thumbnail of Report from Santa Fe; Robert Scheer
Transcript
Hide -
This transcript was received from a third party and/or generated by a computer. Its accuracy has not been verified. If this transcript has significant errors that should be corrected, let us know, so we can add it using our FIX IT+ crowdsourcing tool.
The National Education Association of New Mexico, an organization of professionals who believe that investing in public education is an investment in our state's economic future. And by a grant from the Healey Foundation, Tau's New Mexico. Hello, I'm Lorena Mills and welcome to report from Santa Fe. Our guest today is Robert Scheer. Thank you for joining us. That's great. Well, you're here because you've written this, I think, extraordinary book called The Great American Stick Up and give me this subtitle. Oh, God, I can't read it for you. I know again. How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats impoverished American mugging. In Ritz Wall Street, wow, mugging Main Street. There you go. The point of the book, and I don't mean to fudge the subtitle, is I want people to know this is a bipartisan scam. I want them to know it's a scam. This was, you know, we have a lot of problems, global warming, jobs going abroad, you know, quality of life, the state of the schools. The country faces very serious issues. This economic meltdown did not have to happen. It happened because there
was a scam. Something Adam Smith did not anticipate. Something Ronald Reagan did not anticipate. I knew Ronald Reagan quite well. I interviewed him before. He was governor before he was president. I got along with the man quite well when I was working for the LA Times. And but, you know, this has nothing to do with the free market. This has to do with crony capitalism. And it has to do with the ability of Wall Street lobbyists to influence or control Congress to get legislation passed that reversed the sensible rules of the road that have been in place since Franklin, Dalin, Roosevelt, and the New Deal. And rules of the road that said, you can't mix the home ownership and the holdings of people. They're saving account with the high rolling investment entrepreneurs. You have something called the Glass -Steagall Law. And these lobbyists got that thing reversed. They got some other legislation reversed that suddenly left us at the mercy of what I consider to be Wall Street bandits. And as a result, we've had this terrible economic crisis that we're a long way from seeing
the end of it. You know, Bob, I've wanted to do a show on this topic for a long time and I've been waiting for a book like yours because so much of the knee jerk response is each party blaming together. It's very partisan. It was Bush's fault, Obama's fault, Clinton's fault. And only in this book have I seen the whole trajectory, the whole arc going from Reagan all the way to now. And everybody played a role. It is a bipartisan disaster. Oh, there's no question it's a bipartisan disaster. And in fact, what happened is Ronald Reagan, for all his talk about deregulation of free market, couldn't pull it off because we had the savings and loan scandal on his watch. And as a result, by the end of Reagan's term in office, he was disillusioned with these Wall Street lobbyists and he actually tightened regulations, something Democrats don't like to mention. But I'm perfectly willing to - The Republicans don't like to mention it. Yeah, I'm perfectly willing to blame Reagan for lots of things, but the fact is he doesn't, you know, he's saying the song, but he couldn't, you know, do the dance. And the problem is that it took Bill Clinton coming in with
his philosophy of triandulation, which is another word for opportunism, to make an alliance with Phil Graham and other leading Republicans in the Senate and the House to pass legislation that, as I said, reversed the new deal rules of the road about accountability, transparency, and a wall between high flying investment bankers and the savings of ordinary folks. And the real tragedy is because we passed something called the Commodity Futures Modernization Act and Bill Clinton signed off it again, the lobbyists wanted it, the Republicans, we allowed something that no classical economist from Adam Smith on had ever anticipated, taking people's homes and wrapping them up into securities and selling them all over the world as collateralized debt obligations, then placing bets on them, called credit default swaps, and passing a piece of registration, this Commodity Futures Modernization Act, that said no existing regulation and no regulatory agency will be able to monitor these devices. That's why we have hundreds of trillions of dollars of national value of bets on bets
circulating around the world. We are five, six years into what some people predict is the decade, of lost decade. I think it's going to go on a lot longer. We're nowhere near getting out of this. I need to cheerful, huh? Cheerful. Well, we're going to just step back for a minute, because I would like to introduce you a little more to our audience. You are the editor of truth dig .com, and we have your truth dig mugs here today. Thank you. You've won four webbies, and that's an award for excellence on the Internet, as a best political site online, four times you won. You also co -host, I think people will be familiar with this show, an NPR, a political radio show that's on every week called Left, Right, and Center. You're a professor at the USC Annenberg School of Journalism. You've been, you were with the LA Times for 30 years. Let me just say, but oh, go ahead. No, no, no, no. You get to say something. It's interesting, because they've made this whole stuff so complex. The lobbyists love to do it. They put these big mathematical formulas on these things.
