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.
Wall Street is know around the world as the land of the million
dollar babies since is chock full of people who have gotten incredibly
rich as a result of handouts from the government. These handouts come
in all forms, but most in the size extra large. The basic story is
always the same; the banks and financial firms take gambles that
provide big payoffs for their shareholders and "top performers" and
pass along big risks to the taxpayers.
The TARP and the associated bailouts through the Fed were the most
obvious example. The industry and their paid hacks are telling us that
we shouldn't be upset about these deals because we got repaid most of
our money. The reality was that we gave the banks the money they needed
to survive in the midst of a financial panic. They used this money -
and the backing of the federal government - to restore themselves to
health.
While we may have gotten most of our money back, the loans we gave
them were way more valuable at the time they were given. This is like
giving someone water in the middle of the desert.
When we get back to the lush lakeside in the middle of a rainstorm,
they generously offer to repay us. Of course, a big part of the story
is that the banks relent the money to other people who were dying of
thirst and kept the profit. Yes, we should be happy - tell that to the
15 million unemployed and the millions who are losing their homes.
We had some hopes of reining in the million dollar babies with the
financial reform package, but those hopes appear to be dimming. The
effort to downsize the "too big to fail" banks got trounced in the
senate last week, garnering just 33 votes. Apparently, the prospect of
having to head out into the markets unprotected by the implicit
guarantee of government bailouts was too frightening for JP Morgan,
Goldman Sachs and the other big banks. Their lobbyists twisted the arms
and got the overwhelming majority of the senate to continue the big
bank subsidy of free government insurance indefinitely.
There is still another good opportunity to rein in the banks ability
to gamble with our money. Senators Merkley and Levin have proposed an
amendment that would prohibit commercial banks from trading on their
own behalf. The point is that commercial banks are backed up by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Cooperation and the Federal Reserve Board. If
they get into trouble, it is taxpayers' dollars at risk.
Until the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, commercial banks were
sharply restricted in what they could do, precisely in order to prevent
them from taking advantage of this guarantee. If you wanted to engage
in highly speculative activity you could set up a hedge fund or an
investment bank, but Glass-Steagall prevented banks from gambling with
government insured deposits. But this separation was obliterated by the
repeal and now we have investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley that are openly speculating with taxpayer insured money.
The Merkley-Levin amendment seeks to restore this separation. It
really should be in the category of no-brainer: why should
schoolteachers and firefighters be subsidizing the high-powered traders
at Goldman Sachs?
But, as Senator Richard Durbin said last spring when the Senate
voted down a bill that would have helped homeowners keep their homes:
"the banks own the place." We'll see what happens.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Wall Street is know around the world as the land of the million
dollar babies since is chock full of people who have gotten incredibly
rich as a result of handouts from the government. These handouts come
in all forms, but most in the size extra large. The basic story is
always the same; the banks and financial firms take gambles that
provide big payoffs for their shareholders and "top performers" and
pass along big risks to the taxpayers.
The TARP and the associated bailouts through the Fed were the most
obvious example. The industry and their paid hacks are telling us that
we shouldn't be upset about these deals because we got repaid most of
our money. The reality was that we gave the banks the money they needed
to survive in the midst of a financial panic. They used this money -
and the backing of the federal government - to restore themselves to
health.
While we may have gotten most of our money back, the loans we gave
them were way more valuable at the time they were given. This is like
giving someone water in the middle of the desert.
When we get back to the lush lakeside in the middle of a rainstorm,
they generously offer to repay us. Of course, a big part of the story
is that the banks relent the money to other people who were dying of
thirst and kept the profit. Yes, we should be happy - tell that to the
15 million unemployed and the millions who are losing their homes.
We had some hopes of reining in the million dollar babies with the
financial reform package, but those hopes appear to be dimming. The
effort to downsize the "too big to fail" banks got trounced in the
senate last week, garnering just 33 votes. Apparently, the prospect of
having to head out into the markets unprotected by the implicit
guarantee of government bailouts was too frightening for JP Morgan,
Goldman Sachs and the other big banks. Their lobbyists twisted the arms
and got the overwhelming majority of the senate to continue the big
bank subsidy of free government insurance indefinitely.
