NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label financial regulatory reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label financial regulatory reform. Show all posts

15 February 2013

Elizabeth Warren Embarrasses Hapless Bank Regulators At First Hearing (VIDEO) 14FEB13

SEN ELIZABETH WARREN D MA fired another warning shot over the bow of the government financial industry regulators and I'll bet some of them almost shit their pants. She is giving fair warning that as long as she is serving on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee they are going to be held accountable for their actions and inaction in addressing the criminal actions of the U.S. bank-financial cabal. Watch the video, she is fair and firm without resorting to demeaning the members of the panel. From HuffPost, followed by a video on Bill Moyers interviewing Neil Barofsky on the need for banking reform. 
http://youtu.be/liaUFcjPTxo

WASHINGTON -- Bank regulators got a sense Thursday of how their lives will be slightly different now that Elizabeth Warren sits on a Senate committee overseeing their agencies.

At her first Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing, Warren questioned top regulators from the alphabet soup that is the nation's financial regulatory structure: the FDIC, SEC, OCC, CFPB, CFTC, Fed and Treasury.
The Democratic senator from Massachusetts had a straightforward question for them: When was the last time you took a Wall Street bank to trial? It was a harder question than it seemed.
"We do not have to bring people to trial," Thomas Curry, head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, assured Warren, declaring that his agency had secured a large number of "consent orders," or settlements.
"I appreciate that you say you don't have to bring them to trial. My question is, when did you bring them to trial?" she responded.
"We have not had to do it as a practical matter to achieve our supervisory goals," Curry offered.
Warren turned to Elisse Walter, chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who said that the agency weighs how much it can extract from a bank without taking it to court against the cost of going to trial.
"I appreciate that. That's what everybody does," said Warren, a former Harvard law professor. "Can you identify the last time when you took the Wall Street banks to trial?"
"I will have to get back to you with specific information," Walter said as the audience tittered.
"There are district attorneys and United States attorneys out there every day squeezing ordinary citizens on sometimes very thin grounds and taking them to trial in order to make an example, as they put it. I'm really concerned that 'too big to fail' has become 'too big for trial,'" Warren said.
A Warren constituent, open-Internet activist Aaron Swartz, recently committed suicide after being hounded by federal prosecutors who reportedly said they wanted to "make an example" of him. Warren had met and said she admired Swartz and, after he died, expressed her concern by attending his memorial in Washington.
The financial regulators can blame, at least in part, Wall Street lobbyists (along with outgoing Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Senate Republicans) for their embarrassing turn at the hearing. Warren would have been on the panel herself representing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, instead of a sitting senator, if her nomination to head the agency hadn't been thwarted in 2011.
Published on Oct 26, 2012
Between President Obama's ineffectual proposals and Mitt Romney's loving embrace, bankers have little to fear from either administration, and that leaves the rest of America on perilously thin economic ice. Neil Barofsky, who held the thankless job of special inspector general in charge of policing TARP, the bailout's Troubled Asset and Relief Plan, joins Bill to discuss the critical yet unmet need to tackle banking reform and avoid another financial meltdown.

Currently a senior fellow and adjunct professor at the New York University School of Law, Barofsky is the author of Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street

08 December 2011

Senate blocks Richard Cordray confirmation to head consumer watchdog agency 8DEZ11

I saw that fotze sen kay bailey-hutchinson r TX on the PBS NewsHour last night and her performance defending the lack of regulation and oversight of financial institutions not regulated by the FED or SEC or any other government agency and her fear-mongering of the power and cost of the CFPB was worthy of a high priced political whore, which is exactly what she is, a whore for the bank-financial cabal and wall street. Know this Kay, most of the country doesn't swallow and doesn't believe the gop / tea-bagger propaganda either. From the WashPost....
Editor’s Note: This post was inadvertantly published early, before the vote. The vote has now occurred.
In a long-awaited vote Thursday morning, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of President Obama’s nominee to lead his signature consumer watchdog agency, a move that prevents it from exercising many of its broad new powers.
Republicans relied on a procedural vote to keep the Senate from even considering former Ohio attorney general Richard Cordray for the top job at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
By a vote of 53 to 45, Senate Democrats were unable to close off debate to allow the confirmation to proceed; 60 votes were needed to end a filibuster and proceed. 
Though GOP lawmakers have praised Cordray’s qualifications for the job -- he currently serves as the CFPB’s director of enforcement -- they have pledged to prevent any candidate from being confirmed unless significant structural change are made to the bureau.
Republicans want the director replaced by a five-member commission and tighter oversight of the agency’s decisions by other regulatory bodies. They are also seeking to subject the CFPB to the congressional appropriations process; currently, it is funded through the Federal Reserve.
Democrats have balked at those requests, leaving the leaderless bureau trapped in a political stalemate. Though the CFPB can enforce existing consumer regulations, it cannot begin oversight of so-called “nonbank” financial institutions such as payday lenders, prepaid card providers and private student lenders until a director is confirmed.
It remains unclear what the next step for the Obama administration will be. The White House has been reluctant to name a director through recess appointment despite pressure to do so by several Democratic lawmakers and consumer advocacy groups.
In addition, Republicans have prevented the Senate from going on recess at all, instead holding pro forma sessions aimed at blocking any appointments. According to the Congressional Research Service, the shortest recess during which a presidential appointment has been made in the last 20 years was 10 days. The appointee also could only serve until the next session of Congress; a confirmed CFPB director would serve for five years.
Only two of the 47 Republicans in the Senate did not vote to block Cordray’s confirmation. One was Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who voted “present.” The other was Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is facing the CFPB’s original architect, Elizabeth Warren, in the 2012 Senate race.
“I disagree with Republicans on this issue,” Brown said in a statement explaining his “yes” vote. “Mr. Cordray deserves an up or down vote, and I look forward to supporting his nomination. Having a leader at the helm is critical at a time when the agency is getting up and running. The unfortunate truth is that there are still bad actors in the financial system who will take advantage of vulnerable people in our society.”
Rosalind S. Helderman contributed to this report.
This story initially misreported one of the Republican senators voting not to block Cordray. It has been corrected.
 

