Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Congressional Backbone Needed
Congress needs to show some backbone before the federal government pours more money on the financial bonfire started by the arsonists on Wall Street.
1. Congress should hold a series of hearings and invite broad public comment on any proposed bailout. Congress is supposed to be a co-equal branch of our federal government. It needs to stop the stampede to give Bush a $700 billion check. Public hearings should be held to determine what alternatives might exist to the four-page proposal advanced by Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson.
2. Whatever is ultimately done, the bailout plan should not be insulated from judicial review. Remember there is a third co-equal branch of government - the judiciary. The judiciary does not need to review each buy-and-sell decision by the Treasury Department, but there should be some boundaries established to the Treasury Department's discretion, and judicial review is needed to ensure that unbridled discretion is not abused.
3. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. The bailout that is ultimately approved must provide for full and timely disclosure of all bailout details. This will discourage conflicts of interest and limit the potential of sweetheart deals.
4. Firms that accept government bailout monies must agree to disclose their transactions and be more honest in their accounting. They should agree to end off-the-books accounting maneuvers, for example.
5. Taxpayers must be protected by having a stake in any recovery. The bailout plan should provide opportunities for taxpayers to recoup funds that are made available to problem financial institutions or to benefit from the financial institutions' rising stock price and increased profitability after being bailed out.
6. The current so-called "regulators" cannot be trusted. The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), "the investigative arm of Congress" and "the congressional watchdog," must regularly review the bailout. We cannot trust the financial "regulators," who allowed the slide into financial disaster, to manage the bailout without outside monitoring.
7. It is time to put the federal cop back on the financial services beat. Strong financial regulations and independent regulators are necessary to rebuild trust in our financial institutions and to prevent further squandering of our tax dollars. The Justice Department and the SEC also need to scrutinize the expanding mess with an eye to uncovering corporate crime and misdeeds. Major news outlets are reporting that the FBI is investigating American International Group, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Lehman Brothers.
8. Cap executive compensation and stop giving the Wall Street gamblers golden parachutes. The CEOs who have created the financial disaster should not be allowed to leave with millions in hand when so many pensioners and small shareholders are seeing their investments evaporate. The taxpayers are bailing out Wall Street so that the financial system continues to function, not to further enrich the CEOs and executives who created this mess.
9. Congress should pass the Financial Consumers' Information and Representation Act, to permit citizens to form a federally-chartered nonprofit membership organization to strengthen consumer representation in government proceedings that concern the financial services industry. As the savings and loan disasters of the 1980s and the Wall Street debacles of the last few years have demonstrated, there is an overriding need for consumers and taxpayers to have the organized means to enhance their influence on financial issues.
10. The repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, separating traditional banks from investment banks, helped pave the way for the current disaster. It is time to re-regulate the financial sector. The current crisis is also leading to even further conglomeration and concentration in the financial sector. We must revive and apply antitrust principles, so that banking consumers can benefit from competition and taxpayers are less vulnerable to too-big-to-fail institutions, merging with each other to further concentration.
11. Congress should impose a securities and derivatives speculation tax. A tax on financial trading would slow down the churning of stocks and financial instruments, and could raise substantial monies to pay for the bailout.
12. Regulators should impose greater margin requirements, making speculators use more of their own money and diminishing reckless casino capitalism.
Ask your representative a few questions: "What should be done to limit banking institutions from investing in high-risk activities? What should be done to ensure banks are meeting proper capital standards given the financial quicksand that has spread as a result of the former Senator Phil Gramm's deregulation efforts? And, "What is being done to protect small investors?"
P.S. Shareholders also have some work to do. They should have listened when Warren Buffett called securities derivatives a "time bomb" and "financial weapons of mass destruction." The Wall Street crooks and unscrupulous speculators use and draining of "other people's money" out of pension funds and mutual funds should motivate painfully passive shareholders to organize to gain greater authority to control the companies they own. Where is the shareholder uprising?
- Posted in
123 Comments so far
Show AllWhat magnificent, insightful suggestions!
This guy should run for President!
q
PS I've spent a lifetime listening to right-wingers piss and moan about Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
One point is now glaringly and painfully obvious: Roosevelt's financial reforms worked.
Amen!
For truly surrealistic reading, go online and search for the statement that Bill Clinton gave at the signing ceremony for the Gramm-Leach bill that repealed the FDR era Glass-Steagel banking regulations.