Who knows? It was a perfect storm. Who could see it coming? No one, everyone's to blame, greedy people who wanted their homes, and so forth. Well, when I was working for the LA Times, I covered this deregulation. I was in Washington. I was there when they wrote these bills, and I would go to perfectly well -meaning, intention, congressman of either party. And I say, what are you guys doing? I've read the bill. I was an economics graduate student, you know? I said, do you understand what you're doing? You're reversing something that has worked for 60 years. What do you think you're doing? And they would say, you know, Bob, it's very complex, very complex. And I have a wonderful person on my staff who can explain this to you. I go to a wonderful person on his staff, and I say, what are you doing reversing the Glass -Steagall Act? Why do you want to separate something that's where we have commercial banks, we have investment banks? They're separate. They shouldn't call mingle. And they say, well, Bob, we have to modernize. And otherwise, we can't be functioning in this world. But, you know, it's very complex. Why don't you go talk to Charlie
over there? And I say, but Charlie is a lobbyist, you know, for Citibank. You know, they want this because they want to form Citibank. They want to merge travelers and Citibank. That's Sandy Wilde, you know, and Robert Rubin, who's pushing it, who's the Treasury Secretary ends up and goes to the work for Citibank. Group gets 15 million bucks a year. When I worked at the LA Times, if somebody gave me a free beer and a restaurant, that was a conflict of interest. I've got to have been fired over it. But this guy could go from being Treasury Secretary to getting 50 million bucks for a bank that would not be allowed to exist. Citigroup would not be allowed to exist. Had we not reversed Glass Steakl, okay? JPMorgan Chase, which has been running into trouble now, could not have existed. Had we not reversed those sensible rules of the road where the investment bankers get to play with the life savings of ordinary people. And then you got something like these mortgages, our most sacred thing. This is your homestead, your castle. This is the basis of your retirement. And you turn that into a poker chip, and you say you can securitize it, and there'll be no regulation of it. And what is it a result? The result is we've had a 63 percent decline of wealth among Latinos, 63
percent, not of income, of wealth, of everything you worth, 55 percent among African Americans, the rest of Americans is around 30 percent to 30 to 40 percent. And we're no way near getting out of this thing. And in your book, you do mention that this meltdown destroyed 14 trillion dollars worth of wealth of American families. But you did say something that I think reveals the secret. People are afraid to admit that they don't understand these financial terms. And even when Greenspan would be testifying before the financial committees, nobody would say, but wait a minute, Alan, what do you mean? They all just nods, sagely, and the old switcheroo happens. A shellgain happens. Well, it's what I put in their category of too good to check. Even these CEOs would got up before these hearings that Henry Waxman who gave me a blur from my book and others had. And they would say, no, I didn't know what that group was doing in London. And I really didn't understand how a credit default swap works. And
I didn't know the mathematics of a collateralized debt obligation. And then you asked, well, then why didn't you know? And the clear answer, which they will not give is the money was so great. The money was pouring in. That if we looked at it too carefully, maybe we would know it was bogus. You know, maybe we would know we're selling debts upon debts upon debts based on junk, toxic assets. And they didn't check it. And the, let me say something about complexity. I happened to have studied math quite a bit. I started as an engineering student. I was an economics and graduate school. And this is not, there's nothing complex about this. It was made opaque. It was made complex. They took some mathematical formulas about risk management that had nothing to do with this and wrapped it around some bogus toxic security of people's homes, you know, and then said, okay, this is something you should buy because it's going to go up, up, up. And I want to address the moral hazard issue because I know a lot of poor people have blamed for this. Why did you buy the house? You know, and what people don't understand in all this is, first of all, the people who have suffered most in this meltdown are the people who own their house outright.