26 October 2011

Wall Street Is Still Out of Control -- Obama Should Call for Glass-Steagall and a Breakup of Big Banks 26OCT11

WELL written piece advocating bringing back Glass-Steagall and breaking up the big banks before they really destroy our economy and nation.
Next week President Obama travels to Wall Street where he'll demand -- in light of the Street's continuing antics since the bailout, as well as its role in watering-down the Volcker rule -- that the Glass-Steagall Act be resurrected and big banks be broken up.
I'm kidding. But it would be a smart move -- politically and economically.
Politically smart because Mitt Romney is almost sure to be the Republican nominee, and Romney is the poster child for the pump-and-dump mentality that's infected the financial industry and continues to jeopardize the American economy.
Romney was CEO of Bain & Company -- a private-equity fund that bought up companies, fired employees to save money and boost performance, and then resold the firms at a nice markups.
Romney also epitomizes the pump-and-dump culture of America's super rich. To take one example, he recently purchased a $3 million mansion in La Jolla, California (in addition to his other homes) that he's razing in order build a brand new one.
What better way for Obama to distinguish himself from Romney than to condemn Wall Street's antics since the bailout, and call for real reform?
Economically it would be smart for Obama to go after the Street right now because the Street's lobbying muscle has reduced the Dodd-Frank financial reform law to a pale reflection of its former self. Dodd-Frank is rife with so many loopholes and exemptions that the largest Wall Street banks -- larger by far then they were before the bailout -- are back to many of their old tricks.
It's impossible to know, for example, the exposure of the Street to European banks in danger of going under. To stay afloat, Europe's banks will be forced to sell mountains of assets - among them, derivatives originating on the Street -- and may have to renege on or delay some repayments on loans from Wall Street banks.
The Street says it's not worried because these assets are insured. But remember AIG? The fact Morgan Stanley and other big U.S. banks are taking a beating in the market suggests investors don't believe the Street. This itself proves financial reform hasn't gone far enough.
If you want more evidence, consider the fancy footwork by Bank of America in recent days. Hit by a credit downgrade last month, BofA just moved its riskiest derivatives from its Merrill Lynch unit to a retail subsidiary flush with insured deposits. That unit has a higher credit rating because the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (that is, you and me and other taxpayers) are backing the deposits. Result: BofA improves its bottom line at the expense of American taxpayers.
Wasn't this supposed to be illegal? Keeping risky assets away from insured deposits had been a key principle of U.S. regulation for decades before the repeal of Glass-Steagall.
The so-called "Volcker rule" was supposed to remedy that. But under pressure of Wall Street's lobbyists, the rule -- as officially proposed last week -- has morphed into almost 300 pages of regulatory mumbo-jumbo, riddled with exemptions and loopholes.
It would have been far simpler simply to ban proprietary trading from the jump. Why should banks ever be permitted to use peoples' bank deposits - insured by the federal government - to place risky bets on the banks' own behalf? Bring back Glass-Steagall.
True, Glass-Steagall wouldn't have prevented the fall of Lehman Brothers or the squeeze on other investment banks in 2007 and 2008. That's why it's also necessary to break up the big banks.
In the wake of the bailout, the biggest banks are bigger than ever. Twenty years ago the ten largest banks on the Street held 10 percent of America's total bank assets. Now they hold over 70 percent. And the biggest four have a larger market share than ever -- so large, in fact, they've almost surely been colluding. How else to explain their apparent coordination on charging debit card fees?
The banks aren't even fulfilling their fiduciary duties to investors. Last summer, after Groupon selected Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and Credit Suisse to underwrite its initial public offering, the trio valued it at a generous $30 billion. Subsequent accounting and disclosure problems showed this estimate to be absurdly high. Did the banks care? Not a wit. The higher the valuation, the fatter their fees.
Just last week Citigroup settled charges (without admitting or denying guilt) that it defrauded investors by selling them a package of mortgage-backed securities rife with mortgages it knew were likely to default, but didn't disclose the hazard. It then bet against the package for its own benefit -- earning fees of $34 million and net profits of at least $126 million. So what's Citi paying to settle this outrage? A mere $285 million. Its CEO at time (Charles Prince) doesn't pay a dime.
I doubt the president will be condemning the Street's antics, or calling for a resurrection of Glass-Steagall and a breakup of the biggest banks. Democrats are still too dependent on the Street's campaign money.
That's too bad. You don't have to be an occupier of Wall Street to conclude the Street is still out of control. And that's dangerous for all of us.

This Powerful Clip Is Exactly Why Everyone Should Support #OccupyWallStreet

A great video explaining how we got where we are today, and why we should support the Occupy Wall Street movement across the country.

09 June 2011

Rep. Elijah Cummings says new financial protection bureau will have budget equal to just 1 percent of industry's fees 8JUN11

ALL the political whores in congress owned by wall street and the banking / financial industry, and their tea-bagger allies are running a propaganda campaign against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau / CFPB and the woman who should head the agency, Elizabeth Warren, as an expansion of big government and extremely costly, too expensive to exist considering the budget problems we are facing (caused by the greed of wall street and the banking / financial industry in the U.S.). Check this out from PolitiFact...

Cummings

The budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "is only about 1 percent of the amount banks generate just from late fees and overdraft fees."

Elijah Cummings on Tuesday, May 24th, 2011 in a congressional subcommittee hearing

Rep. Elijah Cummings says new financial protection bureau will have budget equal to just 1 percent of industry's fees

During a contentious hearing on May 24, 2011, members of a congressional oversight subcommittee sparred with Elizabeth Warren, who is President Barack Obama’s pick to head a new federal agency charged with protecting consumers from abusive practices in the financial services sector.

The hearing attracted media attention for a testy exchange between the subcommittee’s chairman, Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., and Warren, who has become a champion of those who want to see stricter oversight of Wall Street. Her official appointment as director has been blocked by Republicans, who want to see changes in how the new agency operates, though she has been working to get the agency up and running as assistant to the president and special adviser to the Treasury Secretary.

A reader pointed us to one statistic presented at the hearing that purported to show the imbalance between federal regulators and Wall Street.

Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the top Democrat on the full oversight panel, said that the new agency’s "budget is only about 1 percent of the amount banks generate just from late fees and overdraft fees. … I have to ask you: How in the world will you be able to compete against this Goliath when you are so mismatched?"

We wondered whether there was such an imbalance.

We were able to track down sources for both types of fees.

R.K. Hammer, a privately held bankcard consulting firm, tracks credit card penalty fees. The firm found that card penalty fees assessed by the industry during 2010 totaled $22.5 billion.

We should note that the figure we’re using from R.K. Hammer -- what the firm calls "penalty fees" -- is an umbrella category that includes various types of fees. However, the firm says that late fees -- the category specifically cited by Cummings -- account for more than 90 percent of penalty fees. So we’ll reduce the amount slightly, to an estimated $20.3 billion in late fees.

Meanwhile, the economic research firm Moebs Services tracks data on overdraft fees. The firm projected that for 2010, overdraft fees will total $35.4 billion.

If you add these two figures, the total is $55.7 billion. To make sure we weren’t double-counting, we checked with both firms, and they confirmed that the two estimates do not overlap.

What about the agency’s budget? We turned to the agency’s website for the answer.

Budget documents posted there say that the agency’s estimated budget for fiscal year 2011 is $142.8 million, a number that Obama wants to increase to $329 million in fiscal year 2012.

