Ashley Leaves Europe!

No way. It's April 23rd. I'm leaving in a few days. Wow.

Yeah, one day I'm thinking I have a month left, the next I have a few days left.

Being abroad has been one of the best experiences of my life.

Below is a picture from left to right, of my cohort, Pedro, and my boss, Mr. Haglund, and myself, in front of the European Parliament, the Altiero Spinelli entrance. They were great people to work with.

The sun is shining beautifully today, and the temperature is starting to grow warmer. I'm looking forward to going back to Utah, but at the same time, I am going to miss the lush foliage and relaxing temperatures Brussels is currently offering.

However, beyond the natural environment lies the human environment, in which a wholly different way of living resides in the hearts of the Belgian people. They possess a certain ease of life, and they embrace and cultivate every good around them. They are able to balance their work lives with their home lives. These are qualities which I hope to imbue in my life.

I have made many good friends here, and fortunately with modern technology I should be able to maintain these relationships. I am, however, greatly excited to go home and see my friends and family once more.

I am so lucky to have had this experience, and I look forward to applying what I have learned and enjoyed to the rest of my life.

Knokkne and Damme

On the weekend, I went to the city of Knokkne with Elisabeth (who I live with), her parents, and a nice Romanian girl named Anna, where we biked along the seaside for hours! So beautiful, and wonderful weather. We found this funky iron rabbit thing in the middle of the beach. I tried to climb it, and utterly failed. We had lunch in a little outdoor cafe on the beach, and we biked around after to see other shops and sights.

We then proceeded to go the village of Damme, located on the outskirts of Brugges. We looked around in all the little shops here as well. I truly enjoyed how old the city felt - - it was like being warped back in time.

Only a Few More Weeks!

What?? It is April?

Yes, despite what the weather tells us, it is in fact April. And I only have until the 25th to keep on enjoying this wonderful European experience!

I thought it might be intersting to post a summary I made of a meeting I attended this week, conducted by Chairman Angelides on the economic crisis as it struck us on 2008.

Presentation by Chairman Phil Angelides of the conclusions of the US Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission (FCIC) 12/4/11

Mr. Angelides has served as the California State treasurer for 1999-2007. He is chairing this special committee. He currently has a private business in real estate. He met with the CRIS Committee. His committee's role was to look at financial institutions. The US Attorney General was told of any violation they found. On January 27th the conclusions of the committee were presented. There is a widely available report at www.fcic.law.stanford.edu. Twenty-six million Americans were without work in some manifestation when the report was released. Eight to thirteen million families will lose their homes.

The question they asked themselves as they did the report was, how did we get the 2008 dilemma?

Introduction to Topic by Mr. Angelides

• This crisis was avoidable, there were many warning signs.
• The heads of finance did not look at the problems.
• The 1990's had bad lending processes, and we took part in risky trading activities.
• Financial firms did not examine anything.
• Wall Street did a load of mortgage securities (Moody's especially had many securities).
• Alan Greenspan and US Presidents espoused the "self-correcting nature of markets," but the markets did not correct themselves.
• We dealt with over-the-counter derivatives, the shadow-banking system, and federal oversight was done by the weakest supervisors.
• The Federal Reserve and Security and Exchange Commission could have stepped in, but they didn't.
• There were no regulations on banks. Regulators kept saying that firms were regulating fine. There was thirty years of deregulation.
• Firms were expected to have self-preservation but they didn't, and top executives acted wrong. Financial institutions got too big to manage and they failed. There was also a lack of transparency. Before 2008, companies borrowed a lot. Five big banks were operating on extraordinarily thin capital. Borrowing was short-term and had to be replenished often. Transparency was not required or wanted.
• A $13 trillion shadow-banking system was larger than actual banking system.
• Key policymakers were unprepared.
• Risk had not been diversified, but concentrated.
• The Federal Reserve Bank of NY looked into it all with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only a month before it fell apart.
• The crisis was fueled by lack of morality and loss of confidence.
• Borrowers defaulted on mortgages. Concerning financial firms, critical information about the quality of mortgages were not exposed. There were no systematically-funded institutions.

His personal answers:

Little critical self-examination was done in Wall Street. TARP was the tip of the iceberg in a government attempt to prop up the public sector. The Security and Exchange Commission brings in more fees and fines than the proposed budget. In order to prevent these mistakes from happening again, Chairman Angelides supports an accelerated pace of reform, which can be helped along by a new law from Obama and Congress if the law is fully implemented. Financial laws must be enforced right, and the rule of law should not exempt those with law and power. There must be corporate responsibility.

Answers for questions with EPP Members

• The EU and US need a regulatory framework.
• A new budget by Rep. Paul Ryan will strip away valuable provisions.
• Regulatory leverage is a game Wall Street will play hard.

Answers for questions from Christian Democrats

• Chairman Angelides thought that more bilateral discussions between regulatory bodies would help prevent the crisis.
• The US citizens need to see themselves as prudent insurers.
• The Dodd-Frank Bill covers carried interest, and how it should be taxed.

