Kudos To Sen. Byron Dorgan

Huge kudos for Sen. Byron Dorgan.  Because he has more than earned them with this interview with Rachel Maddow:

There’s a culture, and the culture is that "Wall Street knows best." You know, there were only eight of us in the United States Senate that voted no. This was a huge deal to repeal the protections that were put in place after the Great Depression — a huge deal. Eight of us voted no.

This thing allowed these huge financial holding companies, allowed them to bring significant risk into these banks and, you know, they just went hog wild. And now we’re in a situation in 2009 where we’ve seen this financial crisis and collapse, massive taxpayer bailouts. Now the question is how to put this thing back together and get out of this deep hole….

As Rachel makes clear, good government can be a solution.  In this case, that would have meant leaving Glass-Steagall in place rather than allowing deregulated gambling in the nation’s casinos banks. As Sen. Dorgan said all the way back in 1999 when he opposed the dreck that was Gramm-Leach-Bliley:

”I think we will look back in 10 years’ time and say we should not have done this but we did because we forgot the lessons of the past, and that that which is true in the 1930′s is true in 2010….I wasn’t around during the 1930′s or the debate over Glass-Steagall. But I was here in the early 1980′s when it was decided to allow the expansion of savings and loans. We have now decided in the name of modernization to forget the lessons of the past, of safety and of soundness.”

During Rachel’s interview, Dorgan also mentions his 1996 Washington Monthly article, wherein he warned:

…this "false alarm" could turn out to be a harbinger of a real financial conflagration–one that would make us nostalgic for the days of the $500 billion savings-and-loan collapse….And here’s the real kicker: Because the key players are federally insured banks, every taxpayer in the country is on the line.

Apparently, a prophet in his own Senate hath no honor when there is a quick campaign buck to be made from deregulating Wall Street.

Well, accolades ought to be paid. If you have some time today, give Byron Dorgan’s office a call at (202) 224-2551 and say thanks.

Both for the work he’s already tried to do, and for all the hard work that is to come re-regulating this mess. The more public support he has behind him, the easier it will be to drag the rest of Congress kicking and screaming in his wake if necessary to do the right thing for the rest of us.

Kudos, Sen. Dorgan — for doing your job so well on this and so many other matters. Kudos.


 
94 Responses to "Kudos To Sen. Byron Dorgan"
Elliott | Thursday March 26, 2009 05:48 am 1

Morning Christy, kudos indeed!

I thought the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a mistake, can’t believe the worst is coming true.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 05:52 am 2
In response to Elliott @ 1

We don’t get to give out kudos often enough — and I thought Sen. Dorgan not only deserved a huge one, but could also use some push on regulations to get past the usual Congressional inertia or naysayers. (I’m glaring at you, Even Bayh.)


WarOnWarOff | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:04 am 3

Aw, the traders don’t want to be regulated, saying they’re already regulated. Isn’t that cute?


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:05 am 4
In response to WarOnWarOff @ 3

Well, no one wants to be regulated. Ever know a teenager who was happy with it? And yet…they need to be.


Loo Hoo. | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:06 am 5

Good idea, Christy. I’ll call Dorgan’s office. That Even Bayh’s about a cocky one, isn’t he?


foothillsmike | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:07 am 6

Geitner will be talking about proposed new rules this AM at a house committee hearing.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:07 am 7
In response to foothillsmike @ 6

Beginning at 10 am ET, I believe.


WarOnWarOff | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:13 am 8
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 4

The teenager analogy is apt. ;) I just can’t believe after all this, they still don’t get it.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:13 am 9
In response to foothillsmike @ 6

btw, pretty sure we’ll have coverage of it, too.


Badwater | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:15 am 10

With Senators like Dorgan available, why is hapless Harry Reid still the leader?


