

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Toby Chaudhuri or Rachel Perrone at 202-955-5665
With people across the country calling for greater oversight of the Bush administration's proposed $700 billion bailout of the financial markets, a new ad in The New York Times and on several blogs today asks pointed questions that need to be answered before Congress hands the administration massive amounts of taxpayer money and unlimited power.
The ad features an extortion note with cut-out letters that read, "Give us $85 billion or the economy gets whacked." The ad goes on to expose the latest reality in the financial crises: "It turns out that last week's emergency bailout of once-mighty AIG was chump change. Now Wall Street is extorting another $700 billion from the taxpayers to cover their losses."
The ad, called "Banksters Run Amok," is the second in a seven-part ad campaign series sponsored by the Institute for America's Future that encourages Americans to demand a real debate focused on "seven national crises that won't wait." This week's ad focuses on the Bush administration's "fast track" proposals in response to the possible meltdown of the U.S. financial system triggered by the mortgage crisis.
Campaign for America's Future co-director Robert Borosage said that the real heist occurred decades ago when conservatives in power deregulated the financial system.
"Americans deserve a full accounting of how we got into this financial mess," said Borosage. "Conservatives destroyed commonsense rules of the road allowing financiers to make billions playing with our system. These huge sums spent to cover bad bets could've been used to make America better."
The ad raises three basic concerns surrounding the bailout. It points to the need for oversight in return for rescuing the banks. It also raises questions about the corruptive influence of Wall Street money on our politicians and justification for bailing out bankers rather than spending valuable taxpayer dollars on helping average Americans who need it most.
Each ad in the series seeks to provoke widespread discussion of major challenges facing the country. Leaders of the Institute are urging people to take the ads to public meetings, church groups and civic associations - to demand the debate the country needs.
The first ad outlined how the American dream is slipping out of reach for more and more families. Other ads in the series will focus on our soaring global debt, broken health care system, collapsing public infrastructure, the looming global warming challenge, increasing robber baron corruption and the seemingly endless occupation of Iraq and the war on terror.
The full text of this week's ad follows:
BANKSTERS RUN AMOK
#2 In A Series
A Debate Worthy of a Great Nation in Trouble
"Give us $85 billion of the economy gets whacked."
It turns out that last week's emergency bailout of once-mighty AIG was chump change. Now Wall Street is extorting another $700 billion from the taxpayers to cover their losses.
And like AIG, Bear, Fannie and Freddie, their brink of disaster plea is conveyed to the Feds as a dire threat, almost a ransom note: "Save us or we'll take everyone down with us! We're too big to fail!
These huge sums spent to cover bad bets could have been used to make America better-fix a broken health care system, end our addiction to oil, rebuild a country that's falling apart. Instead we're forced to bail out the banks to keep a credit meltdown from laying waste to the real economy.
Finance is too important to be left to the bankers. Our grandfathers learned that lesson in the Great Depression. But over the last thirty years Wall Street money and market fundamentalism took over Washington, disarming the cop on the financial beat. Now we're paying the price for that folly.
3 Basic questions for the debate
1. What serious regulation of Wall Street banking practices must we demand in return for rescuing the banks?
2. Wall Street is a monster donor to both major parties. How can we trust any promise to crack down on these miscreants from politicians who compete for their contributions?
3. Rather than just bailing out bankers, shouldn't we be helping the folks they victimized - freezing home foreclosures, renegotiating mortgages, reviving usury laws to cap predatory interest rates, investing public money in the real economy and putting people to work?
INSTITUTE FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE
for more go to www.ourfuture.org
The Campaign for America's Future is the strategy center for the progressive movement. Our goal is to forge the enduring progressive majority needed to realize the America of shared prosperity and equal opportunity that our country was meant to be.
As some Democrats suggest compromising in order to reform the agency, Rep. Rashida Tlaib said, “ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change.”
President Donald Trump on Tuesday signed a bill to end a brief government shutdown after the US House of Representatives narrowly passed the $1.2 trillion funding package.
While the bill keeps most of the federal government funded until the end of September, lawmakers sidestepped the question of funding for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which Democrats have vowed to block absent reforms to rein in its lawless behavior after the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis and a rash of other attacks on civil rights.
The bill, which passed on Tuesday by a vote of 217-214, extends funding for ICE's parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for just two weeks, setting up a battle in the coming weeks on which the party remains split.
While most Democrats voted against Tuesday's measure, 21 joined the bulk of Republicans to drag it just over the line, despite calls from progressive activists and groups, such as MoveOn, which Axios said peppered lawmakers with letters urging them to use every bit of "leverage" they can to force drastic changes at the agency.
House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who voted for the bill, acknowledged that it was "a leverage tool that people are giving up," but said funding for the rest of the government took precedence.
The real fight is expected to take place over the next 10 days, with DHS funding set to run out on February 14.
ICE will be funded regardless of whether a new round of DHS funding passes, since Republicans already passed $170 billion in DHS funding in last year's One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
Democrats in both the House and Senate have laid out lists of reforms they say Republicans must acquiesce to if they want any additional funding for ICE, including requirements that agents nationwide wear body cameras, get judicial warrants for arrests, and adhere to a code of conduct similar to those for state and local law enforcement.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair emerita of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who voted against Tuesday's bill reiterated that in order to pass longterm DHS funding, "there must be due process, a requirement for judicial warrants and bond hearings; every agent must not only have a bodycam but also be required to use it, take off their masks, and, in cases of misconduct, undergo immediate, independent investigations."
Some critics have pointed out that ICE agents already routinely violate court orders and constitutional requirements, raising questions about whether new laws would even be enforceable.
A memo issued last week, telling agents they do not need to obtain judicial warrants to enter homes, has been described as a blatant violation of the Fourth Amendment. Despite this, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said on Tuesday that Republicans will not even consider negotiating the warrant requirement, calling it "unworkable."