There is still another good opportunity to rein in the banks ability
to gamble with our money. Senators Merkley and Levin have proposed an
amendment that would prohibit commercial banks from trading on their
own behalf. The point is that commercial banks are backed up by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Cooperation and the Federal Reserve Board. If
they get into trouble, it is taxpayers' dollars at risk.
Until the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, commercial banks were
sharply restricted in what they could do, precisely in order to prevent
them from taking advantage of this guarantee. If you wanted to engage
in highly speculative activity you could set up a hedge fund or an
investment bank, but Glass-Steagall prevented banks from gambling with
government insured deposits. But this separation was obliterated by the
repeal and now we have investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley that are openly speculating with taxpayer insured money.
The Merkley-Levin amendment seeks to restore this separation. It
really should be in the category of no-brainer: why should
schoolteachers and firefighters be subsidizing the high-powered traders
at Goldman Sachs?
But, as Senator Richard Durbin said last spring when the Senate
voted down a bill that would have helped homeowners keep their homes:
"the banks own the place." We'll see what happens.
Wall Street is know around the world as the land of the million
dollar babies since is chock full of people who have gotten incredibly
rich as a result of handouts from the government. These handouts come
in all forms, but most in the size extra large. The basic story is
always the same; the banks and financial firms take gambles that
provide big payoffs for their shareholders and "top performers" and
pass along big risks to the taxpayers.
The TARP and the associated bailouts through the Fed were the most
obvious example. The industry and their paid hacks are telling us that
we shouldn't be upset about these deals because we got repaid most of
our money. The reality was that we gave the banks the money they needed
to survive in the midst of a financial panic. They used this money -
and the backing of the federal government - to restore themselves to
health.
While we may have gotten most of our money back, the loans we gave
them were way more valuable at the time they were given. This is like
giving someone water in the middle of the desert.
When we get back to the lush lakeside in the middle of a rainstorm,
they generously offer to repay us. Of course, a big part of the story
is that the banks relent the money to other people who were dying of
thirst and kept the profit. Yes, we should be happy - tell that to the
15 million unemployed and the millions who are losing their homes.
We had some hopes of reining in the million dollar babies with the
financial reform package, but those hopes appear to be dimming. The
effort to downsize the "too big to fail" banks got trounced in the
senate last week, garnering just 33 votes. Apparently, the prospect of
having to head out into the markets unprotected by the implicit
guarantee of government bailouts was too frightening for JP Morgan,
Goldman Sachs and the other big banks. Their lobbyists twisted the arms
and got the overwhelming majority of the senate to continue the big
bank subsidy of free government insurance indefinitely.
There is still another good opportunity to rein in the banks ability
to gamble with our money. Senators Merkley and Levin have proposed an
amendment that would prohibit commercial banks from trading on their
own behalf. The point is that commercial banks are backed up by the
Federal Deposit Insurance Cooperation and the Federal Reserve Board. If
they get into trouble, it is taxpayers' dollars at risk.
Until the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999, commercial banks were
sharply restricted in what they could do, precisely in order to prevent
them from taking advantage of this guarantee. If you wanted to engage
in highly speculative activity you could set up a hedge fund or an
investment bank, but Glass-Steagall prevented banks from gambling with
government insured deposits. But this separation was obliterated by the
repeal and now we have investment banks like Goldman Sachs and Morgan
Stanley that are openly speculating with taxpayer insured money.
The Merkley-Levin amendment seeks to restore this separation. It
really should be in the category of no-brainer: why should
schoolteachers and firefighters be subsidizing the high-powered traders
at Goldman Sachs?
But, as Senator Richard Durbin said last spring when the Senate
voted down a bill that would have helped homeowners keep their homes:
"the banks own the place." We'll see what happens.
"Congressman Bresnahan didn't just vote to gut Pennsylvania hospitals. He looked out for his own bottom line before doing it," said one advocate.
Congressman Rob Bresnahan, a Republican who campaigned on banning stock trading by lawmakers only to make at least 626 stock trades since taking office in January, was under scrutiny Monday for a particular sale he made just before he voted for the largest Medicaid cut in US history.