At one point, Bill Clinton is actually talking about all the billions that consumers will save by allowing exactly the sort of actions that have gotten us in deep trouble today. Ooops, maybe that was a typo and it should have read that these pro-banking reforms signed by Bill Clinton were going to COST us consumers billions if not trillions.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/25/as_bush_admin_pushes_700b_for
RALPH NADER: That’s when you know the system is decayed and corrupt, that the people who brought us this disaster—Robert Rubin, with Bill Clinton pushing through the financial deregulation monster in 1999, which we opposed, which opened the gates for this kind of wild speculation and this casino capitalism, is still an adviser. He’s an adviser to Barack Obama. He’s an adviser to members of Congress. Henry Paulson cashed out at Goldman Sachs in 2006 a half-a-billion dollars. And now he goes to Washington to bail out his buddies.
The public outrage out there is really enormous. The calls coming into C-SPAN yesterday were overwhelmingly against this bailout, this outrageous inequity, this double standard between the guys at the top and the people who are going to have to pay the bills under this bailout, the taxpayers and the consumers.
.
Milton Freidman, unfettered deregulation started in the Reagan years and continued by insane deregulation in the Bush presidency. All Republican, all greed, all tax cuts, all deregulation, all war, all the time. Remember the Clinton economy? We call that responsible governance. You get a surplus..
Sorry, madcow, no cigar.
Repealing Glass-Steagall was a big deal. We certainly would currently not be in this (entirely predictable) situation if it weren't for the investment banking made possible by Clinton and his fellow anti-New Deal corporatists, Republican and Democrat.
We all know about Robert Rubin, but even Robert Reich was a starry-eyed deregulationist for a time. It was about speculation in the technology boom which anyone not drunk with corporate high life could see would be a bubble. Bubbles everywhere and Clinton and pals were in the thick of it like any jet-set gamblers.
To top it off, Clinton's support of and the passage of the dizzy deregulatory Telecommunications Act of 1996 stuck a dagger into the heart of our republic in another legislative wild party with his new friends.
Nice list.
Democrats don't care
Clinton was a "Democrat"
His poop smelled like sweet lilacs
His crimes against humanity were humanitarian gestures
His corporatism was populism
Not a dimes worth of difference
You seemed to leave out the deregulation that sprouted during William Blowjobs 8 years of Republicanism. Do you need a list ?
I want to see hundreds, if not thousands, of Wall Street execs., bankers and brokers going to jail. Not country club jail. Real jail. Prison.
With a cell mate named "Bubba".
This would send a shock wave down K street that'd have a real effect.
If the police can knock down the doors of peacful protesters, without warrant, and point an automatic weapon in their face why can't those same police barge into these investment banks and start tasering real crooks and criminals?
Not that I want any of that to actually happen.
I'm a Constitutionalist.
But if they made in into a tv show the ratings would be through the roof.
Cops. Wall Street Edition.
Thanks Ralph, your steady thoughtfulness and common sense is much appreciated. If your presidential bid doesn't work out, I think you'd be a perfect leader for the "Financial Consumers' Information and Representation" organization.
You have my vote, Mr. Nader!
Good job Ralph, thanks. You got my vote.
Question for CD editors -
Mr. Nader is running for office and his article is allowed on this site.
Cindy Sheehan is running for office but her articles are not allowed anymore.
Why?
Sheehan said she was no longer allowed to appear on this site now that she is running against Pelosi. Obviously the rules are different for Nader. I have the same question: why?
Why in either case? Are we not allowed to hear the voices of people who dare to run against the Democrats?
CD sent me an email asking for money. I said no for exactly this reason. If CD would open their site to a true progressive - lefty debate, I'd give a donation. But if they want to just be an adjunct of the Democratic party, they won't get a cent from me and I'll continue to fund other progressive-lefty sites like Counterpunch and ZMag.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I had not heard this, and I must say it requires, no mandates, a response from CD.
Good timing this news coupled with a request for donations to CD......I am waiting.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
"Congressional Backbone Needed"
I'll say it again - my Republican Congressman is 'emphatically' against this bailout.
Why aren't the Democrats?
It seems that there is plenty of backbone. Sad that we have to look to the Republican party to find it.
Republicans and Democrats are invertebrates. That is the only qualification for being a member of congress.
Ralph, the reason why the Democrats don't have a backbone is because their herd of sheep also lack a backbone. Once the cast their vote, they will crawl back into the woodwork whence they came.
Some one also mentioned Cindy Sheehan being banned for this site. If that is true we ought to boycot the status quo turds.
Actually, the whole bit about the Dems not having a backbone is a myth designed to obscure the fact that the Democrats are just consistently on the wrong side.
If you watch the way the Dems constantly fight any opposition to their left like the Greens or Mr. Nader, one would never think they don't have a backbone. They have plenty of backbone when it comes to denying voters a real choice on the ballot. And they are viscious and dirty fighters when fighting any person or groups to their left.