ART45 | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:15 am 11

I suspect Richard Shelby is not especially well-liked here, but he was one of the other 8 senators.


foothillsmike | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:16 am 12
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 9

They refered to it on C-span believe it is going to be on c-pan 1 if not on line.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:17 am 13
In response to ART45 @ 11

I loathe Richard Shelby for any number of reasons, but it was a good vote on his part. The late Paul Wellstone was one of the others. You know there are huge outstanding questions when Shelby and Wellstone both agreed that the action was just plain wrong.


Mithras61 | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:21 am 14

The following were the opposition to Gramm-Leach-Bliley:

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AB)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Richard Bryan (D-NV)
Byron Dorgan (D-ND)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)

Lord, I miss Paul Wellstone. My spouse and I both oppoosed this, and were among the few we know that were concerned about the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I can’t understand why anyone expected anything different now as compared to the “Roaring 20s” that lead to the financial collapse and the depression of the 30s/40s. Sadly, I don’t think the current legislature understands the severity of our current crisis and between the Blue Dogs and Rs, we may have to deal with a few more years of economic trouble before we can get enough progressives in to get things back in order.

Anyway, here’s hoping thet the ECC in MN comes back with a ruling soon so we can get Sen. Franken seated and voting.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:22 am 15
In response to Mithras61 @ 14

Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat its failures, eh?


foothillsmike | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:25 am 16

I agree with you but have a question. He was a Dem until 94 when the rethugs came into the majority. When he was a dem did he talk out of the other side of his face?


nonplussed | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:26 am 17

“What experience and history teach is this — that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles”. – George Wilhelm Hegel


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:27 am 18
In response to foothillsmike @ 16

You know, I do not remember. I’ve always thought of him in a “same as Strom Thurmond” way — that’s how he always registered with me watching politics growing up. But I’m not from Alabama, so it’s tough to say if he’s always been that way.

Anyone have a lifetime of Shelby observations they’d like to share? *G*


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:30 am 19

Well Dorgan’s suggestions seem almost kind of obvious. But I feel it would be easier to move a mountain than our current congress. And I ‘m not just thinking of rethugs and Evan Bayh types. I’ve been very disappointed in Dodd lately.
check: select senate committee with subpeona power so we have a narrative of what’s happened
check: financial crimes prosecution task force at justice dept. right now
check: restore portion of glass steagall so this doesn’t happen again.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:32 am 20
In response to mui1 @ 19

They are obvious and very much common sense — and desperately needed. Which is why I’m hoping some kudos and a expressions of support will help him push them forward with some of the lagging goobers of the world.

Anything to help get this going, frankly — because it needs to have gotten going yesterday.


WarOnWarOff | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:33 am 21
In response to nonplussed @ 17

Bill Clinton just last month:

They’re wrong in saying that the elimination of the Glass-Steagall division between banks and investment banks contributed to this. Investment banks were already…banks were already doing investment business and investment companies were already in the banking business.

Is our ex-preznits learnin’?

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITI…..ton.qanda/


foothillsmike | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:33 am 22

OT weather here has been gorgeous here until this AM – now everything covered w/ snow and suppossed to have 8 to 18 inches. Schools closed


eCAHNomics | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:33 am 23

Thanks. Called. Phone answerer seemed pleased, but was funny, because his canned spiel was that he’d “pass along my concerns,” when I didn’t express any concerns, only compliments. Then he caugt himself and added something like “and your remarks.” I guess we don’t pass out gold stars anywhere near often enough.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:35 am 24
In response to WarOnWarOff @ 21

Bill Clinton’s right on the fact that banks were already doing some derivatives trading. If you look at the link to Dorgan’s 1996 article above, for example, Dorgan talks about the inherent risks in expanding that — which is what the repeal of Glass-Steagall was designed to do. And why Dorgan opposed it in 1999.


alank | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:35 am 25

So, 10 years after, the discussion returns to the public sphere. Hmmm. I guess deaf ears were all that were met in the intervening period. But did he continue to make the case, in any event?


