SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
'Orwellian' and 'Bizarre': Warren Skewers Mnuchin for Doublespeak on Breaking Up Banks
While campaigning, Donald Trump frequently said he'd support the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall
May 18, 2017
Calling his comments and attempted explanations both "bizarre" and "crazy," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) slammed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin during a hearing on Thursday for backtracking on repeated promises by the Trump administration that it would support breaking up the big banks by reinstating a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act.
"This is just bizarre... this is crazy." --Sen. Elizabeth Warren
The tense exchange came as Mnuchin, a former executive at Goldman Sachs and OneWest before being picked by President Donald Trump to lead the Treasury, explained to the Senate Banking Committee the administration policy does not favor breaking up too-big-to-fail banks or separating their commercial banking side from their riskier investment banking operations.
"The president and this administration have said repeatedly that they support a 21st century Glass-Steagall," pointed out an incredulous Warren, who introduced a bill by that name in 2013, in 2015, and again this year, highlighting the administration's position. "It was in the Republican Party platform. Donald Trump said it specifically a few weeks before the election," she said.
Watch:
At the time, observers speculated that the call was made to drive a wedge between the alleged "populist outsider" Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who did not support reinstating the law that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had repealed in 1999.
"You said, 'We need a 21st century Glass-Steagall' at your confirmation hearing," Warren said to Mnuchin, "and now you've said exactly the opposite. In the past few months you and the president have had a number of meetings with big bank CEOs and lobbyists. Is that the reason for the reversal on Glass-Steagall?"
Mnuchin countered that it "wasn't a reversal," because the Trump campaign "specifically came out and said we do support a 21st century Glass-Steagall. That means there are aspects of it that we think may make sense but we never said before that we supported a full separation of banks and investment banking."
The exchange follows:
WARREN: [Cutting him off] Aspects? Let me just stop you right there, Mr. Secretary.
MNUCHIN: You're not letting me finish.
WARREN: Yeah, I'm not, because I really have to understand what you've just said. There are aspects of Glass-Steagall that you support, but not breaking up the banks and separating commercial banking from investment banking. What do you think Glass-Steagall was if that's not right at the heart of it?
MNUCHIN: I'm well aware of what Glass-Steagall was... If we had supported a full Glass-Steagall we would have said at the time that we believed in Glass-Steagall, not a 21st century Glass-Steagall. We were very clear in differentiating it. I had not realized that your bill was named the 21st Century Glass-Steagall.
WARREN: Yes, and has been for 3 years now.
"Let me get this straight, you are saying that you are in favor of Glass-Steagall, which breaks apart the two arms of banking...except you don't want to break apart the two arms," Warren continued. "This is like something straight out of George Orwell."
When asked repeatedly "what does it mean to be in favor of 21st century Glass-Steagall if it doesn't mean breaking apart" banks, Mnuchin responded that it's "actually a complicated question" and said he's "happy to follow up and discuss" with Warren at a later date.
"This is just bizarre," Warren responded, adding to herself, "this is crazy."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
Calling his comments and attempted explanations both "bizarre" and "crazy," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) slammed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin during a hearing on Thursday for backtracking on repeated promises by the Trump administration that it would support breaking up the big banks by reinstating a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act.
"This is just bizarre... this is crazy." --Sen. Elizabeth Warren
The tense exchange came as Mnuchin, a former executive at Goldman Sachs and OneWest before being picked by President Donald Trump to lead the Treasury, explained to the Senate Banking Committee the administration policy does not favor breaking up too-big-to-fail banks or separating their commercial banking side from their riskier investment banking operations.
"The president and this administration have said repeatedly that they support a 21st century Glass-Steagall," pointed out an incredulous Warren, who introduced a bill by that name in 2013, in 2015, and again this year, highlighting the administration's position. "It was in the Republican Party platform. Donald Trump said it specifically a few weeks before the election," she said.
Watch:
At the time, observers speculated that the call was made to drive a wedge between the alleged "populist outsider" Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who did not support reinstating the law that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had repealed in 1999.
"You said, 'We need a 21st century Glass-Steagall' at your confirmation hearing," Warren said to Mnuchin, "and now you've said exactly the opposite. In the past few months you and the president have had a number of meetings with big bank CEOs and lobbyists. Is that the reason for the reversal on Glass-Steagall?"
