Phil Angelides and the Left's Expectations of Corporate America

This morning I read this editorial in my local paper. I wrote a letter to the editor in response, but they never publish me so here it is:

Your editorial supporting Phil Angelides as the head of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission illustrates one of the problems we have in the media in this country right now: An attitude that the nation's corporations are at fault for all of our woes and should be hauled out in public, beaten senselessly, slapped with a boatload of new regulations, then sent back to work with a pat on the head for their trouble.

Angelides should be interviewing congressmen like Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, who beat back Republicans that saw FNMA and FHLMC getting too big and wanted more regulation. He should be interrogating Fannie and Freddie's enablers and their executives, and examining the wisdom of the Community Reinvestment Act that forced banks to lend to the bad risks that ultimately started the financial meltdown. My bet is that he won't do that because he's a Democrat, and while both parties share responsibility for this mess, the Democrats and their wrong-headed idealistic policies have considerably more.

But whether or not we think Angelides is the best choice for this role is secondary to why your editorial is bad. Your attitude toward corporate America in general, and banks in particular, is wrong and destructive. You refer to Angelides's role as "lead attack dog on banks" and note that he has a history of "staying one step ahead of corporate fat cats" and that you hope he is as aggressive as possible because the "arrogance of the nation's financial leaders knows no bounds." Your contempt for these companies, which employ millions of Americans and make it possible for our economy to function, is just bizarre. It's similar to Democrats' recent demonization of the health insurance industry.

We live in a capitalist nation. Corporations exist for the sole purpose of earning profits for their shareholders. They are not immoral, but they are typically amoral. Your outrage is misplaced because you expect them to do things they are not there to do. Angelides's question to Goldman's CEO about selling mortgages and betting their value would go down seems pointless to me. Blankfein's response that the investors knew the risks seems reasonable. What did you expect him to say??

Laws and regulations exist to maintain a level playing field for all corporate combatants. If a corporation breaks a law, they should be punished, and if Goldman or others did, obviously they should pay a price. But sitting on your high horse and complaining that times are tough and someone ought to pay, even though they didn't legally do anything wrong, is ridiculous.