The only time when the Democrats appear not to have a backbone is when we want them to oppose the Republicans and the corporate agenda. And, that's not a lack of backbone, and its not a lack of political skill. Instead, its the basic and simple fact that the Dems are funded by basically the same elite groups of the wealthy and corporations.
For instance, the Obama campaign has raised some $23 million from the Financial sector. McCain is at about $19 million. And that's just to their campaigns, and not to separate party accounts or congressional campaigns etc. (not how the Dems scream about a few shares of stock Mr. Nader owns and try to ignore the millions in direct payments they take from exactly the people who've caused this crisis and who would get the bailout money.)
So, its not lack of backbone that's the problem. Its a fundamental conflict of interest. The Dems are funded by exactly the people who need to be regulated and prosecuted. That's why they do nothing. Backbone has nothing to do with it.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"For instance, the Obama campaign has raised some $23 million from the Financial sector. McCain is at about $19 million."
I'd like to see some substantiation of these figures.
Also, your understanding of campaign financing by the business community is backwards. The money chases the candidate. All major funders contribute to both parties; it's a political form of hedging bets.
Oh, and about our exchange the other day when I was too busy to get back to the thread. I said that you "mischaracterized" what was said. The link which I provided showed that your spin was false.
q
Here's a good site that will show you where all the moola comes from. It's a reputable site.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectorallc.php?cycle=2008
Yes! Exactly! Even Ralph Nader refers to the Dems as spineless but Ralph is just too nice! How about calling them sociopaths, something closer to the truth. They've got plenty of spine, just not in support of us, the people. They don't care.
Example: I went to a town hall with my Democratic Senator. I asked him why he doesn't support single payer health care for all Americans, considering the great majority of Americans want it and considering how many Americans die as a result of not having health care. His answer? Verbatim, "I don't believe that the American people are ready for a single payer health care system."
If that's not spine, what is? My mom would have called it gall. That Senator has gall!
We are the American people. We still have time to save our democracy from these crooks and thugs! Don't believe the Democrats. They want us fearful so they can continue the corporate hold on us, which is how they keep their jobs.
Heads up Duopolists! We have had enough of your scam. You are responsible for the slaughter of 1.3 million innocent Iraqi people - mostly children - and you want more war? Is that why the defense industry gives you both so much $money$? The economy is tanking, your duopoly offers no solutions we approve of. Why should we stick with this lose-lose program?
Vote Nader, 08! It's time to bring the duopoly down before is does us in!
Ralph...it is great that you are now on 45 State ballots. Now I won't have to write you in, as I have done for over 30 years.
VOTE NADER !
Did everyone notice how CD refuses to even acknowledge that Mr. Nader is running for President in the bio line at the bottom?
VOTE NADER!!!!!!
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Ralph Nader; Sell your Fidelity Magellan Funds.
Their Top-25 holdings include Merril Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Wachovia.
Google: ralph nader investments fidelity magellan.
Then Google fidelity magellan top 25 holdings.
Ralph Nader is the Pied Piper kids. Wake up.
He sounds good, but has done nothing except effectively emasculate the 3rd party movement for two decades. LOOK WHERE WE ARE! IMAGINE IF THESE LAST TWO DECADES HE'D BEEN ORGANIZING A 3RD PARTY! He would be a tremendous positive force-why not?
Because he serves his GOP masters by making flashy sound-great sound bites, then DOING NOTHING, except attacking Democrats on Fox News and playing the stock market.
And fooled people think their voice is heard through his.
He is laughing all the way to his Stock Broker's.
Ah, the old attack the messenger ploy. Let's ignore why the Democrats aren't proposing anything as sensible as what Mr. Nader is proposing, and instead just try the old personal smear tactic against Mr. Nader for daring to show what a real plan to protect American's would look like in comparision to the Dems and Repub plans to protect Wall St.
Take careful not of how the Democrats act exactly like the Republicans in this regard. The willingness to go straight to personal smears to avoid debating an issue where they'd be on the wrong side for about 80% of Americans.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
"why the Democrats aren't proposing anything as sensible as what Mr. Nader is proposing"
I was wondering that very thing. Then I wondered what reception Ralph would get if he was a Senator with these ideas. There is an opportunity to get SOME things into this bill, but the incredible urgency, that seems like an executive charade to me, is going to pare down any chance for most of Ralph's ideas to take hold. This manufactured urgency is a political ploy by the Republicans, in my opinion. They use it a lot.