The people who have equity in their home. Because if two or three houses are foreclosed on your block, you're saving. Your nest egg is devalued. The people had no equity. They're not the big losers. They can walk. And in some states, there's no penalty at all. So the problem is for everyone, the people who lose their jobs, we have, you know, we as taxpayers have had to bail out the banks. What George W. Bush did and unfortunately, what Obama did following honors is throw enormous amount of money at the banks. And I'm not just talking about the bailout. I'm talking about giving these banks virtually zero interest loans to bail them out, taking $2 trillion of toxic assets off their books. We taxpayers are on the hook for it. We are the victims in this thing. And so when they say, all the people who are the victims are, you know, people took lousy mortgages and that's the problem. No, we've all been victimized by this. We've lost these jobs. We're going to be paying for this forever. And the fact of the matter is even the people who got the liars loans were told to lie. You went into a bank. I remember in
downtown Los Angeles, I'd go in and a guy would say, Hey, would you like a cappuccino? Would you like to sit down and capture the equity in your home? I said, I don't have any equity in my home. I just bought it two years ago. Oh, we'll find the equity. We'll send in a praise around there and find the equity. And then, you know, and what is your income? Well, it's this. Oh, that's enough. And then you think to yourself, what is going on? You know what was going on? In the old days, you went to buy the house. The banker expected to hold the loan for 30 years. They wanted to make darn sure that you had the equity in it. They want to make darn sure you could make the payments. Otherwise, if you went belly up, they were left holding this thing. Okay, but that banker who was telling me he could capture the equity in my home and didn't really care whether I could make the payments, he wasn't going to hold the loan for 30 years. He wasn't going to hold it for 30 days. He was going to turn around and put it into a package and sell it as a security to some suckers out there. You know, that's where the whole air respect now. Why was that legal? That would have been illegal. Mortgage was supposed to be registered at the county level. There was supposed to be transparency and all that.
It got made legal this whole thing of collecting them, putting them into a security by titles three and four of the commodity futures monetization, equity monetization, the key word, same with the financial service and modernization. Who's against modernization? They passed this piece of legislation without hearings. Republicans pushed it through Congress, Bill Clinton, then a lame doc president signs off at the closing weeks of his administration in titles three and four of that legislation and it's in clear English people can Google it and read it or they can read it in my book and titles three and four say no existing government agency or regulation, no law, no agency will have any jurisdiction over collateralized debt obligations or credit default swaps. Now we have hundreds of trillions of dollars of bets upon bets on that junk destroying the world economy, destroying it. Every time it looks like housing might get a little better, people get optimistic again, the banks, the fed, dump more of this toxic stuff on the market, the price goes down again and I don't see any sunlight here. And let me tell you something is no joy. I don't have no joy in
writing a book that says, you know, alarming his mind is and turning out to be accurate. I would have been much happier let me tell you to find out I got it wrong, you know, not personally. I mean, it would be an embarrassment to me, but it would be better for the country. I think we're in really a deep problem here and I and I'll tell you there's a simple way out, but no one has to believe me. I want to hear it. There is a way out, you know, when Obama came in, he could have said, all right, there's a lively argument about whether we should bail out the banks. The Bush administration has already invested a lot of money in bailing out the banks and, you know, and an AIG and everything else. He said, you know, okay, I've listened to my advice is that I'm going to continue to bail him out, but I'm going to get something in return that Bush didn't get. I'm going to get some homeowner relief. I'm going to get a requirement of mortgage adjustment. I'm going to have a moratorium on foreclosures because we don't even know who owns these houses. 78 % of them are owned by a computer in Reston, Virginia called a mortgage electronic registration system. So I'm going to say, while we straighten and so on, people are going to stay in their homes. They're not going to be thrown out. We're going to have a moratorium on
foreclosures and then we're going to work out mortgage adjustment, not just some token stuff the way they've done it. We're going to force the banks and return for getting this money, you know, the taxpayers are bailing you out. You're going to give something back to the taxpayers. The irony in this is it would have been good for the banks. It would have put a floor, you know, they're not benefiting from foreclosures in the long run. They're left holding all this junk and these securities, but they're so sure -sided they said, no, we're not going for this. They're lobbyists, you know, pushed against this. And as a result, we haven't had any serious regulation and we certainly have not had homeowner relief. We got 50 million Americans that have either lost their homes or an imminent danger of losing their homes. We have most people who have mortgages in this country are under water now. So when they make their payment, they're throwing good money after bed. This is a horrible situation and that neither party is responding to it is an outrage. You call it no banker left behind and say that in the Wall Street bailouts, they were given $1 trillion. The biggest swindle you call it in the United States
