One of the aggravating facts of life in bureaucracies is having to contend regularly with misrepresentation. And I don’t mean faux friendly corporate bromides like “We’re here to help,” but weasely, technically accurate but substantively misleading statements. A Treasury reply to some questions from Elizabeth Warren is a classic in this genre.
The written responses to Warren’s queries came back last week (see the full text at the end of this post). Warren criticized Treasury’s failure to do its own homework on the whether large banks can borrow money more cheaply by virtue of being perceived as being too big to fail. As Bloomberg noted:
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized the Treasury Department for not conducting a formal study to determine if some banks receive a funding subsidy for being perceived to be too big to fail.
“The best way to make an objective determination of whether too-big-to-fail continues to exist over time is by measuring the subsidy, and Treasury should develop its own metrics for doing so through the Office of Financial Research,” Warren, a Massachusetts Democrat, said today in an e-mailed statement.
This question matters not just because it’s precisely the sort of thing the Office of Financial Research ought to be doing, but also because Treasury has the leading role on the Financial Stability Oversight Council. But peculiarly, Treasury takes the position that it can rely on third-party research. Given the banks’ role in supporting various think tanks and funding finance programs at business schools, one would have to assume that Treasury knows full well that a lot of that “research” is lobbying using charts and data as decoration. By contrast, in the UK, the Bank of England not only prepares an impressively detailed Financial Stability Report twice a year, but when Andrew Haldane was its executive director of financial stability, he gave detailed estimates of the funding cost advantage of the big UK and global banks. So if England thinks preparing this sort of analysis is part of the “financial stability overseer” job description, it’s telling that Treasury has chosen to shirk it.
But if I were Warren, I’d be at least as unhappy about Treasury’s misdirections. For instance, get a load of this (click to enlarge):
Translation: We’re sympathetic, but not our job.
But that’s not the whole story.
There was a big brouhaha in 2011 when Bank of America moved $75 trillion (yes, trillion) of derivatives from its holding company to its retail bank to avoid having to post $3.3 billion of extra collateral after a downgrade. The FDIC was opposed to the move. The Fed supported it. And the Treasury? Nowhere to be found, at least from what I can recall at the time plus some searching this evening.
Yet the Treasury had a dog in this fight, both via its role on FSOC and as potential funder of Bank of America. As Jonathan Weil pointed out in 2011:
Dodd-Frank lets the FDIC borrow money from the Treasury to finance a seized company’s operations for as long as five years. While the law says the FDIC is supposed to tap the banking industry to pay for any eventual losses, it’s hard to imagine the agency could ever charge enough to cover the costs from a failure at a company with $2.2 trillion of assets, or any other giant financial institution, for that matter. Plus, there’s always the chance Congress will change the law again.
But at this juncture (before the various get out of jail free cards known as mortgage settlements had come to pass), Treasury’s priority was to help shore up the wobbly Charlotte bank. Remaining silent in the Fed/FDIC argument over the Bank of America derivatives assured the Fed as more senior regulator would win.
So the Treasury has a history on this topic, and it’s the opposite of the posturing about being concerned about depositor risk exposures.* And notice how talking about depositor risk sidesteps the big issue about booking derivatives in depositaries: the whole point is, as the Bank of America example shows, to lower funding costs, meaning to have deposit insurance and the taxpayer backstop subsidize the derivatives casino. Warren’s next question hones in on that issue, as to whether Treasury has looked into what OTC derivatives are really used for and how much of it is socially productive. Again, Treasury answers a different question and makes motherhood and apple pie statements about how Dodd Frank reduces opacity in the OTC derivatives markets.
Similarly, in response to question 4 on borrowing costs, Treasury says in passing:
The emergency resolution authority created under Title II [of Dodd Frank] explicitly forbids any bailout by taxpayers.
That’s a minority view. First, William Dudley of the New York Fed said late last year that Title II resolutions won’t work with the firms everyone is most worried about, globe-sprawling behemoths. As we wrote then:
The New York Fed’s William Dudley gave a surprisingly candid, meaning not positive, assessment of the state of the Too Big to Fail problem in a speech yesterday at the Clearing House’s Second Annual Business Meeting and Conference. From the text of his speech(emphasis ours)….:
In my view, this initial exercise has confirmed that we are a long way from the desired situation in which large complex firms could be allowed to go bankrupt without major disruptions to the financial system and large costs to society. Significant changes in structure and organization will ultimately be required for this to be achieved. However, the “living will” exercise is an iterative process, and we have only taken the first step in a long journey.