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:36 am 26
In response to eCAHNomics @ 23

We don’t — which is why I try to find ways to do that when someone does something really good. I just wish I could find more “carrot” examples. *G*


Mithras61 | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:36 am 27

Sadly, all too true. I think we all fall into this trap sometimes, but some folks do so more than others. Too bad that some that do are in our Federal Legislature, and somehow seem to keep getting re-elected.


moondancer | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:37 am 28

I believe that there was no mystery to the result of gutting Glass=Steagall. The money was good, the consequences were years away, so congress served it’s real constituents. Gramm and company certainly were the prime villians, but there was more than a little complicity among da dems, especially Biden and Dodd.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:37 am 29
In response to alank @ 25

He’s been making that case since beforehand, actually — but, yes, he’s periodically been pushing on this through the years from what I understand. Would love to get him on to talk about this, but his schedule has been insane lately because he’s been that voice in the wilderness on undoing the mess for so long.


eCAHNomics | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:37 am 30

Yes, after I hit the submit button and went to pour myself another cuppa, I thought about how few opportunities there are to reward our reps in D.C.


WarOnWarOff | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:40 am 31

So weren’t the banks acting illegally then? And instead of prosecuting them, he rewarded them with more, MORE!


oldgold | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:40 am 32

Perhaps the key to Dorgan’s wisdom is that he never attended an Ivy League school. The idea that Ivy League grads are our best and brightest has taken a pummelling this past decade.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:40 am 33
In response to eCAHNomics @ 30

In Dorgan’s case, it isn’t just fiscally responsible stuff — it’s also his ongoing work on war profiteering and corruption in the contracting process. He’s worked his rear end off when so many others in Congress looked the other way, even during the early years when he was denounced by wingnuts as unpatriotic for daring to question why Halliburton got a larded-up, no bid contract with little to no supervision.

He’s really been doing amazing work for a while. And it’s one of the reasons I try and give him kudos along the way where I can. He’s more than earned them — and I wish more in Congress would follow his example, frankly.


eCAHNomics | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:41 am 34
In response to moondancer @ 28

the consequences were years away

Yes, a very important part of the process.

But don’t forget the extreme ideology that drove, and still drives, the deregulation process. Read Greenspan’s memoir to see him wax romantic about how it will all work out.

So ideology and campaign contributions is a powerful combination.


SunnyNobility | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:41 am 35

Logic suggests those enamored with law and order would understand the need to regulate greed. Odd how R logic works.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:44 am 36
In response to WarOnWarOff @ 31

No, they weren’t acting illegally — what they were doing at that time was trading in a certain type of derivative that wasn’t covered by Glass-Steagall from what I understand. It’s immensely complex — but they were, I think, mainly international trading deals for which Glass-Steagall did not apply, or specific types of deals structured to fit the legal requirements.

These types of trades have happened in the margins for ages. Wall Street has always tried to find a way around regulations to make money in those unregulated spaces. But Dorgan goes into good detail about the whys and hows in that article — and why regulation of them needed to be tightened — it’s well worth a read.


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:44 am 37

Well, I guess I’m in a pessismistic mood. It seems what’s commonsense and right and good to possibly 98 percent of the population, flies over the heads of our politicians. Our government seems so infested with corporate interests, DC clubbiness and whatnot that i feel they will continue to make Faustian bargains and screw 98 percent of the nation.
I am so disappointed in Dodd lately, but maybe that’s only a camel’s back thing.


oldgold | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:46 am 38

I hope Dorgan doesn’t get corrupted by big oil. In the past several years a huge oil feild has been discovered in western North Dakota. I hear the Clampetts have nothing on the old sugar beet farmers up there.


BlueCrow | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:46 am 39
In response to Christy Hardin Smith @ 4

“Well, no one wants to be regulated.”

I want to be “regulated” and I want others to be “regulated.” I can’t count the awful things I might do or others might do without “regulations.”

Regulation, or, more commonly, law and law enforcement is the bedrock of a decent civilization.