history. Remember that Clinton line that's the economy stupid? It was the economy. Yeah, it's the economy and it's the trillion figures now low. Because what has happened is that the Fed took, as I said, $2 trillion of this junk off and every once in a while they dumped some of it, taking the bad stuff off the banks that shouldn't have been making these loans in the first place. The banks are still holding a lot. The big causes that they've kept interest rates so low and not for people holding a credit card. You missed two or three payments on your credit card. You're up to 23%. You could be paying 33 % if you look at the fine print. We have no cap. By the way, many states, I'm not familiar with New Mexico, but Texas, California, Iowa, all had restraints, restrictions, limits on interest rates. Why? Goes back to scripture, userry. Yeah, we have scripture, userry lies here. Okay, scripture condemned userry. Quilay, scripture says hardly anything. I don't know what you, it doesn't say a word about abortion or gay marriage or a symptom, but scripture is very clear on exploiting the vulnerable. It was after all
Christ who threw the money changes at a temple. And you'll find in the old, a new testament in the Quran, you'll find very clear. You cannot charge interest to the poor. You cannot do userry. You cannot take advantage of people. We had that built into state constitutions. It's, by the way, one of the reasons Texas did better than California in the housing meltdown because Texas, when it was formed as a state, actually had more of a populous tradition. And they were swindled by banks with their stakeholders and everything. So one of the conditions in the state, Texas Constitution was banks couldn't even make mortgage loans. Then it got watered down over the years, but at the time of this crunch, a company like Countrywide had a lot harder time operating in Texas than they did in California, or they did in Arizona, where they had an easy time of finding suckers. And so the irony is that we had a good populist, protect the consumer, protect the little guy thing in this country in the states. Then the banking lobby got federal law to preempt state law. So all of these state protections of consumers in housing, the
registration, you've got to use the county. It's got to be transparent. You know, there's a cap on interest. All of that got wiped out by federal law, right? And then the lobbyists can go and change the federal law so you can do mortgage electronic registration. Then you can make it a security and wrap it around and there's absolutely no protection for the little person. That's what happened here. And it's a bipartisan scandal. And what really irritates me is when people blame the ordinary homeowner, it's your fault. There's enough blame. There's blame for everyone. There isn't blame for everyone. The people buying those houses didn't know what hit them. You know, they did not know what hit them. They didn't know. They thought this was their old bank, you know, that was going to own the mortgage. I mean, I myself was shocked to find out that the different bank than the one I negotiated was your owner of your house. You know, you assumed, I remember the first house I ever bought. It was a nice guy with a little pencil mustache, Mr. Pillsbury. I went in there and he was my partner. And he said, you know, Bob, I don't think you can afford that one, but I think you can afford this one. And we've appraised it and I trusted him because I thought, you know, he's going to keep the house, you know,
case I can't. And so he wants to make sure the value is there. You know, I'm not an expert on housing value. I can't do the appraisal. And then he looked at my income, said, you're a good guy. Okay, you know, that broke down. And the banks became swindlers. And they were allowed to become swindlers because if the mafia had done this, they were all being jail, but they got to be swindlers because they changed the law. They're lobbyists. They spent 300 million dollars to that first piece of legislation to change it. They get to write the law. You know, the old Woody Guthrie song, you know, the, the, the, the, the, the six gun. The six gun or the rob you would have found these guys did it with a fountain pen. I mean, I tell my students at USC, I said, you know, that kid that robs your iPhone and we have that, you know, and the third time they rob one, they're convicted, they're going to go jail forever. You know, it's terrible. You know, what happens to these swindlers who would, would have fountain pen with their lawyers, with their PR people, you know, they, they get billions, billions. And what did they do? They buy, you know, wineries, they buy yachts, you know, they're off. And there's no accountability. Not one of them. Now one of those guys has actually been charged with anything serious. You know, Alan Sharpton has
described this crash as somebody having a huge party, excesses, just a magnificent party, and then giving the bill to somebody who didn't even go to the party. And that's what's happening. They're trying to shift that blame on to the homeowner, to the worker. And it just, you know, and when, when the homeowners and workers are going to rise up and say, wait a minute, we just, you know, we did what you told us to do and where did the money go? Well, people don't rise up and do teach at the Annabberg School of Communication and Journalism. And unfortunately, PR, you know, and in the business schools, they teach, you know, how to make more, rather than less, ethics doesn't figure. At least we have some ethics courses. The law school, they didn't talk much about ethics. And the basic idea sort of was if we can manipulate people and stay on this, this side of the law, if we don't like the law, we change the law. As I mentioned, you know, makes stuff legal that shouldn't have been made legal. And the sad thing in this society is the mass media is dominated by the very people who are the swindlers. Let's, let's cut to the chase here. Even when I was covering this stuff for the LA Times, the LA Times
wanted telecommunications deregulation so they could own the same television station and newspaper in the same market. The deregulation was the fad for all the big companies, you know, GE, where Ronald Reagan got his great education, used to be a good old American company, making good products. You know, at the time of this meltdown, the main business of GE was mortgage scams and GE capital was responsible for 70, 80 percent general motives. Their most profitable sector was general motives acceptance cooperation, again, the securitization of debt. So we stopped making good light bulbs and refrigerators and good cars. They got into the swindling and now at the end of the day, GE has 82 percent of its profits stored aboard. Two out of three jobs are what? And there's no accountability. And yet the head of GE is head of the president's jobs council. Can you imagine he's shipping jobs abroad and he's head of the jobs council? Now, over these many years, you have interviewed Nixon as a matter of fact, you were consultant for Oliver Stone in his film about Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, Carter, they're out of order, Bush. I mean, so you have had personal access to all these things. And