"We cannot trust this DHS, which has already received an unprecedented funding spike for ICE, to operate within the bounds of our Constitution or our laws," Jayapal said. "And for that reason, we cannot continue to fund them without significant and enforceable guardrails."
According to recent polls, the vast majority of Democratic voters want to go beyond reforms and push to abolish ICE outright. In the wake of ICE's reign of terror in Minneapolis, it's a position that nearly half the country now holds, with more people saying they want the agency to be done away with than saying they want it preserved.
"The American people are begging us to stop sending their tax dollars to execute people in the streets, abduct 5-year-olds, and separate families," said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), who gathered with other progressive lawmakers in the cold outside DHS headquarters on Tuesday. "ICE was built on violence and is terrorizing neighborhoods. It will not change... No one should vote to send another cent to DHS."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), who comes from the Minnesota Somali community targeted by Trump's operation there, agreed: "This rogue agency should not receive a single penny. It should be abolished and prosecuted."
"Feel like this isn't gonna work out well," one legal expert said in response to the leaked DOJ plan.
The US Department of Justice is reportedly setting up a new program that would create a team of prosecutors who can parachute into different areas throughout the country to bring charges against protesters who have allegedly assaulted or obstructed law enforcement officers.
As reported by Bloomberg on Tuesday, a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo mandates that US attorney's offices designate some of their staff members to serve on "emergency jump teams" that can surge into areas on short notice to prosecute cases.
"A senior official instructed leaders of the nation's 93 US attorney’s offices... that they have until February 6 to designate one or two assistant US attorneys," reported Bloomberg, "who’d be available for short-term surges in unspecified areas needing 'urgent assistance due to emergent or critical situations.'"
The effort to create "jump teams" of lawyers comes as the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota has been hit with a wave of resignations in the wake of the federal government's surge of federal immigration enforcement agents into the state.
According to a Monday report from the Minnesota Star Tribune, 14 lawyers at the Minnesota US Attorney's Office have either already resigned or announced their intention to resign in just the last month, an unprecedented number of departures in such a short period of time.
Bloomberg writes that the "jump team" plan "signals the Trump administration’s attempt to offset career prosecutor attrition... with a nationwide pool of reinforcements on standby."
The plan was potentially telegraphed by White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Saturday, when he put out a call on social media for more attorneys to come work for the Trump administration.
"If you want to combat fraud, crime and illegal immigration, reach out," Miller wrote. "Patriots needed."
Attorney Ken White, a former federal prosecutor, speculated on Sunday that Miller's call reflected "real internal problems" at the DOJ, and he predicted that one solution the administration could try would be to create a mobile legal strike force much like the one outlined in the leaked DOJ memo.
However, White argued that this approach would be far from a magic bullet to solve the administration's staffing woes.
"The impediments will be these: They will get dregs who will do a bad job," White wrote. "Federal prosecution is not rocket science but federal judges do have notably higher standards than state judges and if you MAGA your way around federal court you will get your ass handed to you."
Jonathan Booth, a law professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, also predicted that the administration's strike force plan would run into some major speed bumps.
"Imagine, you're a federal prosecutor in San Diego," he wrote in a social media post. "It's sunny, warm, you have a whole set of important cases. Then suddenly 'we need you to go to Buffalo and prosecute extremely weak misdemeanor cases.' Feel like this isn't gonna work out well."
"Trump gets paid. Taxpayers get screwed," said one congressman.
The $40 million film Melania, a biography of the first lady that was purchased by Amazon, has been panned as a "bribe disguised as a documentary," an "expensive propaganda doc," and a "journey into the void."
But despite the reviews, the tech firm has poured an unprecedented $35 million into a marketing campaign for the documentary, and one government watchdog group suggested Monday that the investment by the third-richest person in the world, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, is already paying off.
Bezos welcomed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to his Blue Origin facilities in Florida on Monday as part of Hegseth's "Arsenal of Freedom" speaking tour, which is aimed at overhauling the Pentagon's relationship with defense tech companies.
"Blue Origin is committed to supporting national security to, through, and from space," said Bezos at the event.
Speaking during Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s “Arsenal of Freedom” tour at Cape Canaveral, Jeff Bezos says U.S. national security now hinges on industrial speed, scale, and space-based capability.
READ MORE: https://t.co/cOUQii31TJ#amazon #jeffbezos #nationalnews #florida pic.twitter.com/uaFGaoMhnI
— KRCR News Channel 7 (@KRCR7) February 3, 2026
Blue Origin, Bezos' space exploration firm, has received billions of dollars in defense contracts to build technology that uses space lasers, nuclear-powered spacecraft, and a processing facility for satellites.
Hegseth said during his tour that Blue Origin is likely to do "plenty of winning" as the Pentagon hands out additional contracts.
Late last month, Amazon Web Services was also awarded a $581 million contract to support the US Air Force's Cloud One program.
Greg Williams, director of the Project on Government Oversight's Center for Defense Information, told USA Today that on its face, Hegseth's visits to Blue Origin as well as SpaceX, the space technology firm owned by Trump administration associate and Republican megadonor Elon Musk, were not "particularly novel."
But considering Bezos' purchase and promotion of the documentary spotlighting President Donald Trump's wife, said Williams, Hegseth's hobnobbing with the tech mogul raises new questions about Bezos' desire to curry favor with the White House.
"By spending a tiny amount of money to buy the rights," said Williams, Bezos "potentially gets a much larger return."
As such, Hegseth's visit to Blue Origin called attention to a situation of "unprecedented conflict of interest," Williams added.
US Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas) summarized the apparent transaction involving the documentary rights and the government contracts: "Trump gets paid. Taxpayers get screwed."