Using the 2011 figure, the agency’s budget is three-tenths of 1 percent of the industry fee totals. Using the larger figure for 2012 -- which is only a proposal -- it works out to six-tenths of 1 percent.

Both figures are well under the 1 percent threshold Cummings cited. And the fees in Cummings’ comparison are just a small slice of the resources available to financial institutions. According to the Department of Commerce, profits in the finance and insurance sector for 2010 -- not revenues, just profits -- amounted to $366.8 billion.

We’ll note here that we're not ruling on whether a budget that’s equal to 1 percent of penalty and overdraft fees is too little (or too much) to carry out the agency’s tasks. But on the specific comparison Cummings made, we found that he was accurate and even understated the disparity slightly. He’s correct that the new agency’s budget is "only about 1 percent of the amount banks generate just from late fees and overdraft fees." So we rate his statement True.
About this statement:
Published: Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 at 4:26 p.m.
Subjects: Federal Budget, Financial Regulation, Regulation
Sources:
Elijah Cummings, comments in transcript of a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs, May 24, 2011 (accessed via Lexis-Nexis)

R.K. Hammer, "Card Penalty Fees Soften Slightly In 2010," June 2, 2011

Moebs Services, "Overdraft Fee Revenue Drops to 2008 Levels for Banks and Credit Unions," Sep. 15, 2010

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, "Program Summary by Budget Activity," accessed June 8, 2011

Bureau of Economic Analysis, "National Income and Product Accounts Table 6.16D: Corporate Profits by Industry," accessed June 8, 2011

Interview with John Lopez, spokesman for Moebs Services, June 8, 2011

Interview with Bob Hammer, CEO of R.K. Hammer, June 8, 2011
Written by: Louis Jacobson
Researched by: Louis Jacobson
Edited by: Martha Hamilton

03 February 2011

Elizabeth Warren 2.0 & THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU from BANKSTERUSA 3FEB11

ELIZABETH WARREN on the launch of the CFPB website, check it out! This is great news for all Americans...I have also added a link to the CFPB on this blog in the My Favorite Sites section.....

In a savvy move, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau launched its first website today. The CFPB was created by the passage of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill in July 2010 and is headed on an interim basis by well-known consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren. While the agency will not officially open its doors for formal consumer complaints until July 2011, the new website offers the agency an opportunity to start reaching out to consumers to hear their ideas on how the new agency can best serve the public.
“We’re excited to announce the launch of our website, ConsumerFinance.gov, for one very important reason – to start a conversation with you. With the launch of our site, we will be Open for Suggestions,” Elizabeth Warren explained in a statement.

While the agency will have a hard time dealing with actual consumer complaints until it formally opens its doors, the website offers agency staff a mechanism for communicating with an anxious public -- who, in my experience, has been clamoring for Elizabeth Warren’s personal phone number ever since the passage of the Wall Street reform bill.
It is a clever idea and good customer relations.

Get Involved in the Conversation!

Visit the website at ConsumerFinance.gov.
“Like” the agency on Facebook.
Tweet your suggestion using the hashtag #CFPB. You can also follow the agency Twitter feed here.

30 December 2010

Elizabeth Warren Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau New Consumer Agency Is Frightfully Necessary -- And Late 29DEZ10

IF there is one person in the government that has earned the total trust of average Americans it is Elizabeth Warren......and her is what she has to say on the latest foreclosure news and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau....
No one has missed the headlines: Haphazard and possibly illegal practices at mortgage-servicing companies have called into question home foreclosures across the nation.
The latest disclosures are deeply troubling, but they should not come as a big surprise. For years, both individual homeowners and consumer advocates sounded alarms that foreclosure processes were riddled with problems.
While federal and state investigators are still examining exactly what has gone wrong and why, two things are clear.
First, several financial services companies have already admitted that they used "robo-signers," false declarations, and other workarounds to cut corners, creating a legal nightmare that will waste time and money that could have been better spent to help this economy recover. Mortgage lenders will spend millions of dollars retracing their steps, often with the same result that families who cannot pay will lose their homes.
Second, this mess might well have been avoided if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau had been in place just a few years ago.
The new consumer agency is one of the signature accomplishments of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act signed into law by President Obama this summer.
The new agency will take on oversight responsibilities that had been scattered among several federal agencies, and it will be a new cop on the beat that will end big loopholes in the regulatory system.
For the first time, banks and non-bank lenders (such as payday lenders, check cashers and mortgage brokers) will be subject to the same federal oversight to ensure that they are all playing by the same rules-no more turning sideways and slipping through the regulatory cracks.
Lost in much of the back-and-forth over wrongful foreclosures is the question of whether the scandal could have been prevented. The answer is yes.
The practices now under investigation took root and grew because there was no single federal regulator with both the responsibility and the tools to look out for consumers.
Had it existed, the new consumer agency could have stopped these problems before they multiplied. Many of the failures already admitted were not sophisticated scams that had been carefully concealed. By enforcing existing laws and involving state authorities early on, the agency could have made sure that the law was respected. No one would need to wonder whether the world of borrowing and lending works only one way: Families have to follow the legal rules, but the rules are optional for big banks.
Once it is fully operational, the new consumer agency will have supervisory authority over all large mortgage servicers. It will be able to examine them on a regular basis to make sure they follow the rules. If those servicers decide it is cheaper or faster to circumvent federal law, the consumer agency will have the tools to hold them accountable.
No one will be allowed to break the rules without triggering a strong and prompt federal response.
Currently, the federal interagency foreclosure task force, including the members of the Financial Services Oversight Council, is working along with the state Attorneys General to get to the bottom of these problems. The implementation team for the new consumer agency is also working to assemble and coordinate teams to deal with servicing and other issues.
These efforts are critical, but there is more work to do: We must ensure this kind of scandal-or some close cousin-does not happen again.
A mortgage is the biggest financial commitment most Americans will make in a lifetime, and the toll on Florida has been especially heavy and the need for oversight particularly apparent. A few weeks ago, I watched proceedings in a Fort Lauderdale foreclosure court and saw firsthand the painful outcomes for numerous families.
Unfair servicing practices can worsen a family's already difficult economic situation, and the injury echoes from the family to the community and ultimately throughout the economy. Cops on the beat can stop problems before the damage spreads. If there ever was any doubt that the new consumer agency is necessary, the latest foreclosure developments should put that to rest.

03 December 2010

A Real Jaw Dropper at the Federal Reserve 2NOV10

THE greed in this country is disgusting; corporations and banks, foreign and domestic, feeding at the corporate and financial welfare trough on taxpayer funds while the poor, working class and middle class can't get a break, can't get mortgages refinanced, can't get tax relief (unless the rich get more than them), can't get an extension on unemployment, can't get adequate funding for jobs training and relocation support. So thanks to Sen Bernie Sanders I VT we are getting more proof of how corporate and financial America and international financial institutions have been controlling and manipulating the American Federal Government and the American Federal Reserve. It is jaw dropping, absolutely amazing. Unfortunately, with the results of Novembers mid-term elections and the gop and tea-baggers running the House for the benefit of the plutocrats of Republicorp we can only expect more attempts of the same.....so BOHICA!
 
