

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.

With passage of the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
of 2009, the U.S. House of Representatives today takes an important
first step in reregulating the financial sector.
Most importantly, the bill creates a powerful financial consumer
watchdog agency. Had the Consumer Financial Protection Agency existed
during the go-go years earlier this decade, it could have prevented
millions of consumers from being ripped off - and protected the banks
from themselves. The financial crisis would have been significantly
less severe.
It also contains some modestly beneficial provisions in investor
protection, establishing liability for credit ratings firms, regulating
derivatives and imposing leverage limits on the largest institutions.
And it includes an important measure for a comprehensive public
auditing of the Federal Reserve. But the bill doesn't do nearly enough
to rein in the Wall Street banksters and is wholly incommensurate with
the devastation Wall Street has wreaked across the land.
The bill does very little to address industry structure. Wall
Street and the big banks engaged in reckless betting under the belief
that they were too big to fail - that they were protected by a federal
backstop. The biggest banks are now bigger than they were before the
crisis. The solution to the too-big-to-fail problem is to break up the
big banks so that the system can absorb their failure.
The bill fails to impose limits on bank size. A related problem is
the intermixing of commercial and investment banking in single firms
and resultant excessive risk taking by federal insurance-backed
commercial banks. The bill fails to separate commercial and investment
banking, and otherwise address this problem. Financial derivatives and
other exotic instruments - labeled by Warren Buffett as weapons of
financial mass destruction - fueled the crisis. The bill contains very
modest regulations over financial derivatives but leaves more than a
quarter of the market free from regulation and contains loopholes to
enable another substantial chunk to escape regulatory control. Even for
derivatives covered by the bill, the new rules are very limited. The
bill does not establish a regulated exchange for derivatives trades. It
does not ban financial instruments that do little other than enable
high-stakes gambling. And it does not require the purveyors of
derivative instruments to prove that the benefits of their new products
outweigh the costs and risks to the financial system.
The bill also fails to tackle seriously the problem of executive and
high-level pay. Wall Street mocks the Congress - and the American
people - by preparing to pay tens of billions of dollars in bonuses in
the shadow of a vote on financial regulation and while the financial
sector continues to benefit from trillions of dollars of public
support. At a minimum, we need binding rules to mandate that bonus pay
be tied to long-term performance.
It's no mystery why this legislation is not stronger. Wall Street
spent $5 billion in political investments in the decade before the
financial crisis to obtain deregulation and nonenforcement of existing
rules. Despite Wall Street having crashed the economy, nothing has
changed on Capitol Hill. Wall Street continues to invest heavily in
politics and wield enormous influence. More than 900 former federal
employees, including 70 former members of Congress, are working as
lobbyists for the financial services sector this year. Wall Street has
spent more than $40 million on campaign contributions since November
2008. But Wall Street was not wholly able to get its way. Leading Wall
Street lobbyists announced at the outset that they intended to "kill"
the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, and they failed.
We are pleased that the CFPA will be able to limit forced
arbitration and that financial industry workers will be empowered to
blow the whistle on wrongdoing. However, the bill should not allow
states to be pre-empted on a case-by-case basis.
Public Citizen thanks House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.),
Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), and Reps.
Brad Miller (D-N.C.), Dennis Moore (D-Kan.) Melvin Watt (D-N.C.) and
Steny Hoyer (D-Md.).
Public Citizen has been very pleased to work with our colleagues in
Americans for Financial Reform to mobilize the citizenry to ensure that
Congress listened to strongly demands for consumer protection and
controls over Wall Street. We have taken an important step today. As
this bill moves to Senate, we will work to protect its achievements -
and insist that the Senate impose additional controls on Wall Street.
VIEW a .pdf chart of pros and cons of the legislation.
LEARN more about financial reform.
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000Data released by the University of Michigan and Gallup this week showed US consumer sentiment cratering even as stock markets hit record highs.
Multiple polls and surveys released in recent days have shown US consumer sentiment cratering—and all the while, the US stock market keeps hitting record highs.
The Kobeissi Letter, a financial newsletter, posted a graphic Saturday that matched consumer sentiment as measured by the University of Michigan's Surveys of Consumers with the performance of the S&P 500 stock index over a 30-year span.
The graphic shows that, up until around 2020, consumer sentiment matched stock market performance closely, although there was a large divergence between the two leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, where stocks briefly outperformed consumer sentiment before crashing downward as the housing bubble burst.
But throughout the last six years, the graphic shows, the S&P 500 has produced an almost continuous upward surge even as consumer sentiment spirals downward.
Absolutely incredible:
Over the last 6 years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952.
We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history. https://t.co/XGMR6DfuNc pic.twitter.com/2w7cRvn7ok
— The Kobeissi Letter (@KobeissiLetter) May 23, 2026
"Absolutely incredible," commented Kobeissi Letter. "Over the last six years, the S&P 500 has risen +130% while US Consumer Sentiment has collapsed by -55%, to its lowest since data began in 1952. We are witnessing the formation of the biggest wealth divide in modern history."
Kobeissi Letter produced the graphic one day after the University of Michigan's latest survey found consumer sentiment hitting the lowest level on record.
Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, observed that "the cost of living continues to be a first-order concern, with 57% of consumers spontaneously mentioning that high prices were eroding their personal finances, up from 50% last month."
On the same day, Gallup published new data showing that Americans' economic confidence has fallen to its lowest level since October 2022, with just 16% of Americans rating the economy as excellent or good, and nearly half describing it as poor.
Axios reported on Saturday that even Republicans have been growing sour on the US economy, citing a recent poll from The Associated Press showing GOP approval of President Donald Trump on the economy to be at around 60%, down from 80% just three months ago.
"The growing GOP gloom could hardly come at a worse time for Trump and the party," Axios noted, "less than six months out from a midterm election that's likely to turn on the economy."
The gap between overall consumer sentiment and stock market performance also lines up with recent consumer spending trends. Data published by The Financial Times earlier this year showed that the top 10% of earners in the US now account for nearly half of all consumer spending, while the bottom 80% of earners now account for less than 40% of all consumer spending.
A February report from TD Economics economist Ksenia Bushmeneva noted that “the economic divide between America’s households at the top of the income spectrum and everyone else continued to widen last year,” as “upper-income households benefited from the still-robust wage growth, strong gains in equity markets, and better access to consumer credit.”
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Democratic US Senate candidate Platner said in an ad that aired on the New England Sports Network.
Maine Democratic US Senate candidate Graham Platner on Saturday said that a campaign ad that aired during a Boston Red Sox game was "taken down" after it took aim at the team's ownership.
The ad in question features Platner discussing the role that private equity firms play in the US economy, including sports teams.
"Private equity is destroying our favorite baseball team, stripping them for parts," Platner says at the start of the ad. "Private equity is buying up our homes, our sports, and our lives. I will reverse the private equity curse."
Private equity is taking our homes. It's taking our hospitals. It's taking beloved local businesses and stripping them for parts.
And now private equity is running the Red Sox into the ground.
Our new ad ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/w7LapElpdA
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) May 22, 2026
Platner concludes the ad by saying that he approves this message "because I miss Mookie Betts," the star player whom the Red Sox traded to the Los Angeles Dodgers in 2020 in a deal that was widely decried by local fans as a salary dump.
According to Platner, his campaign began airing the ad Friday on the New England Sports Network (NESN), the cable TV station owned partially by Fenway Sports Group, the conglomerate that owns the Red Sox.
However, he said that "midway through the game the ad was taken down" by NESN, after which the Red Sox proceeded to blow a 4-0 lead, losing to the Minnesota Twins by a final score of 8-6.
Platner, an oyster farmer and upstart candidate who has never before held political office, became the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee for the 2026 US Senate race in Maine last month after his top rival, Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills, dropped out of the race.
In recent weeks, Platner has pivoted to challenging incumbent Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who has held the seat since 1996 and is now running for her sixth term in office.
The policy change means "we could have families separated for months or years," said one expert.
Critics are slamming the Trump administration for implementing a new rule that foreigners who apply for green cards must do so from abroad.
US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) on Friday announced that foreigners currently in the US who want to establish permanent legal residency must first return to their countries of origin to apply for a green card.
This announcement broke with decades of US immigration policy, which made it possible for immigrants in the US to obtain green cards without having to leave the country.
Doug Rand, a former senior advisor at USCIS under President Joe Biden, said in an interview with The Associated Press that "the goal of this policy is very explicit," which is to block a path to citizenship "for as many people as possible."
Sarah Pierce, a former USCIS policy analyst, told The New York Times that the rule change could have particularly dire consequences to foreigners who are married to US citizens and will now have to apply for permanent residency from overseas.
"Our consular processing system through which they would have to apply is already overburdened," Pierce explained. "So that means we could have families separated for months or years."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, similarly noted that the new policy "could force people to leave their jobs, homes, and families for weeks or months, all at their own expense" just to stay in a country where they have already established roots.
Reichlin-Melnick said that the full scope of the policy isn't yet clear because there are several unknown details about how broadly it will be applied, but added that "in the meantime, hundreds of thousands of immigrants now have to worry about upending their lives to get a legal status that they are entitled to under our laws."
Drop Site News reporter Ryan Grim argued that the new policy rips the mask off Trump administration claims that they aren't opposed to all immigration, they simply want to reduce undocumented immigration.
"The talking point that we do want legal immigration, we just want people to get in line and follow the rules, is BS," Grim commented. "This is an attempt to blow up the line, blow up the rules, and make it insanely difficult to immigrate legally."
Rep. Chuy García (D-Ill.) echoed Grim's comments by pointing out that the new policy shows the Trump administration's disdain for immigration overall.
"This new policy will force thousands of LEGAL immigrants, including spouses of US citizens, to leave their homes, families, and jobs for weeks or even months to get their green card outside the US," said García. "This is an absurd and cruel policy."
Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-NY), chairman of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, condemned the new policy for targeting "students, scientists, entrepreneurs, spouses of US citizens, and other individuals following legal immigration processes."
"Aspiring lawful permanent residents are valued members of our communities, workforce, and economy," Espaillat emphasized. "I will continue fighting to protect the rights of aspiring green card holders and immigrant families."