ã¢â‚¬Â he told me. Asked how much his Carlyle stake was worth, he replied, yelling, Ã¢â‚¬Å“ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s for me to know and you to not knowÃ¢â‚¬Â and refused further questions.
Despite BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s high-profile jobs for the Bush administration, none of his financial information is publicly available. While Baker was working for the Bush White House as its representative on Iraqi debt, he was deemed a Ã¢â‚¬Å“special government employee,Ã¢â‚¬Â a status that shields his finances. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s up to the White House general counselÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s office to determine if Baker has any conflicts of interest.
While BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s first book, The Politics of Diplomacy: Revolution, War & Peace, 1989Ã¢â‚¬â€œ1992, deals almost exclusively with his tenure as secretary of state, Work Hard is a personal reflection, a look back at his family life, his life in politics, and his upbringing in one of HoustonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s most prominent families. It was a privileged childhood. Baker relates that when the University of Texas played football against Texas A&M, his grandfather, James A. Baker I, known as the Captain, Ã¢â‚¬Å“often took us to the game in a private rail car arranged through one of his railroad clients.Ã¢â‚¬Â His familyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s aristocratic ties inevitably led to fundraising and politics. And Baker explains how the elder George Bush consistently encouraged him to get into the political game.
Much of the new book focuses on BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s work for Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and his long relationship with, and fondness for, the elder Bush. Baker provides his spin on the Florida recount fight in 2000. Ã¢â‚¬Å“Florida is largely remembered as a legal battle, but in my opinion it was every bit as much a political battle, and we may have understood this point better than the other side.Ã¢â‚¬Â Baker takes credit for the Bush campÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s decision to fight the battle in federal court and the U.S. Supreme Court. In BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s view, Bush and his team prevailed for several reasons: Ã¢â‚¬Å“...the law was on our side. And yet again, we still had more votes than the other sideÃ¢â‚¬â€537 to be exact.Ã¢â‚¬Â Naturally, Baker omits facts that donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fit his narrative, the most important being his consistent misrepresentations of the facts during the Florida fight. For instance, on November 11, 2000, Baker told a packed news conference, Ã¢â‚¬Å“The vote in Florida has been counted, and then recounted. Gov. George W. Bush was the winner of the vote. He is also the winner of the recount.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Baker was making it up. He knew full well that the recounts had only just started. The day before Baker delivered his sound bite, the Gore campaign had requested recounts in at least four counties, but only two of them had actually begun recounting their ballots. But Baker stuck to that sound bite, and in doing so he helped assure that Bush won the political battle in Florida.
While BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s views on Florida are revealing, and some of the vignettes from the Reagan era are entertaining, (in one photo caption he declares that Nancy Reagan Ã¢â‚¬Å“was always an allyÃ¢â‚¬Â) Work Hard is fundamentally dishonest. HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why: It completely omits one of the most important historical events of the Reagan era and the last few years of the 20th century: the savings and loan disaster.
BakerÃ¢â‚¬â€perhaps more than any other single AmericanÃ¢â‚¬â€bears substantial responsibility for the loss of more than $100 billion in taxpayer money during the savings and loan meltdown of the late 1980s. Baker served as ReaganÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s treasury secretary from early 1985 to August 1988, a time when it was clear that fraudsters and con artists were looting banks and thrifts all over the country, but particularly in Texas. Baker worked to downplay the magnitude of the growing disaster for obvious reasons: Admitting the scope of the mess would make Texas look bad, it would make Reagan look bad, and in doing so it would hurt the political aspirations of the elder George Bush, who was running for president in November 1988.