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from the Federal Reserve, how much they received, and the exact terms of this assistance. He refused. A year and a half later, as a result of an amendment that I was able to include in the Wall Street reform bill, we have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at the Fed, and the American people now have this information.
It is unfortunate that it took this long, and it is a shame that the biggest banks in America and Mr. Bernanke fought to keep this secret from the American public every step of the way. But, the details on this bailout are now on the Federal Reserve's website, and this is a major victory for the American taxpayer and for transparency in government.
Importantly, my amendment also required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of all of the emergency lending the Fed provided during the financial crisis to be completed on July 21, 2011, which will take a hard look at all of the potential conflicts of interest that took place with respect to this bailout. So, in many respects, details that the Fed was forced to divulge on Wednesday about the $3.3 trillion in emergency loans that until now were totally kept from public scrutiny, marked the beginning, not the end, of lifting the veil of secrecy at the Fed.
After years of stonewalling by the Fed, the American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions and how we can make our financial institutions more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans and small businesses.
What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.
We also learned that the Fed's multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota and Verizon.
Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks -- Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse -- which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed's purchase of mortgage-backed securities.
Deutsche Bank, a German lender, sold the Fed more than $290 billion worth of mortgage securities. Credit Suisse, a Swiss bank, sold the Fed more than $287 billion in mortgage bonds.
Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?
The Fed said that this bailout was necessary to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But three years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, big banks and corporations have returned to making huge profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages as if the financial crisis they started never happened.
What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans.
For example, at a time when big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Fed, the Fed did not require these institutions to increase lending to small- and medium-sized businesses as a condition of the bailout.
At a time when large corporations are more profitable than ever, the Fed did not demand that corporations that received this backdoor bailout create jobs and expand the economy once they returned to profitability.
I intend to investigate whether these secret Fed loans, in some cases, turned out to be direct corporate welfare to big banks that used these loans not to reinvest in the economy but rather to lend back to the federal government at a higher rate of interest by purchasing Treasury Securities. Instead of using this money to reinvest in the productive economy, I suspect a large portion of these near-zero interest loans were used to buy Treasury Securities at a higher interest rate providing free money to some of the largest financial institutions in this country. That is something that we have got to closely examine.
At a time when Wall Street executives are now making more money than before the financial crisis, how many big banks that paid back TARP funds in 2009 to avoid limits on executive compensation received no-strings-attached loans from the Federal Reserve?
At a time when millions of Americans are paying outrageously high credit card interest rates, why didn't the Fed require credit card issuers to lower interest rates as a condition of the bailout?
The four largest banks in this country (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) issue half of all mortgages in this country. We now know that these banks received hundreds of billions from the Fed. How many Americans could have remained in their homes, if the Fed required these bailed-out banks to reduce mortgage payments as a condition of receiving these secret loans?
We have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at one of most important agencies in our government. What we are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while ignoring the needs of the people.
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Facebook.
 
Follow Sen. Bernie Sanders on Twitter: www.twitter.com/senatorsanders
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from...
At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from...
Related News On Huffington Post:
Wall Street Banks In Talks To Settle SEC Lawsuit Over CDOs

As the government hunts for conflicts of interest at Wall Street banks that peddled investments which contributed to the worst financial collapse since the Great...
Bernie Sanders Blasts Wall Street, Government In Wake Of Fed Disclosures (VIDEO)

Self-avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) blasted the nation's major financial institutions and the government's failure to hold them accountable in a Wednesday-night appearance on...
Bailouts Are For Banks: Unemployed People Get Zilch

In Washington, the agenda has long since moved on from bailing out megabanks to figuring out how to stop paying for things that regular people...
Fed Directors Banks Lavished With Billions From Fed

The Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta made six major loans to SunTrust Banks at the height of the financial crisis totaling at least $7.5 billion....