you know, we don't have enough time to go over how each president and each legislature through time contributed to this. It's can you just make a general statement? People want to blame one president or another, but it's been an arc of trajectory toward corporatocracy. I could make a generalization that Chris Hedges made this point that our truth did retreat here in Santa Fe, which is why I'm here. And it's a good one. We should not get caught up in the theatrics and the personality of this one and that one. Some of my friends are shocked to hear me say, but I actually like Richard Nixon and spent time with them. I got along with Ronald Reagan. I went devoted for either of them, but I enjoyed them. I thought, I just never so much difference in any of them. They're all bright. They all of them. I mean, Ronald Reagan was bright. I don't know where he got the reputation not being bright. He was. And you know, certainly Carter was very bright. His current president is maybe the smartest of all. And I found almost no correlation between the red meat they threw out to the crowds and whether one's a Democrat or Republican
and whether one was supposed to be super smart and the other. The fact is, by the time they're going to be president, they're pretty much bought. They're pretty much bought. And you've got an example that at just this week, here's Barack Obama correctly criticizing Romney over Bain Capital, because Romney has said, vote for me. I'm a businessman. And what is his business? His business was dismembering. He's like an undertaker. He's dismembering companies. The jobs disappear. The communities get hurt. And then you move on. The average 90 % of his business with companies that they tore apart and, you know, less than three, four years. And, you know, but on the other hand, here's Obama turns out does get money from hedge funds and including Bain Capital. And, you know, so, you know, the sad thing is to get to be president, there's a dehumanizing process. You forget where you came from. Bill Clinton forgot that he was a poor boy from Arkansas. You know, Barack Obama forgets that African -Americans this country have been really hurting because of housing meltdown, you know. And
people in Hawaii, by the way, who are not African -American, where he really comes from, are hurting tremendously. The economy of Hawaii is ravaged and the schools are hurting it and everything else, you know. So what happens? I found this with all the people I interviewed. You know, the first president bush, you know, had nothing to do with whether I liked them. And it had nothing to do with whether they were good or bad people. They all started out as pretty good people. And they all started out as pretty smart people. They get caught up in a process where money talks, where special interests dominate, and then you get your handlers, you get your all your advisors, and they tell you how to frame the issue so you will not offend the big money people and how you con the public. And the mass media goes along with it because the mass media is basically owned by those same people. Now, money talks for the big people, but our money barely whispers. We need to know, and this is the minute or two that remain to us, what can we do, how can we protect ourselves? It turns out that the government we thought that was protecting us is not.
What can the average citizen do? Well, the reason I'm here, you know, talking and I'm, you know, there's other things we could all be doing on a nice day is because I think that in the end of the day we have options. We have, we should raise our voice. I mean, you know, maybe the style of the Occupy movement was in everyone's cup of tea, but I can tell you as a guy who toyed economics in college and still as a professor, for the first time we faced up to an issue that has been looming larger and larger, which is income inequality. For the first time we recognize, no, we don't live in some big, everybody in America thinks they're middle class, even if they're, you know, impoverished. They say, oh, middle class, well, not middle class, I'll hit the lottery, I'll get the ticket, I'll be middle class. Well, you know, here in New Mexico, you get an awful lot of poverty. And, and, you know, this is clearly not a 1 % state. And that illusion in America, I think the Occupy movement for the first time shattered that illusion and said, wait a minute, you know, and it's not just a 1%, it's the 0 .001 % that really controlled this country. And they control all the levers of power. The source of optimism is it's not working. It's not working. People know they're
hurting. And the sad thing, though, is they might go to a narrative that blames poor people and lets the fat cats off the hook. That's the Romney. That's the, you know, tea party. I like libertarians. I have a lot of respect for Ron Paul, you know, if he were a candidate, I'd be torn. I mean, if he were running, I thought Ron Paul hit it, hit it out at a park on holding it a fed, holding Wall Street responsible, opposing these wars that have been incredibly costly. So I'm not blasting, you know, people like that. On the other hand, the Republican party has clearly, even more than the Democratic Party, a captive of Wall Street. Romney is one of these pirate capitals. So you don't have a choice there. So that narrative blamed the poor, blame the, you know, idealist. That's not going to work. That's the beginning of a kind of proto -fascism that we saw in Germany. You know, let's find scapegoats, blame immigrants, blame homosexuals, you know, blame women, whatever, blame up to women. You know, that doesn't work. And so I think people who can see through this, and that includes people like Robert Rysch, who was secretary of labor in the Clintons, who come up very, George Stieglitz, who won the Nobel Prize, Paul Volcker, who was appointed by Republicans.