The second way to potentially minimize the negative externalities from a firm’s failure would be to avoid a bankruptcy proceeding altogether and instead resolve the firm under the Dodd-Frank Act’s Title II orderly liquidation 7 authority.8
The “single point of entry” model has much promise, but much remains to be done before it could be implemented with confidence for a globally active firm. Title II authority is U.S. law. Subsidiaries and affiliates chartered in other countries could be wound down under the bankruptcy laws of those countries, if authorities there did not have full confidence that local interests would be protected. Certain Title II measures including the one-day stay provision with respect to OTC derivatives and other qualified financial contracts may not apply through the force of law outside the United States, making orderly resolution difficult.
Second, and more important, Spencer Bachus, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, pointed out in a paper published a month before the Dudley speech that despite the claims of Dodd Frank fans that it barred bailouts, it leaves plenty of room for rescues:
Among other things, the “resolution authority” gives the FDIC the power to lend to a fail- ing firm; purchase its assets; guarantee its obligations; and — most important — pay off its creditors. The “resolution authority” also gives the FDIC the authority to borrow money from the Treasury. Lots of it. How much? The FDIC can borrow up to 10% of the book value of the failed firm’s total consolidated assets in the 30 days immediately following its appointment as receiver. After those 30 days, the FDIC can borrow up to 90% of the fair value of the failed firm’s total consolidated assets.
Tellingly, the Bloomberg story on the Warren letter has no less than Jacob Lew undercutting its claims about Dodd Frank resolutions:
Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew in July said that if too big to fail is not solved by the end of this year “we’re going to have to look at other options.” He didn’t elaborate on what alternatives President Barack Obama’s administration might consider.
So Treasury can’t even keep its stories straight. Let’s hope Warren is keeping score and has a bit of sport the next time its officials make an appearance before the Senate Banking Committee. If she can’t get them to change behavior, she can at least make clear that no one is buying their excuses.
Miller Resp to Waren QFRs 7-11-13
_____
*If pressed, Treasury would probably argue that the only funds at risk anyhow are uninsured deposits, and the odds that they’d lose money are remote.
34 comments
Comments are closed.
Wow. Talk about “disingenuous”?
We’re out past disingenuous here, heading toward defiant and impudent.
These are legitimate questions of fact related to the oversight function, not fishing for “gotchas”. Instead of simple yes-or-no answers, or even “yes/no but…”, the questions are simply blown off.
I’d be surprised if the Senate will put up with this for long – it chips away at the oversight perogative that both R’s and D’s will defend.
Oversight from Congress? How was Mars? I’ll believe oversight when I see it, but right now, Congress has been asking for answers for years and never received answers.
The real question is how many elected official saw General Alexander’s whoosh doors and said, “neat,” instead of, “how much did that cost?”
Without outside pressure, Congress will have a few people who will say the right thing then do fundraisers for the same Congressmen and Senators who block all their efforts at good government.
Anyone remember the rally cry, to save “Lincoln’s 716”? Barny Frank came out saying during reconciliation, in effect, “maybe we don’t need it, since we have the Volcker rule”. I was on the phone to the House Fin Svc Com the next day, talking to Frank’s minions (my Rep.).
It’s in the Bill. It would be nice if they exercised it.
Fairly obvious that the Treasury like much of Congress is full of Libertarian Rednecks who don’t do joined-up thinking.
Indeed not to be so can be a hindrance to your career!
Rednecks? I don’t think that word means what you think it means. Libertarians maybe, but rednecks they are definitely not.
Actually, I could see Ivy Leaguers as a class of privileged rednecks.
Most redneck humor is based on insularity, impracticality, lack of social skills, and a weird fashion sense.
Use the perfect flip of poverty -> wealth and you’ve got something to play with. Hmmm…..
Scraping_by, I think “bluenecks” is the word for which you are searching.
The Secretary of Treasury is Jack Lew who gained his wealth as COO of Proprietary Trading at Citigroup during the peak of Citi’s investments in MBS and derivatives which lead to bankruptcy, avoided only by government protections. Expecting him to suddenly be forthright is naive.
Yves was this an intentional omission or simply an oversight?
First, Lew was grossly overpaid at NYU (he was there much longer) and had NYU give him a free house (by giving him a mortgage and then forgiving it over time).
Second, Lew was not the COO of prop trading. He was the Chief Administrative Officer of Alternative Investments, which was hedge funds offered to outside parties, NOT an internal bank operation. We’ve described in gory detail in earlier posts his unseemly pay deals at NYU and Citi.