Course, you already know that. :-)


eCAHNomics | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:46 am 40

Oy, have 3/10 hearing on, and Lieberman announced that the U.S. may have to “take action” in parts of the world where the economic situation has increased instability that “threatens the U.S.” Any excuse is good enough for him to deploy the U.S. military. He might have been as bad as Cheney had he been Veep.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:48 am 41
In response to BlueCrow @ 39

Yeah, I do — but the teenager analogy seemed too apt to pass up. *G*


WarOnWarOff | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:50 am 42
In response to BlueCrow @ 39

I want to be sedated.


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:50 am 43

Ugh brings back the days when republikans were equating allegiance to our former fearless decider/ Cheney/Halliburton as “patriotic.”


selise | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:50 am 44

Bill Clinton’s right on the fact that banks were already doing some derivatives trading. If you look at the link to Dorgan’s 1996 article above, for example, Dorgan talks about the inherent risks in expanding that — which is what the repeal of Glass-Steagall was designed to do. And why Dorgan opposed it in 1999.

it was the cfma, not glass-steagall that legalized derivatives trading. i think what clinton is referring to is that starting in 1987 commercial banks were permitted to begin (in a small way) some limited securities underwriting.

dorgan did not vote against the cfma.


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:52 am 45
In response to eCAHNomics @ 40

Please don’t tell me Holy Joe proposes a military venture to force Iran, China, Russia and Venezuala to pay for everything in American dollars.


Leen | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:53 am 46

Senator Dorgan “If you want to gamble go to Las Vegas. This was not about a crystal ball this was about common sense”

Calling

Who else did folks here warn that this was coming over the last eight years? I heard Stigletz, Naomi Klein, Paul O’Neil.

Yeah right no one saw this coming.

And our Reps keep acting surprised that executive compensation was handed out of taxpayers money hogwash


daveotr | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:54 am 47

Just to clarify. The bill that received only 8 “Nay” votes was the final bill that came out of Senate-House conference committee. The Senate vote on the original bill was 54-44.

The reason so few Democrats voted against the final bill was because the conference committee added a “sweetener” that strengthened the Community Reinvestment Act (the same piece of legislation, btw, that the right-wing blowhards originally tried to blame as the cause of the financial meltdown).


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:56 am 48
In response to daveotr @ 47

Thanks — had forgotten about the conference sweetener on that!


BlueCrow | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:57 am 49
In response to oldgold @ 32

“… Ivy League grads are our best and brightest has taken a pummelling this past decade.”

I’ve wondered what this means. Best? Certainly not the most honest, caring or compassionate. The ones who reach the tops of our political ladders are mostly monsters.

Brightest? Most capable of getting what they and their group wants? Mostly monsters.


selise | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:58 am 50
In response to daveotr @ 47

excellent point. here is the link to that roll call vote:

http://www.senate.gov/legislat…..vote=00105

dorgan voted “no” that time too.


eCAHNomics | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:59 am 51
In response to mui1 @ 45

I was fading in & out so I don’t have specifics. It was hearing of DNI and some military guy on what was going on wrong in the world. Toward the end Blair brought up problems associated with the global economic meltdown (my characterization, not his), and Lieberman’s retort was pretty much as I mentioned. No list of countries, but your guess is a good one.


cbl2 | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:59 am 52
In response to Leen @ 46

Yeah right no one saw this coming

only if they were illiterate –

1987 Congressional Research Service

S e c u r i t i e s a c t i v i t i e s can be r i s k y , leading t o enormous
l o s s e s . Such l o s s e s could t h r e a t e n the i n t e g r i t y of
d e p o s i t s . In t u r n , the Government i n s u r e s d e p o s i t s and
c o u l d be r e q u i r e d t o pay l a r g e sums i f d e p o s i t o r y
i n s t i t u t i o n s were t o c o l l a p s e as the r e s u l t of s e c u r i t i e s
l o s s e s .