11 November 2010

Could Wall Street's Favorite Dem Head Obama's Consumer Bureau? from MOJO 8NOV10

HERE'S hoping this is just one of those ugly Capital Hill rumors.....but if it isn't then Pres. Obama has decided to create what will be an ugly fight with the progressive community, one we will be determined to win.
Not only is rumored CFPB candidate Melissa Bean as industry-friendly as they come, but her ex-chief of staff has lobbied for finance reform's biggest enemies.
Will President Barack Obama appoint Wall Street-friendly Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? If so, that would be bad news for reformers, who are appalled by the prospect—but good news for John Michael Gonzalez, a leading lobbyist for Big Finance. Before becoming one of Washington's top influence peddlers on behalf of financial firms and trade groups, he was Bean's chief of staff.
According to Politico, Bean, a congresswoman representing northern Illinois who trails in the vote-counting in her close reelection race against Republican Joe Walsh, is under consideration by the White House for this new position, heading up the agency that consumer finance advocate Elizabeth Warren is now constructing.
Bean's campaign would neither confirm or deny whether she's under consideration for the CFBP job. "This race remains too close to call, and we are staying focused as this election process continues," says Bean spokeswoman Gabby Adler.
Bean, a member of the House financial services and small business committees, has a long history as a favorite of Wall Street. Her top donors hail from the finance, insurance, and real estate industries, which together have poured $2.5 million into her campaign coffers over her five-year career, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the 2008 elections, Bean bagged more money from the Chamber of Commerce, which vehemently opposed the Dodd-Frank bill, than any other House incumbent. And among the top contributors to her 2010 reelection campaign were JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Allstate Insurance, all of which sought to weaken aspects of the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill that established the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
"The White House needs to beat back the Bean idea, otherwise they'll look like fools," says one Democratic strategist. "This is the craziest thing I've ever seen. She's a tool of the financial industries."
Bean ultimately voted for the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill, but she tried to water down a crucial piece of the bill involving consumer protection laws. The bill initially gave state financial regulators the power to write tougher consumer protection statutes than those at the federal level. Bean, though, offered a provision backed by big banks and the Chamber of Commerce that would've exempted national banks from those tougher state laws, in effect neutering the states' new oversight powers. Bean was also one of six Democrats to oppose taxing bonuses at government-owned AIG, and she opposed auditing the Federal Reserve. "We're very connected to the business community and very much appreciate the importance of their success to our overall economic recovery," Bean said in March 2009. "We are trying to champion their issues and concerns."
And there's one more matter to anger reform advocates and liberal bloggers: her close connection to Gonzalez. From 2005 until last year, he was Bean's chief of staff. He flew through the revolving door and is now a lobbyist at Peck, Madigan, Jones, and Stewart, a major Washington lobbying firm. There, he's lobbied for such heavyweights as the Business Roundtable, a financial services trade association; Deutsche Bank; Mastercard; the International Swaps and Derivatives Association; and the Chamber of Commerce. For the Chamber, Gonzalez's firm worked to exempt national banks from tougher state consumer protection laws—the same issue Bean championed. Reform advocates would certainly not fancy Gonzalez helping Bean run the CFPB—or having the ear of its first chief.
According to federal lobbying records, Gonzalez has been registered to lobby House and Senate lawmakers on most major financial reform efforts of the past year that have been opposed by Big Finance: increasing regulation of the $600 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market; beefing up shareholder control of executive compensation; creating the new consumer protection agency; and preventing banks from becoming too big to fail. The companies and associations he's represented are hardly pro-reform types. All of Gonzalez's financial clients sought to water down, if not outright defeat, the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill and other consumer-friendly legislation.
Gonzalez's bio at the website for Peck, Madigan, Jones, and Stewart depicts him as a keen Democratic operative. In 2006, it notes, he "successfully planned and executed a winning reelection strategy, raising $4.3 million and earning the most support for any incumbent from the US Chamber of Commerce." This led the House leadership to tap him to work on its incumbent protection program. In 2007, he helped Bean coordinate a superdelegate operation in the House for the Obama campaign. National Journal cited him as a favorite of Rahm Emanuel, and he helped pass the TARP bailout in late 2008.
According to ProPublica, Gonzalez was the moderate Democrats' go-to guy when the financial sector was collapsing in 2008:
Three days after Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, the New Democrats [coalition in the House] unveiled a financial-reform working group co-chaired by Melissa Bean. The group was piloted by John Michael Gonzalez, Bean's chief of staff, who left four months later to lobby for several banks and financial-services trade groups.
Recently, Gonzalez—referring to lobbyists who work on campaign staffs—told Roll Call: "Nobody wants the Brooks Brothers Brigade out there campaigning for you." The question for the Obama White House is whether they want to put in charge of consumer financial protection a politician who has accepted large amounts of money from this brigade—and whose former chief of staff lobbies on the brigade's behalf.
David Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. For more of his stories, click here. He's also on Twitter and Facebook. Get David Corn's RSS feed.
Andy Kroll is a reporter at Mother Jones. For more of his stories, click here. Email him with tips and insights at akroll (at) motherjones (dot) com. Follow him on Twitter here. Get Andy Kroll's RSS feed.

05 November 2010

Banks and Populism 4NOV10 from MOJO

REPUBLICORP'S TAKEOVER OF THE GOVERNMENT BEGINS...This should not be a surprise to anyone, after all, gop and tea-bagger supporters voted to protect the shareholders of the banks and financial institutions of wall street, didn't they? See my earlier postings on this blog, 'ARE THE TEA PARTIERS BEING TAKEN FOR A RIDE?' 30OKT10, 'REPUBLICORP, BUYING DEMOCRACY ONE RACE AT A TIME' 23OKT10, 'OFFICIAL REPUBLICORP MERGER' 12OKT10. This from MOJO.....
Spencer Bachus, who's likely to be the new chairman of the House financial services committee, wants to go through the financial reform bill "page by page" and gut its toughest provisions, including the Volcker rule, which bans proprietary trading. The Financial Times explains:
Underlining the change in Congress, Mr Bachus, who as ranking Republican on the committee could replace Barney Frank as chairman of the panel, expressed concern that shareholders of Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase will be hurt because the banks will be less profitable.
Kudos for honesty, I guess. No shilly shallying here about how this is bad for consumers or bad for America or anything like that. It might hurt Goldman Sachs shareholders, so the Volcker Rule has to go.
This is one of the great political triumphs of our day. Right-wing opposition to healthcare reform I get. Liberals and conservatives have been fighting over national healthcare for a century. But opposition to modest banking reform? In the wake of the most catastrophic financial failure since the Great Depression? It's mind boggling. Somehow, all those tea partiers who are mad as hell at Wall Street and aren't going to take it anymore have been persuaded to believe that financial reform is a gigantic socialist/statist conspiracy to....what? I'm not even sure. But they're mad about it and think Bachus is doing the Lord's work by trying to repeal it. If you ever needed any evidence that the tea party movement is largely in thrall to all the usual Republican power centers, this is it. How else can you explain why a plumber in Dubuque is convinced that a bill to rein in Wall Street excesses is really a socialist ruse to allow Barack Obama to take over the banks?

12 August 2010

Elizabeth Warren: My Mission Is to Restore America's Great Middle Class 1AUG10

PLEASE CLICK THE LINK AND SIGN THE PETITION TO GET ELIZABETH WARREN APPOINTED AS HEAD OF THE CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU, AND ENCOURAGE YOUR FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO DO THE SAME!
 
At Netroots Nation, Elizabeth Warren spoke about how to make the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau help protect the U.S. economy.
August 1, 2010  |  

Photo Credit: Netroots Nation
Editor's note: The following is a speech delivered by Elizabeth Warren at Netroots Nation 2010. Check out AlterNet's petition at Change.org urging President Obama to appoint Warren to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
My grandmother, when she was a teenager, drove a wagon in the land rush that settled Oklahoma. Her mother was dead, and her little brothers and sisters were in the back of the wagon. Her father had ridden ahead and tried to find a piece of land that might be somewhere near water--a hard task in Oklahoma. She grew up in that part of the world, she met my grandfather, they got married, they started building one-room schoolhouses and little modest homes across the prairie. They had kids, they stretched, they scratched, they worked hard, they made a little money, and they put it aside, put it in the bank. It got completely wiped out in 1907 in an economic panic. But like many American families, they came back. They started scratching and stretching again, and having more babies--and then the Depression came. And they got wiped out one more time.

You see, my grandmother was born into the world of boom and bust, boom and bust, as it had been from 1794 until the Great Depression. But my grandmother also lived in a world of economic transformation. Because coming out of the Great Depression, just three laws fundamentally altered the course of America's history.

The first one, FDIC insurance, made it safe to put money in banks. The second one, Glass-Steagal, tried to separate the risk-taking on Wall Street from your local community bank. And the third one, SEC regulations, provide some cops to watch the robbers. And so, out of that, what we got was 50 years of economic peace. No financial panics, no meltdowns. And during that 50 years, we built a strong and prosperous middle class in America.
Now, my grandmother, when she died in 1970 at the age of 94, had been part of that. She owned a little house, she had plenty of groceries in the cupboard, and she had some cash in the bank. She was part of the growth of middle-class America. As were her children and her grandchildren. But shortly after my grandmother died, within a few years, we began unraveling that. Part of it was on the regulatory side. We hadn't been clever about regulations. They stayed ossified. The regulations put in place in the 1930s had not been updated. They had not adapted to a new world. And along came a new group of people who said, "Let's just get rid of the regulations. What are they there for anyway? They just cost money. Dump the regulations." And so the regulatory framework, or the "cops," who were on the beat began to disappear. They lost their effectiveness.