Mnuchin countered that it "wasn't a reversal," because the Trump campaign "specifically came out and said we do support a 21st century Glass-Steagall. That means there are aspects of it that we think may make sense but we never said before that we supported a full separation of banks and investment banking."
The exchange follows:
WARREN: [Cutting him off] Aspects? Let me just stop you right there, Mr. Secretary.
MNUCHIN: You're not letting me finish.
WARREN: Yeah, I'm not, because I really have to understand what you've just said. There are aspects of Glass-Steagall that you support, but not breaking up the banks and separating commercial banking from investment banking. What do you think Glass-Steagall was if that's not right at the heart of it?
MNUCHIN: I'm well aware of what Glass-Steagall was... If we had supported a full Glass-Steagall we would have said at the time that we believed in Glass-Steagall, not a 21st century Glass-Steagall. We were very clear in differentiating it. I had not realized that your bill was named the 21st Century Glass-Steagall.
WARREN: Yes, and has been for 3 years now.
"Let me get this straight, you are saying that you are in favor of Glass-Steagall, which breaks apart the two arms of banking...except you don't want to break apart the two arms," Warren continued. "This is like something straight out of George Orwell."
When asked repeatedly "what does it mean to be in favor of 21st century Glass-Steagall if it doesn't mean breaking apart" banks, Mnuchin responded that it's "actually a complicated question" and said he's "happy to follow up and discuss" with Warren at a later date.
"This is just bizarre," Warren responded, adding to herself, "this is crazy."
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
Calling his comments and attempted explanations both "bizarre" and "crazy," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) slammed Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin during a hearing on Thursday for backtracking on repeated promises by the Trump administration that it would support breaking up the big banks by reinstating a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act.
"This is just bizarre... this is crazy." --Sen. Elizabeth Warren
The tense exchange came as Mnuchin, a former executive at Goldman Sachs and OneWest before being picked by President Donald Trump to lead the Treasury, explained to the Senate Banking Committee the administration policy does not favor breaking up too-big-to-fail banks or separating their commercial banking side from their riskier investment banking operations.
"The president and this administration have said repeatedly that they support a 21st century Glass-Steagall," pointed out an incredulous Warren, who introduced a bill by that name in 2013, in 2015, and again this year, highlighting the administration's position. "It was in the Republican Party platform. Donald Trump said it specifically a few weeks before the election," she said.
Watch:
At the time, observers speculated that the call was made to drive a wedge between the alleged "populist outsider" Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who did not support reinstating the law that her husband, former President Bill Clinton, had repealed in 1999.
"You said, 'We need a 21st century Glass-Steagall' at your confirmation hearing," Warren said to Mnuchin, "and now you've said exactly the opposite. In the past few months you and the president have had a number of meetings with big bank CEOs and lobbyists. Is that the reason for the reversal on Glass-Steagall?"
Mnuchin countered that it "wasn't a reversal," because the Trump campaign "specifically came out and said we do support a 21st century Glass-Steagall. That means there are aspects of it that we think may make sense but we never said before that we supported a full separation of banks and investment banking."
The exchange follows:
WARREN: [Cutting him off] Aspects? Let me just stop you right there, Mr. Secretary.
MNUCHIN: You're not letting me finish.
WARREN: Yeah, I'm not, because I really have to understand what you've just said. There are aspects of Glass-Steagall that you support, but not breaking up the banks and separating commercial banking from investment banking. What do you think Glass-Steagall was if that's not right at the heart of it?
MNUCHIN: I'm well aware of what Glass-Steagall was... If we had supported a full Glass-Steagall we would have said at the time that we believed in Glass-Steagall, not a 21st century Glass-Steagall. We were very clear in differentiating it. I had not realized that your bill was named the 21st Century Glass-Steagall.
WARREN: Yes, and has been for 3 years now.
"Let me get this straight, you are saying that you are in favor of Glass-Steagall, which breaks apart the two arms of banking...except you don't want to break apart the two arms," Warren continued. "This is like something straight out of George Orwell."
When asked repeatedly "what does it mean to be in favor of 21st century Glass-Steagall if it doesn't mean breaking apart" banks, Mnuchin responded that it's "actually a complicated question" and said he's "happy to follow up and discuss" with Warren at a later date.
"This is just bizarre," Warren responded, adding to herself, "this is crazy."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.