Morning All


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 06:59 am 53
In response to BlueCrow @ 49

Having attended a Seven Sisters and an Ivy for grad school, I’d take exception to that, thanks.


cbl2 | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:02 am 54
In response to daveotr @ 47

was just reading that myself – still trying to figure out where in the storyline Gramm inserted his infamous 232 page ‘memo’ in to the Act or is that just more defensive bs touted by apologists


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:03 am 55
In response to eCAHNomics @ 34

Read Greenspan’s memoir: The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. A book like that deserves an alternate title.
Which reminds me, our favorite characters in this financial debacle have yet to receive nicknames I think. I see Greenspan referred to as bubble boy. Kevin Phillips, I believe, wrote that Bernanke was called “Helicopter Ben.” I think nicknames are politically potent and catching.


selise | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:05 am 56

so why did dorgan NOT vote against the cfma if he knew how dangerous unregulated otc derivatives would be?


foothillsmike | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:05 am 57

Financial Services hearing starting gotta give everyone a chance to state how great and all knowing they are.


foothillsmike | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:06 am 58
In response to foothillsmike @ 57

PS – C-span 3


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:08 am 59
In response to selise @ 56

My answer would be a pessimistic one.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:09 am 60
In response to selise @ 56

Well, he wrote the article about problems with derivatives in 1996 — which was well after the cfma vote. So perhaps he learned from the vote?

None of these people are perfect, nor are they psychic, I’m thinking. And I don’t expect them to be, frankly, because I’m sure as hell not and I can’t hold them to a more perfect standard than I hold myself, them being only human, too.

But Dorgan certainly seems to have learned caution in the intervening years. Whether from experience or learning more? I can’t say.


Leen | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:09 am 61

give Christy’s piece a digg if you please ….so others will call


i4u2bi | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:10 am 62

Everyone including those with only half their wits knew that deregulation was a very bad idea. How can deregulation be defended? Are people still defending the idea there is no climate change problem?


Prairie Sunshine | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:10 am 63

We love Senator Dorgan in North Dakota. He is a treasure for our state and the nation. He hasn’t forgotten his history…or where he came from. And we’ll be welcoming him back to Fargo this evening with enthusiasm because we know that he’s the best of what makes North Dakota so special.


alank | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:11 am 64

I don’t suppose puts and calls laid the groundwork for the possibility of infinite layers of securitization. People using these vehicles paid only a fraction of the total value on their bet against or in favor of a bull market.

But the big difference with securitization, it seems, is that each new security created out of existing pools of securities magnified the potential rewards as well as risks many-fold.

There’s also a kinship between derivitives and fractional reserve banking where money supply accelerates based on rules governing how much a bank has to have on hand rather than lent out.

I guess my point is that there are elements present to make the securitization schemes seem as plausible. Which begs the question regarding the plausibility of said elements.


Leen | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:14 am 65

Response from Dorgan’s office “thanks so much for your call”


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:18 am 66
In response to Prairie Sunshine @ 63

Good idea. If Dorgan’s going up against that commonsenseless (to put it nicely) status quo that seems to be in DC, and I hope he really is, than he could probably use some cheerleading from constituents .


foothillsmike | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:19 am 67
In response to Prairie Sunshine @ 63

OT How is the sand bagging going?


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:19 am 68
In response to alank @ 64

Just don’t have the knowledge to fully answer that one, I’m afraid — do as massaccio next time he has a post, though — bet you could get a detailed and thorough answer on that.


selise | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:19 am 69
In response to cbl2 @ 54

still trying to figure out where in the storyline Gramm inserted his infamous 232 page ‘memo’ in to the Act or is that just more defensive bs touted by apologists

i looked – hard – to find something in the historical record to support that storyline and could not find it. just the opposite. gramm was not on the conference committee. it was the house version of the bill that was included (not the senate’s which would have been his). ewing (it was his house bill) made a statement on the house floor just before the house vote explaining it’s inclusion. the senate then passed the conference report by unanimous consent before the bill had even been reported to the senate floor.