Soon after a report showed that 10 rural hospitals in Bresnahan's state of Pennsylvania were at risk of being shut down, the congressman sold between $100,001 and $250,000 in bonds issued by the Allegheny County Hospital Development Authority for the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
The New York Times reported on the sale a month after it was revealed that Bresnahan sold up to $15,000 of stock he held in Centene Corporation, the largest Medicaid provider in the country. When President Donald Trump signed the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law last month, Centene's stock plummeted by 40%.
Bresnahan repeatedly said he would not vote to cut the safety net before he voted in favor of the bill.
The law is expected to cut $1 trillion from Medicaid over the next decade, with 10-15 million people projected to lose health coverage through the safety net program, according to one recent analysis. More than 700 hospitals, particularly those in rural areas, are likely to close due to a loss of Medicaid funding.
"His prolific stock trading is more than just a broken promise," said Cousin. "It's political malpractice and a scandal of his own making."
The economic justice group Unrig the Economy said that despite Bresnahan's introduction of a bill in May to bar members of Congress from buying and selling stocks—with the caveat that they could keep stocks they held before starting their terms in a blind trust—the congressman is "the one doing the selling... out of Pennsylvania hospitals."
"Congressman Bresnahan didn't just vote to gut Pennsylvania hospitals. He looked out for his own bottom line before doing it," said Unrig Our Economy campaign director Leor Tal. "Hospitals across Pennsylvania could close thanks to his vote, forcing families to drive long distances and experience longer wait times for critical care."
"Not everyone has a secret helicopter they can use whenever they want," added Tal, referring to recent reports that the multi-millionaire congressman owns a helicopter worth as much as $1.5 million, which he purchased through a limited liability company he set up.
Eli Cousin, a spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, told the Times that Bresnahan's stock trading "will define his time in Washington and be a major reason why he will lose his seat."
"His prolific stock trading is more than just a broken promise," said Cousin. "It's political malpractice and a scandal of his own making."
"If troops or federal agents violate our rights, they must be held accountable," the ACLU said.
As President Donald Trump escalates the US military occupation of Washington, DC—including by importing hundreds of out-of-state National Guard troops and allowing others to start carrying guns on missions in the nation's capital—the ACLU on Monday reminded his administration that federal forces are constitutionally obligated to protect, not violate, residents' rights.
"With additional state National Guard troops deploying to DC as untrained federal law enforcement agents perform local police duties in city streets, the American Civil Liberties Union is issuing a stark reminder to all federal and military officials that—no matter what uniform they wear or what authority they claim—they are bound by the US Constitution and all federal and local laws," the group said in a statement.
Over the weekend, the Republican governors of Ohio, South Carolina, and West Virginia announced that they are deploying hundreds of National Guard troops to join the 800 DC guardsmen and women recently activated by Trump, who also asserted federal control over the city's Metropolitan Police Department (MPD).
Sending military troops and heavily-armed federal agents to patrol the streets and scare vulnerable communities does not make us safer.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) August 18, 2025 at 12:08 PM
Trump dubiously declared a public safety emergency in a city where violent crime is down 26% from a year ago, when it was at its second-lowest level since 1966, according to official statistics. Critics have noted that Trump's crackdown isn't just targeting criminals, but also unhoused and mentally ill people, who have had their homes destroyed and property taken.
Contradicting assurances from military officials, The Wall Street Journal reported Sunday that the newly deployed troops may be ordered to start carrying firearms. This, along with the president's vow to let police "do whatever the hell they want" to reduce crime in the city and other statements, have raised serious concerns of possible abuses.
"Through his manufactured emergency, President Trump is engaging in dangerous political theater to expand his power and sow fear in our communities," ACLU National Security Project director Hina Shamsi said Monday. "Sending heavily armed federal agents and National Guard troops from hundreds of miles away into our nation's capital is unnecessary, inflammatory, and puts people's rights at high risk of being violated."
Shamsi stressed that "federal agents and military troops are bound by the Constitution, including our rights to peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, due process, and safeguards against unlawful searches and seizures. If troops or federal agents violate our rights, they must be held accountable."
On Friday, the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration to block its order asserting federal authority over the MPD, arguing the move violated the Home Rule Act. U.S. Attorney General Bondi subsequently rescinded her order to replace DC Police Chief Pamela Smith with Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator Terry Cole.
