Banks vs. American People - Can Wall Street Reform Be Done?

[Guest Rockville Native]

WOW. It looks like the Washington Post failed to write a story about their owner. That could be a big mistake for their future credibility. I am surprised that they did not even put his position on the issue.

[Guest Skeptical]

I really found this hard to believe. I just read all the A section and could not find any mention of this. If I can get my coworker to give me the Business section I will will confirm whether what you are stating is true or not.

[Guest Human]

I have given the tea partiers in my state ALL the information that they need to go after the corruption, as well what to look for.

 

The democrats that I know have offered me another job this weekend, and this time? I am really tempted.

 

It is coursing thru my mind this time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amen. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and all public and private pension plans, cities, school districts and government- sponsored enterprises, etc... should be removed from the negotiated derivatives market.

 

Too many people get screwed in the deal. I hope you use all your political muscle Human to do this. Also, lets take a peek at the Fed. I also want the names of all the politicians who where evading taxes in offshore accounts. Those bastards should get a real hard boot out of office.

 

There are alot of snake oil salesmen that will not be getting too much sleep over this.

[Luke_Wilbur]

WOW. It looks like the Washington Post failed to write a story about their owner. That could be a big mistake for their future credibility. I am surprised that they did not even put his position on the issue.

 

Do a little more research on this next time. Harold Meyersonwrote a decent article on Washington Post online.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/04/nebraska_narcissist_part_deux.html

Maybe I owe Warren Buffett an apology.

 

Yesterday I chastised Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson for being the sole member of his party to side with Republicans to block debate on the financial reform bill. (Since then, Nelson voted twice with Republicans to keep blocking the bill, though Republicans have now agreed to let the bill come to the Senate floor.)

 

I noted that Nelson was peeved after Democrats struck a provision that would have protected the Nebraska-based investment company Berkshire Hathaway, headed by the legendary Buffett, from having to pay fees on its current derivative holdings. And, rashly perhaps, I accused Nelson of yet another “classic bit of special interest particularism,” coming on the heels of his celebrated “Cornhusker Kickback.”

 

But Nelson, it turns out, wasn’t simply looking out for Buffett -- by every measure the most special interest in his state. He was looking out for himself.

 

 

[Guest Protect Whistleblowers]

I have not heard to much mention of Phil Gramm since he traded a Texas Senate seat for investment banking. I wonder why didn't he ask his employer, UBS, to decline the billions of taxpayer dollars it received that were laundered through the AIG bailout. UBS got in trouble for helping the wealthy evade US taxes. Our government is harvesting many names of many UBS clients with offshore accounts of U.S. politicians hiding their money in Swiss bank accounts.

Bradley Birkenfeld, the whistleblower who exposed the $20 billion illegal UBS tax fraud scheme was sentenced to jail as a result of the Swiss Banking scandal.

 

The story leading up to Mr. Birkenfelds imprisonment began when he first discovered an internal UBS legal memorandum in 2005. This memorandum explained UBS' legal obligations under the Qualified Intermediary Agreement ("Q.I. Agreement"). The Q.I. agreement was an arrangement between UBS and the United States government signed in January 2001. This provision required that UBS identify and document any client who held marketable U.S. securities or received U.S. source income into their foreign accounts. UBS also had to withhold twenty-eight percent of U.S. source payments as well as refuse services to any account holder who refused to allow UBS to identify them to the U.S. government. Mr. Birkenfeld immediately noted that the UBS memorandum was inconsistent with actual business practices at the organization.

 

After discovering the memorandum, Mr. Birkenfeld immediately initiated an extensive internal review process with his superiors. Initially, he personally brought this issue to the attention of his supervisor, Christian Bovay. He then sent numerous emails and interoffice memoranda, over several months, to the head of the legal department and to the head of compliance all of which were ignored. In sum, Mr. Birkenfeld voluntarily used all the internal procedures available to him under UBS' three whistleblower corporate policies as a director at UBS.

 

After Mr. Birkenfeld tried to do the right thing by bringing these violations to the attention of upper level management, legal and compliance departments at UBS, he obtained outside legal counsel in Switzerland at his own expense to determine his rights and duties as a U.S. citizen. Mr. Birkenfeld then resigned from his position in October 2005 and retained legal counsel in Washington D.C., transported countless internal documents, made multiple secret trips from Switzerland and filed a whistleblower complaint with the IRS. Mr. Birkenfeld undertook all of these actions before the United States Congress initiated any reward program for tax whistleblowers. He voluntarily decided to file a U.S. claim in order to ensure that these issues were documented and fixed.

 

In early 2007, Mr. Birkenfeld approached the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") to disclose the magnitude of this tax fraud perpetrated by U.S. taxpayers and UBS. Commencing in June of 2007 and throughout 2007 and 2008 Mr. Birkenfeld met with numerous representatives of the United States Government and provided the detailed information necessary for the United States to enter the deferred prosecution agreement with UBS. Among the numerous meetings Mr. Birkenfeld had with representatives of the DOJ and representatives of the IRS on lune 12, 19 and 21, 2007;

May 8 and 9, 2008; and lune 9 and 10,2008. Mr. Birkenfeld requested, on numerous occasions, that he be granted immunity and/or a subpoena. The DOJ, however, did not recognize Mr. Birkenfeld as a whistleblower under the IRS whistleblower program. Early emails between the DOJ and Mr. Birkenfelds original attorneys, attached hereto, indicate the prosecutors' reluctance to work with Mr. Birkenfeld. On June 11,2007, the DOJ recognized Mr. Birkenfeld's desire to work with the IRS whistleblower program through email but specifically noted that the DOJ is "not a part of the IRS whistleblower program."

 

Mr. Birkenfeld also met with Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") officials on October 12, 2007 to discuss multiple internal documents in his possession (which he provided) that would allow the U.S. government to discover the names of thousands of additional U.S. taxpayers holding undisclosed accounts abroad. Furthermore, Mr. Birkenfeld met with SEC attorneys on November 14, 2007 to discuss potential U.S. securities law violations in which he also provided multiple internal documents. He indicated in these various meetings that he was reluctant to provide specific details on client information until subpoenaed by the United States government because to do so otherwise, would violate Swiss law where he resided.

 

In addition to his expertise, Mr. Birkenfeld offered to and did provide thousands of key documents, which directly led to exposing the widespread conspiracy. Information voluntarily provided by Mr. Birkenfeld included but was not limited to: UBS private banking offces involved, key UBS Swiss bankers with U.S. clients and their contact information, the total number of U.S. accounts maintained in Switzerland (19,000), the total revenue on U.S. accounts generated by UBS Switzerland ($200 million per year), U.S. cities and hotels that UBS Swiss bankers utilized in meeting with U.S. clients, and UBS' strategy of utilizing encrypted laptops with investment products and client portfolios to bring information into the United States and much more privileged information.

 

Mr. Birkenfeld further described the nature of his position when he gave deposition testimony to the investigators of the U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on October 11,2007, November 13,2007 and July 9, 2008, Under Swiss law, he was unable to provide specific information on clients unless subpoenaed by the United States, the same reason UBS' Mark Branson gave to the Senate on July 17,2008. Although the DOJ did not meet his request, Mr. Birkenfeld was eager to provide this information and describe his involvement with one of his clients in particular, U,S. citizen Igor Olenicoff, when the U.S. Senate subpoenaed him. As a result of his involvement with UBS and knowledge about its illegal schemes, the United States issued thousands of John Doe summons to UBS to compel UBS to release the names of its clients holding undeclared accounts with unreported U.S. source income.

 

Mr. Birkenfeld provided unprecedented assistance in uncovering one of the biggest tax fraud schemes in history. Nevertheless, the DOJ utilized the information he provided about his

dealings with Mr. Olenicoff and prosecuted Mr. Birkenfeld for his role at UBS. At the advice of his attorneys, Mr. Birkenfeld plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

 

At Mr. Birkenfelds August 2009 sentencing hearing, DOJ attorneys claimed that he was prosecuted because he withheld information on one of UBS' biggest clients, Igor Olenicoff, when he came forward to the DOJ. The hearing transcript, on pages 32-33, show that the DOJ chief prosecutor for this matter, Mr. Kevin Downing, noted, "Mr. Olenicoff would be in jail had Mr. Birkenfeld come in, in 2007 and disclosed that information." Mr. Downing also insinuated that Mr. Birkenfeld withheld information on Mr. Olenicoff because he wanted to "continue aiding and assisting Mr. Olenicoff committing tax evasion."

 

With all due respect, we believe that the prosecutor did not address critical factors at this

sentencing hearing that justify commutation of Mr. Birkenfelds sentence. Mr. Birkenfeld specifically requested on several occasions that the DOJ subpoena him so that he would

be able to provide this information in compliance with Swiss law, where he resided. Furthermore, Mr. Birkenfeld provided the Senate, SEC and IRS with initial details about

the fact that Mr. 0 lenicoff was a client prior to his indictment and sentencing. The DOJ, as a result, had the opportunity to utilize all of the Mr. Birkenfelds knowledge in 2007. In fact, Mr. Birkenfeld asked the U.S. Senate to subpoena him so that he would be able to testify in more detail regarding his relationship with Mr. Olenicoff among other things. During his testimony, he revealed all of the information in his possession regarding Mr. Olenicoff before Olenicoff was indicted by the DOJ. These disclosures occurred before Mr. Olenicoff was

sentenced. Currently, Mr. Birkenfeld has served three months out of a forty-month sentence.

[Guest Pissed On]

Poor people are forced to pay their taxes. UBS (UBS) reported the highest quarterly profit in almost three years, with net income of 2.2B Swiss francs ($2B) in the first quarter vs. a 1.98B franc loss the year before. The profit was partly from increased revenue at the debt trading unit, the division that had been responsible for most of the bank's writedowns and losses during the credit crisis. It pays to have political pawns working the boards.

[Guest Dan Pfeiffer]

As debate on the Wall Street Reform bill returns today to the floor of the Senate, lobbyists are working overtime to insert loopholes and special provisions into the bill. Back in March, Treasury Secretary Geithner made clear to the audience at the American Enterprise Institute the threat we face at this stage of the game:

 

watch this process closely, for it will be a test of our capacity as a nation to deal with complex and consequential problems. When you see amendments designed to weaken the basic protections of reform; when you see amendments to exempt certain types of financial firms or financial instruments from rules; ask why we should be protecting those private interests at the expense of the public interest.

 

So to kick off this week of amendments and help you follow along, please take a look at the Top Ten Most Wanted Lobbyist Loopholes:

 

1. Ok, Consumer Protection Rules are Fine… Just Don’t Enforce Them. The current bill would apply the same rules to providers of consumer financial services or products, whether the provider is a bank or a non-bank financial provider. The bill would also allow State Attorneys General to enforce those rules. Lobbyists are pushing hard to amend the bill so that Attorneys General lose their enforcement authority. Why does that matter? Because the Bureau would only supervise larger market participants. Without state AG enforcement authority, the citizens of their states will have much less protection against illegal conduct. If you want to weaken consumer protections, that’s one way to do it.

 

2. Letting Non-Banks Play by a Weaker Set of Rules. We know this is coming, so keep an eye out: attempts to give car dealers that make car loans and other major providers of financial services a big exemption from the consumer protection rules. Now be aware: some people try to scare small businesses by saying that the consumer financial protection bureau will regulate main street businesses like orthodontists and florists. That is not true. But if a car dealer makes loans, or if a big department store sets up a financial services center, it’s doing what banks and credit unions do, and it should play by the same rules.

 

3. If You Can’t Kill Consumer Protection Now, Starve it to Death Later. One of the keys to effective consumer protection is having a consumer financial protection bureau that is independent. And one of the keys to independence is having an independent source of funding. So be prepared for attempts to take away the bureau’s source of funds. And also watch out for broader attempts to restrict the bureau’s independence or chip away at its ability to establish clear rules of the road for a fair and transparent consumer financial marketplace.

4. Preventing States from Protecting Their Own Citizens. Under the current bill, the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection would set minimum standards for the consumer finance market, but states would still be allowed to adopt additional protections. In other words, federal consumer protections would set a floor, not a ceiling. There’s likely to be a fight about that provision. Citing the doctrine of “preemption,” big banks will try to take away states’ ability to supplement federal consumer protections. Why is this a problem? Because state officials are often the first to learn of new abuses and new problems in the marketplace, and we should not get rid of that canary in the coal mine. Federal law can overrule or “preempt” state law when a state law would significantly interfere with national banks’ business of banking, but states should otherwise have the right to protect their citizens as they see fit.

 

5. Removing the Derivatives Trading Requirement to Protect Wall Street Profits. Under the current bill, standard derivatives would have to be traded on exchanges or other electronic trading platforms. Expect amendments to eliminate this trading requirement. Why? Because not everyone likes transparency. Today, the big derivatives dealers make big profits by charging end-users extra spreads and hidden fees, and they don’t want that to change.

6. Stretching the Derivatives “End-User” Exemption into a Hedge Fund Loophole. Under the current bill, there is a narrow exemption from the derivatives clearing and trading requirement for commercial firms that are not financial companies, not major participants in the derivatives market, and that are using derivatives to hedge their real risks – not taking one-way bets like AIG. Be on the lookout for attempts to stretch this exemption into a loophole – for example, by saying that the exemption should apply hedge funds and other financial companies.

 

7. Creating an “AIG Loophole.” Under the current bill, the Financial Services Oversight Council would have the ability to designate a very large “non-bank” financial company – like AIG, for example – for tougher supervision by the Federal Reserve. Since one of the key principles of financial reform is that firms should be regulated according to the risks they pose, not according to their corporate form, this is an important provision. But rest assured, there are large “non-banks” out there who would rather not be scrutinized quite so closely.

 

8. Who Needs to Know What’s Happening at Insurance Companies? Insurance is regulated by the states, not the federal government – and this bill doesn’t change that. But this bill would give the Treasury Department the ability to collect information from insurance companies so that it can help identify emerging risks before they blow up the financial system – like AIG. After so many insurance companies got into so much trouble that they needed government support to survive, you’d think that would be a no-brainer. But not everyone agrees. Keep an eye out for loopholes that would protect insurance companies from a number of provisions in the bill – including even basic information gathering.

9. Letting Firms Make Loans Without Skin in the Game. A key lesson of the crisis is that firms in the mortgage business should have a stake in the loans they sell or securitize. Skin in the game gives strong incentives to make good quality loans. Mortgage industry lobbyists are pushing hard to kill this idea. It’s cheaper for mortgage lenders and Wall Street to be in the mortgage business if they don’t have to worry about the borrower’s ability to pay – but it’s a lot more costly for Americans to perpetuate the same system that helped cause the housing crash.

 

10. Preserving “Too Big to Fail” While Pretending to Kill It. The key to preventing future bailouts is to end the problem of “Too Big to Fail.” And the only way to do that is to make sure that we can shut down big financial firms in a swift, orderly way if they’re on the brink of failure. Of course, not everyone wants to see “Too Big to Fail” disappear, since it lets the biggest firms borrow money at lower cost and avoid the consequences of excessive risk-taking. But no one wants to be caught defending the status quo. So defenders of the status quo are using a sleight of hand: pushing to make the resolution process so unwieldy that it can never work. By proposing amendments that look tough but that make the resolution process unworkable, opponents of reform will try to save “Too Big to Fail” while pretending to kill it.

[Guest LAW]

Senator Ted Kaufman (D-Del.) released the following statement after the Senate voted down the Brown-Kaufman amendment to Wall Street reform legislation, 33-61.

 

“I am disappointed. This is certainly a defeat for those who are concerned about the dangers of financial concentration in this country.

 

“On the other hand, against the odds and starting from nowhere, I am proud that Senator Sherrod Brown and I helped to start a nationwide debate on the need to break up ‘too big to fail’ banks and succeeded in getting a vote on our amendment.

 

“The debate on the floor and around the country was not short – it lasted for weeks. In the last month, this proposal and debate was met with favorable reaction from many respected policymakers, economists and former regulators. I believe this idea was sound policy – and I further believe that a mainstream consensus will continue to grow that these megabanks are too large, too complex and too internally conflicted to regulate successfully.

 

“Some causes are worth fighting for, and for me, the concern about the risks ‘too big to fail’ banks pose to the American economy and people is deep and profound given the economic tragedy millions of American have endured. I believe the debate itself – though failing to gain a majority of votes – has helped to change attitudes about the degree of financial concentration and power these megabanks now represent. Going forward, I hope the Congress will work to strengthen the bill’s ban on proprietary trading by banks. And I hope that regulators will understand that they should use their discretion under existing statutory authority to break up megabanks when the financial system is threatened.”

[Guest Fedup]

Look for the Big Banks to send big donation checks to the 27 Democrat Senators who voted against the bill.

[Guest Fedup]

I want history to recognize the names of the Democrats that betrayed out country.

 

Akaka (D-HI)

Baucus (D-MT)

Bayh (D-IN)

Bennet (D-CO)

Carper (D-DE)

Conrad (D-ND)

Dodd (D-CT)

Feinstein (D-CA)

Gillibrand (D-NY)

Hagan (D-NC)

Inouye (D-HI)

Johnson (D-SD)

Kerry (D-MA)

Klobuchar (D-MN)

Kohl (D-WI)

Landrieu (D-LA)

Lautenberg (D-NJ)

McCaskill (D-MO)

Menendez (D-NJ)

Nelson (D-FL)

Nelson (D-NE)

Reed (D-RI)

Schumer (D-NY)

Shaheen (D-NH)

Tester (D-MT)

Udall (D-CO)

Warner (D-VA)

[Guest 2 cents]

The 27 Disgraces have only love for their wallets. I joined a credit union over two decades ago, and have NEVER used a bank since. I recommend all who have access to a credit union to do the same.

That's the best way to fight back.

 

"We judge ourselves by our ideals; others by their actions. It is a great convenience." -- Howard Zinn

[Guest Desert Rat]

This is a sad time for our country. This vote will further justify more distrust of government and specifically of Democrats. I am sorry for those that are really trying to make a difference.

[Guest 2 cents]

The 27 Disgraces must think themselves "Too Big to Fail!"

[Guest Desert Rat]

Your right. Aftter this is all over we will see that Wall Street bought off key Senators. Then everything fell into ordered discgrace.

[Guest Sundialsvc4]

Do you think that "Republican" or "Democrat" means the slightest thing to an international criminal? What part of "we get paid thousands of dollars a minute no matter WHAT color of shirt we wear" is so darned hard to understand?

 

Bribery knows no political affiliation. It "frankly, does not give a damn" who it kills, nor what it destroys. It might be convenient for the Senate or the House to divide itself into two subgroups, and to point fingers at one another for the cameras, but when it comes right down to it, American Government is a cash business. Legislation is written for those who pay for it, and removed for those who pay more.

[Guest Fedup]

Why hasn't the Tea Party voiced their opinion on this????? Have they been purchased by the Banks too???

[Guest LAW]

U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) has introduced an amendment to the Wall Street Reform bill that will put an end to institutions that are “Too Big to Fail.” Dorgan says his plan is a permanent solution that would end taxpayer bailouts for the Wall Street firms.

 

Dorgan’s amendment, “End Too Big To Fail Now,” will protect taxpayers by requiring a break up of those activities in the largest financial institutions in the country that represent an unacceptable risk the American economy

 

“Some of the big Wall Street firms caused this economic wreck,” Dorgan said. “We need to protect ourselves against this risk and prevent it from ever happening again.”

 

Protecting taxpayers

 

“It is absolutely essential that we pass legislation to bring accountability to Wall Street,” he said. “My bill will also address the problem of too big to fail, a notion of no-fault capitalism where reckless Wall Street megabanks get the bailouts and the taxpayers get the bill. In my view, if a company is too big to fail, then it is too big.”

 

The amendment requires the Financial Oversight Council to identify the financial institutions that are “Too Big to Fail” and could pose a grave threat to the financial stability of the U.S. and compels those firms to make changes to their structure or limit their activities until they no longer post that threat.

 

Tough financial reform

 

Dorgan’s amendment requires action against these institutions as soon as they are identified as a risk to the economy, instead of acting only as a last resort.

 

“Big banks have proven to be a risky part of our current financial system, and we need to take action now to limit that risk,” Dorgan said. “We cannot sit back and wait for institutions that clearly threaten our economic stability to again bring our country to the brink of a Depression.”

[Guest Lucia]

By the end of the 3rd Quarter of 2009 Banks with assets less than $1 billion in assets roughly broke even; Banks with assets between $1 billion and $10 billion, on average, lost $3 million apiece; Banks with assets in excess of $10 billion recorded an average profit of nearly $42 million each. Explain this to me someone.

[Guest Widow's Son]

Take a gander at Time's Barbara Kiviat reasons why the Consumer Financial Protection Agency will help firms:

 

Why would a business welcome new oversight? Well, partly because if consumers aren't protected from hazardous financial products, then they won't, in the long run, have as much money to spend at companies selling goods and services. Another reason: business owners themselves rely on financial products. As the CEO of the U.S. Women's Chamber of Commerce recently put it in an op-ed, "The creation of a strong, independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency will benefit businesses, especially small businesses, which create most of the nation's new jobs. It's too often forgotten that small-business owners frequently rely on personal credit – such as personal credit cards and home equity loans – to start, run and expand their businesses."

 

http://curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com/2010/05/10/is-financial-reform-good-or-bad-for-business/

[Guest Fedup]

U.S. federal investigators are probing whether Morgan Stanley misled investors about mortgage derivative products it helped create and sometimes bet against, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter.

[Guest random thought]

Let me ask you one question,

Is your money that good,

Will it buy you forgiveness,

Do you think that it could?

I think you will find

When your death takes its toll

All the money you made

Will never buy back your soul.

 

Bob Dylan

[Guest bajajohn1]

Both parties need to be fully on-board with a strong financial reform bill that will serve as the blueprint for honesty, integrity, transparency and profitability for the financial sector. We cannot have a weak bill that will place America in jeopardy of economic collapse. Bureaucrats who will oversee the application of regulations must be held accountable. No more **adult material** while at work!

[Guest LAW]

Senate Passes Merkley-Klobuchar Amendment to Protect Homeowners from Deceptive Mortgage Practices

 

An amendment put forth by Oregon Senator Jeff Merkley and Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar to the Wall Street reform bill passed the Senate by a vote of 63-36. The amendment will protect homeowners by prohibiting mortgage lenders and loan originators from receiving hidden payments when they steer homeowners into high-cost loans and will create strong underwriting standards to ensure borrowers have the ability to repay their loans.

 

"Deceptive mortgage practices like hidden steering payments directly led to the Wall Street meltdown and resulted in millions of families losing their homes," said Merkley. "We took a huge stride forward today in the fight to restore fairness for homeowners and strengthen the financial foundations of our families. I look forward to seeing this amendment become law so that never again will hidden steering payments put millions of homeowners on the fast track to foreclosure.

 

“Complex and deceitful lending practices were at the heart of the financial crisis,” said Klobuchar. “As we work to reform Wall Street, we must establish safeguards to protect consumers from predatory loan practices. Helping everyday Americans obtain sound loans while avoiding unnecessary risk is essential to restoring our economy.”

 

Senators Merkley and Klobuchar’s amendment will ban mortgage lenders and loan originators from accepting payments based on the interest rate or other terms of the loans. In addition, it will require lenders to document income and other underwriting standards to ensure that borrowers’ can repay their loans. This will end the damaging and deceptive practice of “no doc” and “liar loans.”

 

The amendment was also co-sponsored by Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Scott Brown (R-MA), Mark Begich (D-AK), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Carl Levin (D-MI), Al Franken (D-MN) and John Kerry (D-MA).

[Guest James Parks]

For the first time in decades, Main Street has a chance to rein in the Big Banks, said Heather Booth, director of Americans for Financial Reform.

 

The reform legislation is a first step to making Wall Street pay to help create the 11 million jobs it destroyed when it wrecked the American economy. The U.S. House and Senate each passed versions of the legislation, which now must be reconciled by a congressional conference committee. The final bill must provide real independent consumer protection, rein in the risky casino practices of some investment banks and stop future bailouts by taxpayers, Booth said.

 

People are angry and ready to move their money and their votes as they watch their jobs and their life’s work disappear, their state and local budgets dwindle and their homes being foreclosed, Gerald Taylor of the Industrial Areas Foundation Southeast said.. He called for progressives to mobilize and organize ordinary homeowners, farmers and seniors facing the loss of pensions.

 

Economist Robert Johnson of the Roosevelt Institute said progressives must hold public officials accountable and “get up under their skin” so they fight for the working people and not the Big Banks.

 

The fight against Wall Street is really about who matters in this country and whose voice will be heard, Booth said. George Goehl of National People’s Action and Taylor said the Wall Street crisis presents the best opportunity in years for progressives to build a truly national movement to change our economy. They called for a coalition of labor, environmentalists, activists and grassroots people to create change.

 

As Taylor said:

 

We need to go to the highways and byways of our country and begin a discussion with people about the economy.

[Guest LPAC]

Yesterday there were two events in Washington: one was the first meeting of the Peterson commission, this austerity commission, and there was also the economic summit that was pulled together under the auspices of the Peterson Foundation. During the course of that discussion, former President Bill Clinton made a couple of points that were outrageously distorted in the press.

 

One of the things that came up in Clinton's remarks, which the press erroneously portrayed as a defense of Goldman Sachs, when in fact, it's quite clear that that was not the intent of his remarks, what he did say, is that under the current conditions,under the current legal structure in which just about everything has been deregulated, that he was not entirely certain that they actually broke the law—with the obvious implication being that we're living in a somewhat lawless universe when it comes to these kinds of antics.

 

He said that the actual issue, and the more important issue, is that these transactions really have no intrinsic value or usefulness to the economy as a whole. And that, from the standpoint of those of us who are policymakers, that his view is that it was much more important to address that issue.