Out Roveing Rove. Sad when one sees this sort of politics from a Democrat, only because it exposes the myth that they labor under. Thanks "translucent" for being so transparent.
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I lean towards being a conspiracy hound, but that's just too much to believe. Nader may not have the political skill to achieve his presidential or third party goals. That doesn't mean his ideas are bad or that he's part of some Repub plot.
Hey translucent, until recently most of Obama's investments was tied up with conservative mutual funds. Obama also has stock with Skyterra Communications and AVI Biopharma, both happen to get a lot of money from a source Obama should be familiar with: the federal government.
Skyterra Communications and AVI Biopharma, aside from sharing the same deep-pocketed benefactor, the two have one more thing in common. They both provide services in an area that has become a hot-button issue on Capitol Hill and with the electorate: homeland security.
Is translucent ok with Obama's homeland security investments but not ok with Ralph's having Raytheon stock? And for all you know Ralph could have sold it just like Obama.
Before you peck at the speck in Nader's eye why don't you get a crane and yank the beam out of Obama's? Nader has done a hell of a lot more for American than than the scrawny, punk-kid, chicken hawk, sell-out Obama.
...the scrawny, punk-kid, chicken hawk, sell-out Obama.? Just smiling.
__ My apologies to __ M o r d e c h a i __
Shiblikov September 25th, 2008 1:21 pm, as I hadn't seen your comment ( when I wrote this ; - )
Shesssh,
____ don't you know that _ r.o.a.c.h.e.s _ are
____ i n v e r t e b r a t e s ____ ? ! ? ! … … … …
… … … … ( i.e. _ n o _ s p i n e ) … … … …
Namaste
Lets apply some basic logic, translucent.
If Nader was a Pied Piper he would be promoting a bailout to bolster his vested interests in Wall Street so that he could offload them in the short term.
Nader HAS NOT questioned the efficacy of the financial industry. He HAS admonished the US electorate and elected officials to restore the tried and true New Deal financial industry regulation that resulted in more than fifty years of no US financial crisis and would still be preventing financial crisis if Ronny Raygun and his successors had not dismantled financial industry regulation.
Lets apply some basic logic, translucent.
If Nader was a Pied Piper he would be promoting a bailout to bolster his vested interests in Wall Street so that he could offload them in the short term.
Nader HAS NOT questioned the efficacy of the financial industry. He HAS admonished the US electorate and elected officials to restore the tried and true New Deal financial industry regulation that resulted in more than fifty years of no US financial crisis and would still be preventing financial crisis if Ronny Raygun and his successors had not dismantled financial industry regulation.
Lets apply some basic logic, translucent.
If Nader was a Pied Piper he would be promoting a bailout to bolster his vested interests in Wall Street so that he could offload them in the short term.
Nader HAS NOT questioned the efficacy of the financial industry. He HAS admonished the US electorate and elected officials to restore the tried and true New Deal financial industry regulation that resulted in more than fifty years of no US financial crisis and would still be preventing financial crisis if Ronny Raygun and his successors had not dismantled financial industry regulation.
Uh-oh.
Ralph Nader has suggested something.
Count the minutes until Congressional Dems do the opposite.
Quite frankly I think we should wait until Obama takes office before a bailout is discussed.
Why, so he can implement it after the election ?
I think we need to see what kind of people these candidates are BEFORE the election. Right now they're not looking too different, the Dem and Repub candidates at least.
.
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/9/25/as_bush_admin_pushes_700b_for
As Bush Admin Pushes $700B for Wall Street, Ralph Nader Asks, “Why Is There Need for a Bailout?”
As the Bush administration intensifies its pressure for Congress to quickly approve a $700 billion bailout of the financial industry, we get reaction from Independent presidential candidate and consumer advocate Ralph Nader. Nader calls Democratic claims of White House concessions “wish fulfillment” and says the bailout might not be needed in the first place.
.
.
From the DN site, Nader says:
It’s quite interesting how the Bush regime is creating its own panic. When the government keeps saying Chicken Little, Chicken Little, the market is going to react in a very nervous manner. It’s a reversal of what the government usually does, which is to counsel stability and patience, etc.
So, the first question Congress should ask in detailed hearings, which aren’t occurring, is simply, why is there need for a bailout? Second is, if there is a need for a bailout, why $700 billion? And third, if there is a need for a bailout, what kind of bailout? Taxpayer equity? So the taxpayer can recover if these companies make a profit, they can recover surplus, perhaps the way they did on the taxpayer bailout in 1979 with Chrysler, where Jimmy Carter demanded that Chrysler issue stock warrants to the Treasury, and Chrysler turned around, and the Treasury sold the warrants for a $400 million profit.