Another thing happened in that period of time, and that is the foundations of middle-class America began to erode. Start with income. Income and productivity across America had been intertwined after World War II. So every year, basically, productivity was going up--so were wages. But starting in the late 1970s those two begin to diverge, so that productivity continues to rise--indeed rise at a somewhat steeper rate--while incomes flatten out, so that today a fully employed male makes less money than his father made a generation ago, once we adjust for inflation.

On the income side, they're flat, but on the expense side, these families are not. The core expenses for the middle class--housing, health insurance, day care, college, the things that make a family safer, the things that make a family middle class, the things that let them invest in their children and the future--those went up, adjusted for inflation, by more than 100 percent. Families spent more, but they had flat incomes.

Now, anyone here can figure out what happens next. And that is, savings begin to decline, families who had put money away could no longer do it, and debt begins to rise. And families end up with more mortgage debt, more credit card debt, more car loan debt, more debt of every form. The credit industry then smells an opportunity. It says, "Wait a minute. The old regulations are gone, and middle-class families are under a lot of economic stress. There's money to be made in this situation." And indeed there was.

At first it was just the money of lending more, right? More money lent, more income coming in. Got that one. But over time, with the regulations having changed, the business model itself changed so that the old form of lending--the notion that you put the agreement out there, you can see what the interest rate is, you can see how often you have to make the payment, and what the payment is, and that's the deal: both sides get what the transaction is–that model gave way to a very different pricing model. A "tricks and traps" pricing model. One in which the promise gets cheaper and cheaper: 7.9 percent financing; 3.99 percent financing; zero financing. Cheap, cheap, cheap. Why? Because the real plan is to make the money on the back end. The real plan is to bury the tricks and traps in the fine print, and make really big money back there.

Now what's the consequence of doing that? Well, the consequence is families can't price it. You can't tell up front how much it costs to take out these credit agreements, and more importantly families can't compare. So the old notion of a competitive market, where you compare products and the best products survive and the worst products get washed out, goes away. Who can tell in here--lay four credit card agreements in front of you--which one is actually the cheapest one? Which is the one that carries the lowest risk? Without a competitive market, the consequence is a big hole in the boat for consumers on credit, so that last year--you watch your numbers?--about $150 billion flowed out of the pockets of ordinary, middle-class families on penalty rates, on penalty rates of interest, on regular rates of interest, on credit cards, on payday loans, on check overdraft, on kickbacks on car loans, all out there coming out of the pockets of ordinary, middle-class families.

So that's where the market stood, and now we are here at an historic moment. President Obama signed into law the strongest financial reforms in three generations. And in my view, the strongest of those financial reforms is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It's tough.

And I want to be clear: the president is the one who led on the consumer agency. He insisted it be in there, and he never wavered on that. So we have now the tools on the table to make significant change. The tools to let us get to a time when credit card agreements can be two pages long. When it's obvious what the cost of a mortgage is, and it's easy to compare across four mortgages or six mortgages. We can move to that time, but we gotta pick up the tools and use them. This agency must be built. It doesn't come--think about this statute that's just been passed. It has a few pieces in it about changes in specific law, but what it mostly is is about the tool of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I wanted to talk to you for just a minute today about what it is that we might do with this bureau. What it is that--when we're building something new--what you want to build into its DNA. And so I thought of four things that we should think about as we begin to build a new bureau.

The first one is, it must stand for families. We've had long enough where there's been no one to stand for families. Now what does that mean? It means, in part, in the case of the credit agreements that we've been talking about, a level playing field again. It means that there's someone there to make sure that both families, and lenders, understand the terms of the credit agreement. That it is as obvious to one side as the other. That when they come together, they get what this transaction is. The cost. That we create competitive markets so that the products are products that are not only priced so that consumers can understand them, but they're priced well in the marketplace.

But it also means something else to stand on behalf of families. When powerful people get together in our government, and they start to divide up where things are going to go, when they start to make decisions about who is going to be helped and who is not going to be helped, there needs to be at least one person in the room who asks the question, "How will this affect America's families?" Not just how will it affect America's banks, not just how will it affect America's businesses, but how it will it affect America's families. One of the things this bureau can do is be there on behalf of American families.

But a second thing I think is really critical about this agency is it must be reality-based. It's not good enough to have a great theory. And frankly, it's not good enough to have just a good heart. It's got to be grounded in how things really work on the ground. So now I'm going to give you an example of that: small banks. If the consequence of this agency is to put in enough new bureaucratic obligations that it crushes community banks, then the agency will not have been successful. If the community banks are driven out of business, that creates more concentration in the banking industry. The big get bigger and the small go away. But it also means there are fewer of those banks around to lend to the small businesses that we're counting on to restart this economy. And it means that families themselves have fewer choices between small banks and big banks. And that's a choice we've got to preserve.

So ultimately what this agency has to be about is, yes, the first one on the side of the families, but second, the side of creating workable, realistic markets. Sustainable markets over time. Markets that work for consumers, but that also create a viable, functioning credit system. It's got to be part of what goes into this.

The third part is the bureau has to be able to grow and change. Part of what went wrong in the 1930s was that we didn't keep the rules up to date. The world changed around it. The markets changed around it. How families behaved changed around it. But the rules were not changing. They were not vital. And so, what this agency--what we have to think about when you're building in at the beginning is, "How do you build change? How do you build some creative destruction into the agency itself?"

I come from the world of bankruptcy. It's what I teach. Bankruptcy is littered with the businesses that didn't adapt to the world. Government doesn't have that same discipline in it. And so part of building this agency is building in how it will change and adapt over time. That it has the right structure to do that.

And then the last part I want to mention is part of why I'm here. This will be the first agency we have built in a wired world. Think about that for just one minute. The relationship between government agencies, between bureaucracy, between the government and its people. At the time we built all of the earlier agencies, it was one of... the government labors in relative obscurity, and you send out some information, and people get it through their newspapers, or watching television, or radio, or whatever they listen to. This is an agency that will be the first to be born digital. It will be an agency that will have the capacity to communicate with millions of Americans by just hitting a send button. It will also be an agency where millions of Americans have the capacity to communicate with the agency by hitting a send button. The possibilities here are endless. The notion that part of how one comes to understand and define the problems in the credit area will change if we hear--if this agency hears, if this bureau hears--from people who are experiencing it. This can be built into the research function of the agency. If the agency can hear from people and communicate with people, it changes the concept of how regulations work, of how regulations are tested, of how regulations are communicated, and of how they are enforced.