if anyone has any more light to shed, especially from primary source material, i would be very grateful to know of it. thanks.


cbl2 | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:21 am 70
In response to Prairie Sunshine @ 63

prayin y’all catch a break. loved your diary

I’m with Christy above and afford Senator Dorgan my highest compliment – he is a very decent guy


selise | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:21 am 71

Well, he wrote the article about problems with derivatives in 1996 — which was well after the cfma vote. So perhaps he learned from the vote?

no, the cfma vote was in 2000.


demi | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:23 am 72

Good Morning.
Dugg and Called. The young man I spoke with seemed quite busy, but was pleasant, in a rushed kind of way. When I asked, he said that they’d received quite a few calls about thanking the senator. And, btw, here are the 800 numbers for the Capitol:
1 (800) 828 – 0498
1 (800) 459 – 1887
1 (800) 614 – 2803
1 (866) 340 – 9281
1 (866) 338 – 1015
1 (877) 851 – 6437


cbl2 | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:23 am 73
In response to selise @ 69

thanks.

up to my elbows in pdf’s and CRS summaries – I blame you :D


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:23 am 74
In response to selise @ 71

I thought the initial vote was in the 1980s? Must have misunderstood what either you or someone else was saying upthread then.


selise | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:24 am 75
In response to selise @ 71

i should also say, that i don’t think that takes anything away from his good statement now. that i applaud. but he was being a weasel about opposing otc derivatives by talking about his article and conveniently leaving out his vote.

i don’t expect saints either. but i also don’t believe in letting spin instead of facts drive the narrative.


Elliott | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:26 am 76

alank | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:26 am 77

Will do! :)


Prairie Sunshine | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:28 am 78
In response to foothillsmike @ 67

Well, the Senator won’t have to sandbag when he gets here *g*. The flood crest prediction went up a foot, so the dikes are going higher today too. They expect to have the dikes completed today in prep for 41 feet. Contingency diking and plans for evacuation if necessary. The city leadership is well organized and savvy and has done this before, tho not to this level.

We’re prepared, the region’s rallying around us, we’ll face what happens knowing we’ve done our best with no lollygagging… and for the outlier homeowners acting like adolescents [yes, that happens locally sometimes, too], well grow up and shape up or stay outa da way.


goldpearl | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:30 am 79

frank rich said it pretty succinctly in his “Has a ‘Katrina Moment’ Arrived? ” nyt column on sunday:

“To get ahead of the anger, Obama must do what he has repeatedly promised but not always done: make everything about his economic policies transparent and hold every player accountable. His administration must start actually answering the questions that officials like Geithner and Summers routinely duck.”

snip

“Another compelling question connects all of the above: why has there been so little transparency and so much evasiveness so far? The answer, I fear, is that too many of the administration’s officials are too marinated in the insiders’ culture to police it, reform it or own up to their own past complicity with it.”

article here

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03……html?_r=1


selise | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:30 am 80
In response to cbl2 @ 73

LOL! if you find good sources please let me know – i’d be very grateful. you can leave a comment on my timeline and i’ll add it in next time i do an update.

am off to try to listen to some of today’s hearing. although if it is as bad as tuesday’s i won’t be able to.


Praedor | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:31 am 81

What I don’t understand is what the hell Geithner’s doing speaking to the Senate about regulation reform…why not simply state, “Re-enact Glass-Stegall AS IT WAS. The INSTANT it was rescinded, all this mess started building. Simply bring it back as a FIRST step. Then move on to adding regulations on credit default swaps, shorting, hedge funds, and insurance.

Naked credit default swaps should be outright banned. Naked short selling should be outright banned. Hedge funds should be regulated to within an inch of their lives. Same with insurance companies.

Then move on “too big to fail”. NO company of any type can be allowed to become (or remain) “too big to fail”. It is simple, too big to fail means too big. Period.