.
BACKBONE!!??? We donn got to show you no stinkin' BACKBONE!!
Sorry Ralph... looks like it's a day late and 700 BILLION dollars short.
Congress kowtowed and kissed the monkeypuppet's errr... ring. We're screwed.
Sioux Rose
SAMSON: Bill Clinton made the same allegations in favor of NAFTA. One wonders if these people truly did not understand the likely results of these political maneuvers or just like Arthur Miller's Willie Loman, knew they could get by on a shoeshine and a smile. Clinton is foremost a salesman, and as Michael Moore related, our best REPUBLICAN prez. We see the same salesmanship, even on cooked evidence, for Iraq down to controlling the media, embedded reporters, no photos of caskets returning, etc to promote the LIE that things are going swimmingly well over there. And lots believe it, after all to their minds, "If it's on CNN, it's got to be news!"
Is it true that CD won't carry articles written by Cindy Sheehan? Where can I find information on this? Anyone got a link?
If this is true, then CD won't get any donations from me until they allow her back on the site, and start endorsing every progressive running for office. This isn't just a news site.
I just sent CD A donation and if it is true about Cindy Sheehan; then I WANT MY DONATION BACK!
I found it. Here's a comment from her to a CD article about her Congressional campaign.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/08/09/10903/
cindysheehan August 9th, 2008 8:42 pm
Dear Friends,
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR AMAZING SUPPORT!
As you know, I often read the posts on Common Dreams because I find it to be one of the last bastions of non-partisanship and I get some great insight here...but also great support even though they don't post my articles anymore due to CD's non-profit status, I think.
I promise not to disappoint you and to stick to progressive principles to help humanity: peace, environmental sustainability, economic equality, single-payer healthcare and free, quality education as a human right.
It was an extremely difficult task to qualify for the ballot, but we did it and we did it with our integrity intact...win or lose (and I think we have a great chance of winning even though we haven't raised "2.3" million dollars) we will do it with our integrity intact.
But, win or lose, I promise that the struggle to wrest the control of our nation (and world) from the hands of the corporate fascists will continue.
This is huge, I am only the 6th candidate in California history to qualify as an independent...it hasn't been done by a Congressional candidate since 1996, and then it wasn't in SF against the Queen of the Corporatists, Nancy Pelosi.
Again, I am deeply grateful for your support, for you love and for your integrity.
Love
Cindy
(Happy Birthday Sioux Rose, I received your beautiful book, it is on my desk at Campaign HQ)
Hmmm, CD just posted a Nader essay, so apparently the fact that someone is actively seeking office isn't a stopper.
Lot of Nader lovers here.
Does a single one of you deny Nader is invested in Wachovia, Merril Lynch or GOLDMAN SACHS?
Follow His money. Know Ralph by the Companies he Keeps. Words are cheap.
A smart poster below asked how much good Nader might do as a Senator? Too much. That is why he has carefully not gone there.
Come on; ANYONE deny ralph is invested in Wall Street and the DOD? I challenge anyone to allege this.
Raytheon, who makes cluster bombs too! Easy to verify. Follow instructions in post below!
Bye Now.
Give it up. You can post but apparently cannot bother to read the rather effective rebuttals to your smutty distortions about Ralph Nader.
If he were what you characterise him as being then why would he be working so hard to deny Wall Street their bailout money? Wouldnt that be working counter to his investments? You are really and truly in need of some critical thinking, or maybe you should think prior to posting.
That sound you hear is the laughter of smarter folks than you, why not remain silent and have people think you are dumb rather than posting and removing all doubt?
We see things, not as they are, but as we are.
Anais Nin
I see you do not deny Nader is currently heavily invested in Wachovia, Merril Lynch or GOLDMAN SACHS.
Because it is a matter of record. I did not characterize him, I made exact specific allegations.
Which no one refuted, least of all you.
What you did do was cast aspersions upon my intellect and trot your tired quote out again.
Check this out. Reality 101 for you: You see things not as they are, but as you want them to be.
Still waiting for someone to deny Nader's invested in the companies he's correctly bad-mouthing while simultaneously being invested in them.
Insult me some more. It's epidemic among Nader Lovers/GOP trolls this season.
"effective rebuttals?" you skiipped that part and went to the personal insult.
(ardee; your ugly mouth and insults are a reflection of your heart, not of me. I know you want to chime in and be back-patted on the thread, but you can achieve that without getting personal.)
Don't you have a slumlord to be propping up.
Would you care to look at his record with similar vigilance
Wanna start with his republican voting record or his corporate advisors ?
Hypocrite