I think of this as a real opportunity, as we build this agency, not to replicate what was built last time when we had a consumer agency in the 1970s, but to try a whole new model. To think about this agency from a different perspective. That's why I came here today. I bought a plane ticket and showed up here because I have a specific task.

I wanted to talk to people who have a voice, and that's why I came to talk to you. There are three things I want to ask you to do with your voice. I want to ask you to use your voice on behalf of economic security for middle-class Americans. In a world in which so many people face so much insecurity, I want you to give them voice. I also want to ask you to use your voice for ideas. This is the place to let ideas be born, to let them bounce around, to let them get tougher, to let the bad ones die out and the good ones advance. This is where ideas should come from. And the third is, I'm going to ask you to use your voice as a voice of conscience in a world that sorely needs more conscience. You are our collective conversation on conscience.

I'm going to wrap this up by saying we have an opportunity now to pick up the tools that were laid out in this new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Unused tools don't do anyone any good. The point is to pick them up and use them. And it's going to be tough. The era of my grandmother in the Great Depression, it was tough then. Remember, Franklin Roosevelt faced his economic royalists. Remember, it took him years to get his entire economic package into place. It paid off. It was tough, but it paid off. So what I want to think about is what we do from this moment going forward. If you have any doubts about where we're headed and how much change we can make, I ask you for just one second to glance back over your shoulder at where we have traveled over the last year.

I was in Chairman Barney Frank's office just a few weeks ago--and Barney Frank deserves as much credit as anyone on this planet for keeping this Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and making it strong. So, Chairman Frank and I were talking about some details about the bureau, and what might happen, and not, in conference. We got to the end, and Barney looked up in that way he does--you know, over the top of his glasses, and he growled--because that's the only way I know to describe a conversation with Barney--he said [speaks in raspy, growling voice], "You know, Elizabeth, a year ago this idea wouldn't have even qualified as a pipe dream. And here we are."

And here's the best part of it when you're thinking about what we can do. We're not here today because the banks gave it to us. The banks did not, a year ago, say, "Well, we're really sorry we broke the economy, and, um, uh, we really appreciate that you put $700 billion and a few trillion in guarantees on the table to help bail us out, and therefore we're gonna support some regulation for ordinary families to kind of level the playing field, and just make sure everybody's getting a fair deal here, that you can read your credit card contracts and mortgage agreements...."

They didn't say that. They fought us every single inch of the way. They announced in August of last year that the consumer agency was dead. And why was it dead? Because they were going to kill it. They were quoted in the New York Times. They were that sure of themselves. The lobbyists came out and said, "We will kill the consumer agency." And they announced it, and they re-announced it, and they re-announced it. They announced its death over and over and over. If you check the papers, the agency was still dead as of February of this year. But we didn't give up. We scratched, and we bit, and we hung on. And we didn't give up. And today here's where we are. With a good, strong set of tools to change the consumer market.

So let me wrap this back around. Is this going to save the middle class by itself--the consumer agency? I've written about the middle class now for two decades--and if you want to give me another couple of hours I could bend your ear about all that's happened here--and the answer is no. There's frankly too much that's broken. We've got to have change in labor policy, we've got to have change in health policy, we've got to have changes in education policy. That's what it will take to restore a middle class. But we also have to have changes in consumer credit policy. And the new bill is a big step in that direction.

So, here's what I want to say: One way or another, I'll keep pushing for the middle class. I hope you will too.

28 July 2010

Fear Factor: What's Keeping the President From Picking the Best Person to Protect Consumers? 28JUL10

On Monday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs lauded Elizabeth Warren as "a terrific candidate" to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: "I don't think any criticism in any way by anybody would disqualify her."
So why isn't the White House rushing to nominate her for the position? In a word: fear.
The same fear-based approach that caused the administration to throw Shirley Sherrod under the bus before her name had even been uttered on Fox News is once again rearing its head in the decision-making process over Warren.
This time, it's not the ire of Glenn Beck that has Team Obama's backbone turning to mush -- it's the fear of angering the bankers by appointing a consumer advocate who might actually advocate for consumers (the same consumers who, in their role as taxpayers, have spent hundreds of billions bailing the bankers out).
According to the National Journal, the banking industry "privately grumbles that Warren would be their least favorite candidate to head the agency." Or, as Floyd Norris put it in the New York Times, "whether or not she is named to run the bureau may depend on how willing the president is to anger the banks."
Warren is far and away the best person for the position. Picking her is a no-brainer. For many high-level positions, such as a Supreme Court justice, a president will often say he's looking for the "best candidate" when, in fact, there isn't one "best candidate." But this is that rare occasion when there truly is a single best candidate. When it comes to heading the Consumer Bureau, there is Elizabeth Warren -- and there is everybody else.
Not only is she one of the country's foremost experts on bankruptcy law and the multiple ways in which banks trick and trap consumers, she's been the leading advocate for the creation of the agency, which the banking industry worked night and day to kill. In fact, it was Warren who came up with the idea for the agency in the first place, in a paper she wrote in 2007. Her entire career has been devoted to the issues the agency is being created to address.
So obvious is the choice of Warren as the inaugural head of the Consumer Bureau that nearly a dozen senators and over 60 members of the House have already publicly come out in her favor. And over 200,000 people -- i.e. consumers -- have signed a petition urging her nomination.
Here are a few examples of the support she's getting:
  • Sen. Al Franken: "In my consideration, I think Elizabeth would be the best."
  • Rep. Barney Frank (chair of the House committee that drafted the financial reform bill): "She's far and away the best candidate."
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders: "No one in our nation could do a better job."
  • Rep. Rosa DeLauro: "In my living room with many members of congress, she predicted what was going to happen several years ago. As she put it in 2007, consumers cannot buy a toaster that has a one in five chance of bursting into flames but they can enter into a mortgage that has the same one in five chance of putting them out onto the street...Professor Warren we cannot, Ma'am, do it without you."
  • Sen. Jeff Merkley: "I support Elizabeth Warren...She has both the clarity of the need for an agency that has as its top mission protecting citizens against tricks, traps and scams, and she has the ability to articulate that vision. She has the leadership skills and the knowledge of the financial world. She has the full set of requirements to be an effective leader."
  • Sen. Tom Udall: "Should [the president] decide to nominate her to lead the Bureau, it will be a clear sign that the Bureau will be a champion for the American consumer, will stand up to unscrupulous actors and will not shrink from...fulfilling its mission under pressure."

Then there was this argument in her favor:
She is an enormously effective advocate for reform. Probably the most effective advocate for consumer protection in the country. She has huge credibility and she played a decisive role in helping make the public case for reform and she was early on this, way ahead of everybody else.
That, as it happens, was Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, speaking Sunday on ABC's This Week. So why has Geithner stopped short of endorsing Warren (and, indeed, privately argued against her)? And why, as HuffPost's Jason Linkins put it, is the White House still "hesitating, looking for all the world like it is going to veer away from tapping Warren for the sort of job she was born to do?"
Fear. You know what they say: give a man some fear, and you make him fearful for a day -- teach a man to scare himself, and you make him fearful for life. The administration has taken the lesson to heart.
And the courage-killing virus isn't confined just to one end of Pennsylvania Avenue. Sen. Chris Dodd told NPR's Diane Rehm, "The question is, 'is she confirmable?' And there's a serious question about it." And today he challenged Robert Gibbs' assertion that Warren is "very confirmable": "How does he know that?" Dodd said to TPM.
Nothing fortifies your opponents like signaling your willingness to surrender. A different approach would be to do the right thing, welcome the fight, and make your case to the American people. "Are the Republicans, when we bring her name up, going to argue that she shouldn't be confirmed because she's too tough on the big banks and too tough on the financial industry?" asked Sen. Tom Harkin. "Boy, that'll get them a lot of votes in November!"
And if Senate Democrats don't have the stomach for the fight, there is a provision in the financial reform bill the president signed into law last week that allows the Treasury Secretary to name someone to head the Consumer Bureau until the Senate confirms a presidential nominee. And there is no clear deadline on how long the Secretary's appointee may serve. "The statute gives the Treasury Secretary the obligation to get it done, but doesn't tell him how to get it done," says Gail Hillebrand of the Consumers Union. "Consumers have been waiting a long time. The sooner we can get it off the ground the better."
So the administration has no excuses left for not nominating Warren -- including the threat of a Republican filibuster.
And given that her opponents, shameless though they are, can't just come out and say, "We're against her just because we're doing the banks' biding," what argument can they make? One currently being test-marketed is that because Warren is such a zealous advocate for consumers she would somehow be bad for "innovation." You know, the kind of innovation that brought us credit default swaps, teaser rates, 600 percent payday loan rates, and that led to widespread foreclosures and bankruptcies. This line of reasoning is akin to saying that we don't want our police force to be very vigilant, lest it diminish criminal innovation. Warren herself addressed this ludicrous claim in a paper in 2008:
Thanks to effective regulation, innovation in the market for physical products has led to greater safety and more consumer-friendly features. By comparison, innovation in financial products has produced incomprehensible terms and sharp practices that have left families at the mercy of those who write the contracts.
Which, of course, is exactly why the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created in the first place. If someone with Warren's skill set and perspective isn't named to head it, why even bother creating it? Just so another banking industry shill has a place to cool his heels before adding a few zeros to his salary when he quits and joins the companies he was ostensibly regulating? Given that this is the usual M.O. of how regulatory agencies in Washington work, it's all the more important to name Warren so she can start the Consumer Bureau off on the right foot -- as a true voice for the people.
So which way will Obama go? If he makes his decision on the merits, Elizabeth Warren will be the first head of the Consumer Bureau. If he makes his decision out of fear, she won't be. For guidance, he should listen carefully to these words:
All too often -- our government made decisions based upon fear rather than foresight, and all too often trimmed facts and evidence to fit ideological predispositions. Instead of strategically applying our power and our principles, we too often set those principles aside as luxuries that we could no longer afford. And in this season of fear, too many of us -- Democrats and Republicans; politicians, journalists and citizens -- fell silent... if we continue to make decisions from within a climate of fear, we will make more mistakes.
That was Barack Obama in May of last year, talking about the Bush administration's approach to national security in the wake of 9/11. As he finds himself in a different kind of "season of fear," will he use his insights as a guide to his decision?
Appointing Elizabeth Warren will demonstrate that the detour his administration took to Feartown with Shirley Sherrod was a lesson learned.

21 July 2010

Obama Signs Sweeping Financial Overhaul Into Law 21JUL10

President Obama signs the the financial bill into law in a ceremony
 at the Ronald Reagan Building.
Enlarge Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images President Obama signs the the financial bill into law during a ceremony Wednesday at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C.
President Obama signs the 
the financial bill into law in a ceremony at the Ronald Reagan 
Building.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
President Obama signs the the financial bill into law during a ceremony Wednesday at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, D.C.
text size A A A
July 21, 2010
President Obama on Wednesday signed into law a massive bill that will provide new regulation for a broad swath of the nation's financial system — legislation he said provides "the strongest consumer protections in history."
The new law, he said, will bring transparency to risky, complex transactions like those that helped trigger the financial crisis and will put an end to the notion that some companies are "too big to fail."
"Because of this law, the American people will never again be asked to foot the bill for Wall Street's mistakes. There will be no more taxpayer-funded bailouts," Obama said.
The law, pushed through mainly by Democrats in Washington's deeply partisan environment, comes almost two years after the infamous near financial meltdown in 2008 in the United States that was felt around the globe.
It gives the government new powers to break up companies involved in practices threaten the economy, puts more light on the financial markets that escaped the oversight of regulators and — one of Obama's biggest victories — creates a new consumer financial protection bureau.
The agency will be housed in the Federal Reserve but will be virtually independent. Banks fought hard against its creation, and they fear that the president may appoint Elizabeth Warren, chairwoman of the Congressional Oversight Panel and a staunch consumer activist, as its first director.
Obama described the changes as common sense reforms that will help people in their daily life — signing contracts, understanding fees, understanding risks.
Much of the detail is yet to be written by financial regulators, and critics still aren't convinced that the law will be effective.
Republicans portray the bill as a burden on small banks and the businesses that rely on them, and argue that it will cost consumers and impede job growth. Rep. Darrell Issa of California called Obama's bill-signing a "charade" that ignored the root causes of the financial crisis.
The president said otherwise. He argued that a crippling recession was primarily caused by a breakdown in the financial system that cannot be allowed to happen again. "I proposed a set of reforms to empower consumers and investors, to bring the shadowy deals that caused this crisis into the light of day, and to put a stop to taxpayer bailouts once and for all," Obama said to supporters. "Today, thanks to a lot of people in this room, those reforms will become the law of the land."
In a note of irony, Obama signed the bill with great fanfare in the massive Ronald Reagan Building, named after a president who championed deregulation. The president was joined by scores of consumer advocates, state and local government officials, business owners and executives, and members of Congress who supported the bill. Obama singled out for praise Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), who shepherded the bill through Congress.
In the midst of a heated midterm election season for many lawmakers, Obama sought to put the complex law in consumer-oriented terms for the nation. He said it would help root out fine print and hidden fees for people, and provide deeper scrutiny of the sophisticated financial transactions on Wall Street.
NPR's John Ydstie contributed to this report.