There are plenty of people who see through this now, Brooks Lee Boen, who you mentioned, who was a Clinton appointee to be headed a commodity futures monetization. And people say, we didn't see this coming. She saw this coming in the 1990s. She tried to get legislation passed. She was smashed by Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin -Larran Summers. They destroyed this woman, a brilliant graduate of Stanford Law School. Somebody who had litigated on these issues. Brooks Lee Boen is the great heroine of this piece. So people saw it coming. There are good people, and people watching the show should get informed about this issue. And the way they will get informed is to read your book, The Great American Stick Up, How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats in Rich Wall Street, Wall Mugging Main Street. It's got a great chapter on Brooks Lee Boen. I'm sorry, we didn't have enough time, but this is the book. The Great American Stick Up, our guest today is Bob Sheer. Thank you so much. You are a professor of journalism at the Annenberg School of Journalism at USC. You are the editor at truth dig .com and a webby award -winning internet site for political
information. You've written many, many books. We couldn't talk about them all. Thank you for taking the time to be with us today. Thank you for giving me the time, which you really have to explore these issues. Yes, thank you. And I'd like to thank your audience for being with us today on report from Santa Fe. We'll see you next week. Report from Santa Fe is made possible in part by grants from the members of the National Education Association of New Mexico, an organization of professionals who believe that investing in public education is an investment in our state's economic future. And by a grant from the Healey Foundation, Taos, New Mexico.
Series
Report from Santa Fe
Episode
Robert Scheer
Producing Organization
KENW-TV, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, New Mexico
Contributing Organization
KENW-TV (Portales, New Mexico)
AAPB ID
cpb-aacip-5ac2008c967
If you have more information about this item than what is given here, or if you have concerns about this record, we want to know! Contact us, indicating the AAPB ID (cpb-aacip-5ac2008c967).
Description
Episode Description
This week's guest on "Report from Santa Fe" is Robert Scheer, editor in chief of Truthdig, who has built a reputation for strong social and political writing over his 30 years as a journalist. Scheer can be heard on the political radio program "Left, Right and Center" on National Public Radio. His political website Truthdig has received four Webby Awards for the best Political Blog on the Internet. In 2011 Ithaca College awarded him the Izzy Award for outstanding achievement in independent media. Scheer discusses his latest book, "The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street," which uncovers the hidden story behind one of the greatest financial crimes of our time: the Wall Street financial crash of 2008 and the consequent global recession. Scheer's non-partisan account of the financial meltdown clearly lays out the relationship between Washington and Big Business and its impact on Main Street.
Broadcast Date
2012-06-23
Created Date
2012-06-23
Asset type
Episode
Genres
Interview
Media type
Moving Image
Duration
01:07:31.735
Embed Code
Copy and paste this HTML to include AAPB content on your blog or webpage.
Credits
Producer: Ryan, Duane W.
Producing Organization: KENW-TV, Eastern New Mexico University, Portales, New Mexico
AAPB Contributor Holdings
KENW-TV
Identifier: cpb-aacip-a59c30e5ca1 (Filename)
Format: DVD
If you have a copy of this asset and would like us to add it to our catalog, please contact us.
Citations
Chicago: “Report from Santa Fe; Robert Scheer,” 2012-06-23, KENW-TV, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC, accessed July 5, 2025, http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-5ac2008c967.
MLA: “Report from Santa Fe; Robert Scheer.” 2012-06-23. KENW-TV, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Web. July 5, 2025. <http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-5ac2008c967>.
APA: Report from Santa Fe; Robert Scheer. Boston, MA: KENW-TV, American Archive of Public Broadcasting (GBH and the Library of Congress), Boston, MA and Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://americanarchive.org/catalog/cpb-aacip-5ac2008c967