Evidence of a massive cover-up can be seen in BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s testimony before a House Appropriations subcommittee on April 19, 1988. During that appearance, Baker said that the $10.8 billion that had recently been appropriated to the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corp. to clean up the S&L disaster was all that was needed. That amount of money, Baker told the panel, Ã¢â‚¬Å“will provide FSLIC with enough resources to handle the problems of the industry over the next three years.Ã¢â‚¬Â Baker went on to say that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., which insures banks, had plenty of funds. Ã¢â‚¬Å“There are some commercial banks that are having problems, but the FDICÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fund, currently with about $18.6 billion in it, should be able to handle these problems.Ã¢â‚¬Â
ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s difficult to overstate the importance of BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s statement. Few people in America had more information about the troubles facing the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s financial system than Baker. He had dozens of staffers whose jobs were to monitor and assess the health of the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s financial systems. As early as 1986, Baker and other Treasury Department officials knew that the cost of the cleanup would be $50 billion or more. In fact, at about the same time that Baker was testifying before the House, the Federal Home Loan Bank Board was putting out its own estimate on the cost of repairing the nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s S&L industry. That group estimated that resolving the problems at the 500 worst S&Ls in America would cost $21.8 billionÃ¢â‚¬â€more than twice what Baker was claiming. Furthermore, by the time Baker testified, AmericaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s S&Ls were racking up losses at the rate of $1 billion per month.
Even BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s own deputy, George D. Gould, the Treasury DepartmentÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s undersecretary for finance and the Reagan administrationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s top policy-maker for banking and finance, was saying more money was needed. In May 1988, the month after Baker appeared before the House subcommittee, Gould told the Associated Press that $20 billion was Ã¢â‚¬Å“probably not enough.Ã¢â‚¬Â
Not only did Baker hide the extent of the cost, he agreed to get rid of Edwin Gray, the competent and aggressive head of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. In 1986, Gray, a political appointee, launched an aggressive investigation of Texas S&Ls, including Vernon Savings, which was being looted by a group of bandits led by Don Dixon. In 1987, rather than appoint Gray to another four-year term, the Reagan White House replaced him with M. Danny Wall, a bureaucrat whose only real job qualification was that heÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d been the Republican staff director of the Senate Banking Committee when it drafted the Garn-St. Germain law, which deregulated S&Ls and opened their vaults to fraudsters and looters in the first place.
In June 1985, just a few months after he moved to Treasury, Baker was warned by the head of the FDIC, William Isaac, that the Ã¢â‚¬Å“problems of the thrift industry are of such proportions that they will soon overwhelmÃ¢â‚¬Â the FSLIC. Rather than deal with IsaacÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ominous warning, Baker ignored it.
In my book, Cronies, I wrote about the S&L mess and BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s role in it. I quoted William Black, an attorney who helped clean up the scandal-ridden industry while working for the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation and, later, as the deputy director of the Office of Thrift Supervision. Black told me that the Reaganites were Ã¢â‚¬Å“willing to do the most outrageous, unprincipled and dangerous things to maintain the cover-upÃ¢â‚¬Â of the S&L disaster. And, said Black, Baker was one of Ã¢â‚¬Å“the centerpieces of this strategy.Ã¢â‚¬Â
To be fair, Congress shares the blame for the S&L meltdown. Jim Wright, the Democratic speaker of the House from Fort Worth, worked hard to prevent federal regulators from cracking down on S&Ls in Texas. And his role in obstructing investigations into various S&Ls contributed to WrightÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fall from power. On the other side of the Capitol building, the Keating Five, a group of senators that included 2008 presidential hopeful John McCain, ran interference on behalf of disgraced S&L boss Charles Keating, the chairman of California-based Lincoln Savings and Loan. But none of those congressmen and senators was the secretary of the treasury. None of those men had their signatures on American greenbacks. None of those men had the power to appoint aggressive regulators to delve into the unfolding S&L disaster. Baker did. Yet he did nothing.
For the record, 1,169 savings and loans in the United States failed. Texas had the most failures, 237. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more than twice as many as any other state. In 2000, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation issued a report that said thrifts with total assets of more than $500 billion had failed. The bill for taxpayers on the S&L disaster, according to the FDIC, is some $124 billion. That sum does not reflect the entire bill. To pay for the S&L bailout, the federal government sold bonds. By the time those bonds are finally retired in 2020 or so, the total cost of the S&L mess will likely approach $300 billion.
Despite those numbers, despite the magnitude of the S&L mess, despite the fact that he was on the job during the worst of the fraud and looting, none of this information appears in Work Hard. In fact, the words Ã¢â‚¬Å“savings and loanÃ¢â‚¬Â donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even appear in BakerÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s book.
Original story is here: