Safe Mode: On
John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) teamed up to Address the Real Cause of Financial Meltdown

Bill to reverse Gramm Act of 2000 will bring plenty of fireworks. Lobbists have mobilized and are on the offensive.

Yesterday, the decidedly odd couple of Senators John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) teamed up to introduce legislation that would restore the Glass-Steagall Act (aka the Banking Act of 1933), which would force giant banking institutions to choose between operating as a commercial bank or an investment bank. For decades, Glass-Steagall imposed a firewall between the two, until it was repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act.

Give McCain and Cantwell a big round of applause for their effort, because in Washington, this seemingly obvious response to the financial crisis is considered the domain of wild-eyed hippies (and Paul Volcker.) It is, after all, the sort of idea that would bring real pain to the banking industry, who'd much rather we quickly forget about the collapse of the economy last year and return to business as usual. The most cutting remark against McCain and Cantwell's efforts comes courtesy of Unnamed Treasury Official, who, as you might imagine, is some kind of awesome prick:

I think going back to Glass-Steagall would be like going back to the Walkman.
But hey, you'd go back to your Walkman too, if everytime you put your iPod on shuffle, it blew up the goddamned planet.

YouTube enabled wonks still recall, and celebrate the words of North Dakota Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan, speaking prophetically about the end of Glass-Steagall amid the sound of profiteering way back in 1999:


DORGAN: I worry very much that the fusing together of the idea of banking, which requires not just safety and soundness to be successful, but the perception of safety and soundness...to merge it with inherently risky, speculative activity, is in my judgment unwise...There are some notions that represent transcendental truths, that are true over time. And one of those, in my judgment, I fervently believe, is that we are -- with this legislation -- we are moving towards greater risk. We are almost certainly moving toward substantial new concentrations and mergers in the financial services industry that is almost certainly not in the interest of consumers, and we are deliberately and certainly moving with this legislation, moving towards much greater risk in our financial services industries. And so, I come to the floor to say that I regret that I cannot support the legislation...I think we will, in ten years time, look back and say, "We should not have done that, because we forgot the lessons of the past."
Of course, Dorgan had this all wrong, because it only took nine years for the nightmare systemic risk scenario to be visited upon us. But McCain and Cantwell are, at least, taking the virtues of Glass-Steagall seriously. Their efforts match those in the House of Representatives, where a group of legislators, led by Representative Maurice Hinchey (D-N.Y.) have introduced parallel legislation. There, they have the support of Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Mary.), who recently told Bloomberg News, "As someone who voted to repeal Glass-Steagall, maybe that was a mistake."

The movement's patron saint is Volcker, the former Fed chair, who recently offered up some grade-A snark when he told the Wall Street Journal's Future of Finance Initiative that the ATM was the only useful innovation that the banking industry had managed to come up with in the past quarter century.

Of course, seeing as how Tall Paul has been treated like the Invisible Man by this administration, one would have to imagine that the White House sees the matter differently. And sure enough, they do. As Newsweek reports: "Obama administration officials have dismissed the idea that the financial sector should or can be changed in more fundamental ways than they are now proposing. You can't turn back the clock, they say, and the new requirements they plan to impose on big banks to hold more capital in reserve, put up $150 billion for a rainy-day rescue fund, and disclose more of their risky trades should be enough to keep the financial sector from imploding again.


Click to view image: '3d099c96716f-smccaincantwelllarge.jpg'

Added: Dec-17-2009 
By: joalexan
In:
News
Tags: John McCain, Maria Cantwell, GOP, Gramm Act, Financial Reform
Views: 7979 | Comments: 12 | Votes: 0 | Favorites: 0 | Shared: 1 | Updates: 0 | Times used in channels: 1
You need to be registered in order to add comments! Register HERE
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first | Highest score first
Liveleak opposes racial slurs - if you do spot comments that fall into this category, please report them for us to review.
  • Glass Steagall isn't so much the problem as Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae artificially inflating the housing market due to the liberal desire to make every American a homeowner, especially single mothers and minorities. The root cause is Carter's Community Reinvestment Act. No other developed nation in the world seperates retail banking from investment banking like the USA did prior to Glass-Steagall.

    Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

    • You are an idiot - What was the financial exposure of Fann / Fred??? any ideas - $3.4T at the worst. Why did we loan banks $27T if all they had to cover was 3.4T??? Moron!

      Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • The first bailout, if you recall, was to Freddie and Fannie. Freddie and Fannie guaranteed and underwrote 70% of all new mortgage loans in the USA since 2005. The FMs in conjunction with Congress were trying to make affordable housing for single mothers, minorities and low income Americans. It reached the level in 2006, that some people were getting home loans without any documentation at all.

      Here's two examples:
      1) $1.5M condo on $20K income? Prospective buyers lose $175K in Bellevue
      More..

      Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

      (1) | Report

    • How much exposure was there in Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac? What was the loan value? What is the at risk mortgage amount? $3.5T? maybe - You trying to petal the idea that that at risk loan amount - Created a Global Economic meltdown estimated at $62T?

      How on earth does that happen?

      Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • I told you in my last comment but I'm sure you didn't take the time to read the economic histories and assessments presented so I will reiterate with more simple examples:

      If I sold you a loan for $500 and charged you 7% interest, I make the whole 7% of the interest. If I think you're not a good risk and I sell your debt to another party, let's say, Bob and I keep 1% interest, then Bob has 6% of the profit being made and I have 1%. Bob can then bundle up your loan with a hundred other loans More..

      Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

    • ...and Glass Steagall required banks to have assets to back there loans...The Gramm Act allowed banks not to have "Insurance" - or assets against their loans...they created a new financial instrement called a Credit Defauly Swap...and sold and sold and sold and sold the loans....When you can not pay the interest on a CDS the entire value comes due...Thus the meltdown....F/F - $3.5T exposure became a $62T problem because the loans were leaverage and leaverage beyond all reason...But I k More..

      Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

      (0) | Report

  • my thoughts on mccain:
    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=394_1223584316

    Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Well, odd couple or not, I hope they succeed. Thanks for the post, I didn't know Dorgan had been so prescient on the banking legislation.

    Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • This is one of the reasons McCain isn't popular with conservatives as Sarah Palin is and probably typifies why he didn't win Election '08.

    McCain constantly targets the most easy political objects as a centrist rather than taking on the more major problem. The problem is the entitlement mentality, not that mortgages were bundled and sold as security investments. Those security investments would have been sound if Freddie and Fannie, along with Barney Franks, Chris Dodd and other democrats More..

    Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • I absolutely agree that Glass-Steagal should be put back in place. Without it, it's just too easy to rob Peter to pay Paul in the bank world.

    Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

    (0) | Report

  • Hell, I have trouble redeeming coupons in my supermarket.

    Posted Dec-17-2009 By 

    (0) | Report