That is all that needs to be discussed in the Senate and Geithner has no part of it. It is his job to simply say, “I will obey the laws as you pass them.”


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:34 am 82

looks like Metro North is about to get dirtier and more crowded. And I remember reading not long ago that use of metro north was peaking. Noone seems to think “pack em in like sardines” in dirty cars with no air conditioning is dangerous.

A spokesperson for the Connecticut Metro North Commuter Rail Council told News Channel 8 “if they have to cut the budget the least amount of people affected the better. Train tickets don’t come with a maid service. At least there are no fare increases.”

maid service?


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:35 am 83

correction @82 A spokesperson for the Connecticut Metro North Commuter Rail Council told News Channel 8 “if they have to cut the budget the least amount of people affected the better. Train tickets don’t come with a maid service. At least there are no fare increases.”

Maid service


demi | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:36 am 84
In response to Prairie Sunshine @ 78

Like cbl2, I just said a prayer for you and your town. Keep up the good work and excellent attitude.


selise | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:41 am 85

imo it is very complicated. that’s why i ended up having to put stuff in a time line – just could not keep it all straight in my head.


dmac | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:43 am 86
In response to mui1 @ 83

i remember when bus drivers used to clean the inside of their own buses.


BlueCrow | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:52 am 87

:-) I was referring to those who reached the tops of our political ladders. Sorry if that was unclear.


Christy Hardin Smith | Thursday March 26, 2009 07:58 am 88
In response to BlueCrow @ 87

Yeah, I’m totally near the bottom. And I do try hard not to be a butthead whenever possible. But fire away at the W types. *G*


mui1 | Thursday March 26, 2009 08:05 am 89
In response to dmac @ 86

Oh well the new motto of the state of CT: We sacrifice public health and safety and the general good in order to make CT a great bedroom community for wall street where they don’t have to pay progressive income taxes and all that other nonsense.
Give our governor a pat on the back. The busy worker drones will commute on dirty crowded trains, fainting before they get to work and catching who knows what illnesses. No maid service for them. And the corps will continue to get maid service.
Is this a mirror reflection of DC insider thinking perhaps?


Leen | Thursday March 26, 2009 08:09 am 90

The last few minutes of Rachels’ interview were the most critical . Rachel to Dorgan “can you be iu charge”

Dorgan’s list of steps needed


Leen | Thursday March 26, 2009 08:14 am 91
In response to cbl2 @ 52

When I watched the Wall Street bailout hearings last fall I realized I was not the only one who did not know what the hell was going on with credit default swaps etc. Some of our Reps lack of knowledge and insights was frightening. The inability of the fat cats to explain in language the public could understand was also frightening. I think they may have liked it that way


ggmom | Thursday March 26, 2009 09:21 am 92

Now this is the person who should be on the re-regulation of Banks and Wall Street! The Senator was spot on then, and would be the BEST person to set it straight now. I personally don’t believe that Summers is the right person, and don’t know enough about the current Secretary of Treasury. But Senator Dorgan should be actively involved.


SeattleSourceforPolitics | Thursday March 26, 2009 11:00 am 93

This goes right back to the lobbyists and who OUR representatives are actually working for. When did the people elected to represent us stop asking themselves the question “Why do these people want me to change this law and who will it benefit?” If only 8 Senators voted against it the money must have been laid down like a heavy shag carpet.

They should all be ashamed but I doubt they are. Being able to justify your behavior to yourself and others is an actual job requirement for the Senate.


Mile23 | Thursday March 26, 2009 04:49 pm 94

What’s interesting here is that North Dakota is the place where usury laws were basically repealed after the Supreme Court decided Marquette. Sen. Dorgan was a tax comissioner there at the time, if wiki tells me right. So out of that climate comes a voice telling us to investigate the current situation.

Which of course we should do.


Sorry but the comments are closed on this post

Close