Good story, Mike! But isn't it time for some activism? (0.00 / 0)

I mean, Congress hearings start TOMMORROW! Shouldn't people call their representatives, in order to give them moral support for resisting the pressure from the Wall Street lobby?

And nice to know that a big coalition is joining forces for putting US financial institutions under tighter scrutiny. But time is of the essence, didn't they start a bit late in organizing? And what can people to do support those efforts?

---

by: Gray @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:42:51 AM CDT

Shouldn't They Be Threatened with a Re-Election Defeat Instead? (4.00 / 4)

You write, "Shouldn't people call their representatives, in order to give them moral support for resisting the pressure from the Wall Street lobby?".

My view is that instead of giving them moral support, they should be threatened with defeat at the polls if they support Wall Street at the expense of their constituents.

The fact is that the nation's lawmakers in Congress are as much to blame as the banks and financial institutions in causing the U.S. banking and financial system to collapse and the economy to implode.

In particular, lawmakers' long-standing refusal to regulate the practices of the financial services sector allowed speculative financiers to wreck the housing market and cause tens of millions of homeowners to lose the equity they had built up in their homes.

Lawmakers ignored explicit warnings of the need to regulate these practices. They stood aside and allowed municipalities, school systems, universities and pension funds throughout the U.S. to lose hundreds of millions of dollars by investing in worthless mortgage-backed securities issued by rapacious investment houses reaping windfall profits.

When the entire banking and financial system collapsed, the nation's lawmakers stepped in and put the American people on the hook for $12.8 trillion to bail out the insolvent institutions.

They did this despite the fact that a majority of Americans and economists outside government favored the temporary takeover of the insolvent institutions by the government agencies that normally handle insolvencies.

It is important to note that the members of the House of Representatives who voted in favor of the bailout received 41% more money from the financial sector than those who opposed the legislation, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Unless and until U.S. voters get control of electoral and legislative processes, which they can do if they use breakthrough Internet inventions I recommend in my book, Re-Inventing Democracy, policy-makers in the executive branch and Congress cannot be trusted to part company with their campaign financiers in the financial and business sector to defend the interests of the American people, no matter what flimsy, loophole-ridden regulations they put in place.

---

by: Nancy Bordier @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:24:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ok. I just wanted to say it in a polite way. (4.00 / 2)

OK, more clear now: There has to be public pressure on the lawmakers, or else the Wall Street lobby will prevail and the reform bill will be watered down beyond recognition. The precedents you cite show that, left on their own, the Representatives and Senators will chose the easy way out again, and won't dare to vote for anything that will anger the bankers. So, of course it's a good idea if callers emphasize that this is a very important issue for them, and that the lawmaker's actions will effect their chances of winning the next primaries. Congress folks have to learn that this isn't business as usual anymore, but that they are under an increasing level of scrutiny.

---

by: Gray @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:47:34 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Well you've got a good sense of humor. . . (0.00 / 0)

I'll give you that.

Bankers are under "under attack" by . . . .

Tim Geithner and Larry Summers.

That's really funny!

---

by: John Halle @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:55:04 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Sry, I can't laugh about Geithner and Summers (0.00 / 0)

Imho those staff choices were tragic. But on the positive side, the administration can only relay wishes to the lawmakers. It's up to the Dems in Congress to create the bill. And if there is enough public pressure on the lawmakers, it's possible that the new regulation rules will have more teeth than Geithner and Summers, and their Wall Street buddies, will like. It's up to y'all to ensure that the new law doesn't become a joke!

---

by: Gray @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 11:24:25 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes - I agree that CREDIBLE threats of election defeat is the best pressure (4.00 / 2)

The questions are, what exactly would constitute credible threats, and what needs to be done to manifest those credible threats?

Also, where is the pool of potential candidates who will primary the Democratic (and Republican, for those of us thinking tran-partisan) sell-outs?

I'm not sure where I read about this (perhaps it was at Industrial Areas Foundation), but some group out there has the concept of guerilla candidates. Basically, if a potential candidate is popular enough to garner support, nationally, the prospective candidate will re-locate to the 'correct' state or district required to 'take out' the instransigent Congressman or Senator.

Until there's a plentiful supply of prospective, supportable , realistic primary challengers located in every district in the US, I think this idea has GREAT potential. (A plentiful supply of challengers would make this idea less important, though not completely useless.) For one thing, it will help spread the meme that incumbents are not overly difficult to remove from power - thus encouraging challengers to appear on the scene, who would not have even thought of doing so, otherwise.

DemocracyABC.org
TheRealNews.Com
http://www.pdamerica.org

---

by: metamars @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:37:01 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You will know the Administration is on the right track (4.00 / 3)

if the usual suspects are howling in agony.

Right now they seem a little too chipper.

The ecnomy can sink Obama; does he have a Plan B?

---

by: Paul Goodman @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 07:57:37 AM CDT

Excellent question (0.00 / 0)

Not real sure about that.

---

by: Mike Lux @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 09:17:48 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

"the Obama administration has to be crystal clear" Isn't he clear enough??? (0.00 / 0)

June 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Obama administration plans to restrict the Federal Reserve's emergency-lending powers while endowing it with new authority for systemic risk, ushering in what may become the Fed's biggest overhaul in decades.

...

The move is part of a proposal that would alter almost every facet of federal rules for the industry, aiming to prevent the regulatory lapses and build-up of risks that led to the worst crisis since the Great Depression. Much of the plan will require approval in Congress, where jurisdictional battles and ideological clashes may delay and alter the legislation. Obama aims to sign a bill by the end of the year.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/...

Dunno, this sounds pretty clear to me. And very determined.
:-/

---

by: Gray @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:04:21 AM CDT

What is not in (4.00 / 4)

this plan is what bothers me.

Fundementally the large money center banks are too big.  What Obama is proposing will not address this.  

There is an international dimension to the issue of the size of the banks, and it is an issue that needs to be addressed globally.  But the fundemental principle that liberals should fight for can be summed up in one phrase:

Economic Decentralization.

As long as these banks are as big as they are, they are too big to fail.  Better regulation will help avoid the next bailout, and there is much good in what Obama is proposing.

But these banks have to be broken up.  

---

by: fladem @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 08:49:18 AM CDT

Completely Agreed. (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Mike Lux @ Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 09:18:22 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I don't think obama intends on doing anything about that (0.00 / 0)

After all the idea behind the tarp was that wall street speculation would more accurately price things than the alternatives.

The same players that brought the system down are acting as if they learned plenty.  They learned that they could be bailed out and that that is very lucrative.

Look at gas prices.

That being said this isn't actually that urgent.  Wallstreet only becomes dangerous when people forget that they are the marks and begin to think that they are the conmen.

Our economy will decline for a while with or without financial regulation.  The difference is that Obama has a lot of potential to be blamed for making things worse if he doesn't stop it.

http://transgendermom.blogspot....

---

by: transgenmom @ Wed Jun 17, 2009 at 12:30:50 PM CDT