Answers for questions from the Social Democrats

• Mr. Angelides was surprised at the level of warning bells and substantial information. Compensation systems were a big driver.
• Up until 2007-2008, everyone thought that the market would correct itself. The ideology of free markets unbounded had taken hold.
• The quickness of Wall Street versus the speed of any enforcement regulators is not matched - Wall Street moves fast.
• Alan Greenspan was not inclined to do more regulations. He said that we do not need regulation, but law enforcement.
• Between 2000 and 2006 the Federal Reserve referred 3 cases only. Citigroup, for example, came clean too late, and there was no deterrence.
• Concerning credit regulating agencies, there was some regulatory change, but not as far as they needed to go.
• Chairman Angelides wants investors to pay for ratings.
• Concerning the Community Reinvestment Act, banks need to make loans in places they red lined (such as poor areas), thus making the banks socially responsible.
• The current structure for board of directors and public sectors is not working. The board of directors were not guiding the companies.
• Warren Buffett owned 20% of Moody's. Fifty-five percent was with his other shareholders. He feigned ignorance.
• Chairman Angelides admitted that the playing field is tilted for certain individuals running for public offices.
• The US has a policy deficit when it comes to generating profits at home.
• The global crisis financial debt has caused a huge impact on the public sector. California, for example, was spending more than it was putting in. Chairman Angelides also ran against Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. There was $41 billion less generated revenue than 2007. The median pension for California teachers was $2,400/month.

Answers for Questions from the Left

• The technology bubble made it look like the Federal Reserve would allow something like what happened to happen. The technology bubble was similar to the economy bubble (banks helped Enron arrange their debt, without openness and honesty).
• The commission Mr. Angelides chairs is composed of 10 individuals. Six were reported by Democratic leadership, with five being Democrats and one Independent. Four were chosen by Republican leadership, with four being Republican. To be on this commission, the individuals had to be involved in housing, finance, or banking, and not holding public office.
• At the end of the investigation, Republicans could not agree on their positions on the economic matter. Republicans had a concurring opinion. They could agree on mortgage fraud being rampant. However, they could not assign responsibility to actions.
• The decision to let certain banks go and others not went case-by-case.
• Many academics warned of the possibility of a meltdown.

Time is Dwindling

I officially have less than a month here in Belgium!

Wow, what an experience.

The past few weeks, I have been working towards arranging a US Delegation coming to the Parliament, and one for the EPP Group Presidency going to the US. This requires me to research, network, and communicate to find good candidates for guest speaking, while simultaneously pondering over whom in the US would be interesting and helpful for the EPP members.

My research for the EPP delegation has led me to delve into South Carolina, where I have been learning all about different businesses and politicians that run the state. I was surprised, for example, that BP had a branch there.

It is also home to Governor Nikki Haley.

Gov. Haley was elected back in late 2010 to become the first non-white and woman to serve as Governor for the state. She is also the youngest governor in the US. What I find interesting about this woman is her ability to captivate her state's constituents (and beyond). She has been part of the state's House of Representatives for two terms, beating the longest serving state legislator in a Republican primary, and was reelected by a very hefty vote. When she shortly thereafter ran for Governor, she was endorsed by big names such as Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, and was a strong part of the Tea Party.

Due to her international activity, such as meeting with Israelis to help build jobs in her home and international investment in her state, she has received much acclaim and recognition. She is also prospected to be a potential running mate for Palin in 2012 (assuming Palin gets past her primary opponents, of course). She has been successful in getting things passed that she has promised her people, such as ensuring that the legislature pass an on-the-record, roll call vote bill. Thus, all of these qualities provide a politician potentially worth the interest of international leaders.

At work, we are also paying great attention to what is going on in the Middle East. The focus has shifted steadily from solely Libya, to the whole image of the Middle East. Last week I was able to listen and talk to leadership from the Washington Institute, who gave us up-to-date strategy information on the US objective in the Middle East. However, a good amount of the information was not much different than what I could have gotten out of a newspaper. I asked who these rebels were, that we were defending, and received the answer that even the US doesn't know, it is something we learn as we go in and infiltrate the society. From a European and/or skeptical, aware American perspective, this answer is not satisfactory for the US leading another war on the anniversary of the Iraq War. Even from abroad I can sense the growing public dissent back at home. Europeans have many opinions. Some are surprised and pleased that France is dealing with the issue. Others are tired of the Westernization that they sense the US, UK, and France are imposing on these nations. Most Europeans that I spoke to were happy with President Obama's half-hearted efforts concerning intervening deeper into the Middle East, but were very discouraged as soon as the US led the sudden, fierce no fly zone enforcement. As soon as this was on the news, many of my coworkers immediately connected the word "Libya" to the word "oil," displaying the image the US has made on Europeans. Some also viewed Qaddafi as a good dictator - one that has provided water (which is dwindling in the Middle East and will probably increase tensions and problems universally in that region), no conflicts, and an accelerated increase in international monetary prestige for the country (even if a lot of it went into his family's pockets, and came from American businesses). While no dictator is desired, several question why the US selected Libya to intervene with over the other numerous countries where genocide and other violations against human rights are taking place.

As quickly as I was recognizing and pondering about the situation, the media has shifted back to the economic problems back at home, and less about Libya. Furthermore, it is widening its scope to analyze the situations of areas such as Bahrain, Lebanon, and Yemen. Iran is seen as the megaphone for anti-Westernization dissent, and many foresee that Iran's perspective on the Libyan situation, as it develops, will mold the opinions of other Middle East nations. Egypt, like Iraq, is being looked at as a testing ground for democracy. The policy taking place in Libya has been compared to President Bush Senior's Operation Desert Storm, which I find interesting. UN sanctioned movement, with the US leading it...sounds similar, yet different motives. Libya may or may not receive the same fate as Iraq did.

I learn all of these facts and concepts through my weekly news briefings and daily meetings. I love that I can hear all these perspectives, because it helps me form a more educated opinion of my own. That's probably one of the best parts of interning at the Parliament - the ability to take so many different individuals, with different backgrounds, languages, and histories, and to combine us together in an attempt to learn how to maintain peace in foreign policy.