Also on Friday, a group of House Democrats introduced a resolution to terminate Trump's emergency declaration.
The deployment of out-of-state National Guard troops onto our streets is a brazen abuse of power meant to create fear in the District.Join us in the fight for statehood to give D.C. residents the same guardrails against federal overreach as other states: dcstatehoodnow.org
[image or embed]
— ACLU of the District of Columbia (@aclu-dc.bsky.social) August 18, 2025 at 7:23 AM
ACLU of DC executive director Monica Hopkins argued Monday that there is a way to curb Trump's "brazen abuse of power" in the District.
"We need the nation to join us in the fight for statehood so that DC residents are treated like those in every other state and have the same guardrails against federal overreach," she said.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness estimates that the proposal could increase the number of homeless people in the US by 36%.
As US President Donald Trump moves forward with a nationwide purge of homeless people from America's streets, his administration is moving to kill a program that has helped many of those in need find permanent housing.
The White House's fiscal year 2026 budget proposes ending a program under the Department of Housing and Urban Development known as Continuum of Care, which has helped cities across the country address or, in some cases, nearly eliminate their homelessness problem.
To receive federal funds, cities are required to adopt community-wide plans to end homelessness with the goal of moving people from the streets into shelters and then into stable housing.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness describes Continuum of Care as "the federal government's key vehicle for distributing homelessness funds."
As the Washington Post reports, Dallas has become a model for the program's effectiveness:
Instead of shuffling people to other neighborhoods, [the city] offered wraparound social services—and a permanent place to live.
The approach worked. Even as homelessness nationwide has surged to record levels, Dallas has emerged as a national model. The city declared an end to downtown homelessness in May after more than 270 people moved off the streets.
Other places, it says, have used Continuum of Care to substantially reduce homelessness, including San Bernardino, California, and Montgomery County, Maryland.
But the White House budget, unveiled in May, would eliminate Continuum of Care, instead shifting its resources to the Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) program, which prioritizes shelters and transitional housing, as well as mental health and substance abuse counselling, rather than "Housing First" solutions.
The National Alliance to End Homelessness says the administration's plan to consolidate the program "would place thousands of projects and the hundreds of thousands of people they serve at risk."
The Alliance estimated that the proposal would effectively end funding of permanent supportive housing for 170,000 residents and potentially increase the number of homeless people in the US by 36%.
In addition to eliminating Continuum of Care, the White House budget cuts $532 million in funding to the federal government's Homeless Assistance Grants account. That money, the Alliance says, could fund over 60,000 Rapid Re-Housing Units—enough to serve 8% of the US homeless population.
"Between 2023 and 2024, homelessness increased by 18%, yet this proposal would strip funding for the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)'s homelessness programs by 12%," said Ann Oliva, CEO of the National Alliance to End Homelessness. "That is a recipe for disaster. We know that these programs have been chronically underfunded for decades."
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has declared an all-out war on the nation's homeless population. In July, he signed an executive order requiring states and cities to remove homeless people from public places, expanding cases where they must be involuntarily committed to psychiatric hospitals, and requiring sobriety preconditions for them to receive housing assistance.
During his federal takeover of Washington, DC, Trump ordered homeless people in encampments to move "FAR from the Capital." Press secretary Karoline Leavitt has said those who refuse to accept services at a shelter will face jail time.
The advocacy group Housing Not Handcuffs reported Friday that "police evicted and destroyed the property of homeless people throughout DC, throwing away people's personal belongings, including tents and other property."
"Homelessness is a market failure, a housing problem," said Rob Robinson, a formerly homeless community organizer in New York City, in USA Today. "Rent prices have exceeded income gains by 325% nationally since 1985. Rates of homelessness are tied to rental affordability."
"The White House's recent moves toward the criminalization of homelessness and forced institutionalization," he said, "ignore decades of research and real-world outcomes."
"If Donald Trump really wanted to help people and solve homelessness, he would use his power to lower rents and help people make ends meet," said Jesse Rabinowitz from the National Homelessness Law Center. "Estimates show that taxpayers are spending over $400,000 a day for Trump to use the DC National Guard for photo ops. Why can they find money for that but not for housing and help?"