Posts are not histories of everything. It’s highly unlikely that Lew had any involvement in Miller’s reply to Warren. Treasury would not see it as important. And I’d expect Geithner’s Treasury to have issued pretty much the same reply.
GREATEST SUMMATION ON AMERICAN POLITICS
” Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically
destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new
candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or
bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed
legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees,
eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten
to default on the nation’s debt; (3) taking over state governments in
order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls,
and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections;
(4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public
of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax, and (5) buying up
the media so the public cannot know the truth. By Robert Reich
Would you call this treason?
If not, what would you call it? ”
GREATEST SUMMATION ON AMERICAN POLITICS
” Suppose a small group of extremely wealthy people sought to systematically
destroy the U.S. government by (1) finding and bankrolling new
candidates pledged to shrinking and dismembering it; (2) intimidating or
bribing many current senators and representatives to block all proposed
legislation, prevent the appointment of presidential nominees,
eliminate funds to implement and enforce laws, and threaten
to default on the nation’s debt; (3) taking over state governments in
order to redistrict, gerrymander, require voter IDs, purge voter rolls,
and otherwise suppress the votes of the majority in federal elections;
(4) running a vast PR campaign designed to convince the American public
of certain big lies, such as climate change is a hoax, and (5) buying up
the media so the public cannot know the truth. By Robert Reich
Would you call this treason?
If not, what would you call it? “
Hmm. I thought to myself if there was some way to cross examine the treasury “answers”. Then I said to myself “Bwa ha ha” as some devious thoughts entered my mind.
As to whether TBTFs has a funding cost advantage over mortal banks, I will note numerous Greenspan testimonies to Congress where he strongly denounced Fannie and Freddie for their “implicit” government backing and this gave F&F an unfair advantage over “private sector” banks (one oxymoron at a time, please) in their funding cost.
As to the “not my job, mon” , regulator answer from Treasury, let’s refer to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency – division of the US Treasury website.
From the “About OCC” tab:
—————————————–
About the OCC
OCC official seal
The OCC’s primary mission is to charter, regulate, and supervise all national banks and federal savings associations. We also supervise the federal branches and agencies of foreign banks. Our goal in supervising banks and federal savings associations is to ensure that they operate in a safe and sound manner and in compliance with laws requiring fair treatment of their customers and fair access to credit and financial products.
The OCC was established in 1863 as an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The President, with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate, appoints the Comptroller to head the agency for a five-year term. The Comptroller also is a director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and NeighborWorks® America.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the OCC has four district offices plus an office in London to supervise the international activities of national banks. The OCC’s nationwide staff of bank examiners conducts on-site reviews of national banks and federal savings associations (or federal thrifts) and provides sustained supervision of these institutions’ operations. Examiners analyze loan and investment portfolios, funds management, capital, earnings, liquidity, sensitivity to market risk for all national banks and federal thrifts, and compliance with consumer banking laws for national banks and thrifts with less than $10 billion in assets. They review internal controls, internal and external audit, and compliance with law. They also evaluate management’s ability to identify and control risk.
In regulating national banks and federal thrifts, the OCC has the power to:
•Examine the national banks and federal thrifts.
•Approve or deny applications for new charters, branches, capital, or other changes in corporate or banking structure.
•Take supervisory actions against national banks and federal thrifts that do not comply with laws and regulations or that otherwise engage in unsound practices. Remove officers and directors, negotiate agreements to change banking practices, and issue cease and desist orders as well as civil money penalties.
•Issue rules and regulations, legal interpretations, and corporate decisions governing investments, lending, and other practices.
http://www.occ.gov/about/what-we-do/mission/index-about.html
————————————-
So, in their own words it looks like they already had all the power necessary to do what needed to be done – before and after the GFC !!!!
I hate to suggest Liz is just posturing, but does anybody really think ‘lower funding cost’ is the issue here? The issue is using the Fed to backstop derivative gambling that enables executive looting by creating phony profits while putting the entire economy at risk. When Liz or anybody else in the Senate starts campaigning to restore Glass Steagall, somebody please wake me up.
I’m inclined to cut Liz a break, because nowadays I get at least a little cheered up if I see someone that isn’t obviously a Nazi wearing a Ronald McDonald suit.
Of course the funding cost issue is small potatoes in the current big scheme of things. But it is something that our 6000 some mortal banks complain about, so that rates it as a talking point at least in WDC. Things don’t have to be real there.
For what its worth, a few months ago, Sens Cantwell, Warren, and McCain pushed for a new Glass-Steagall; but since the banks own Congress, that died a very quick death.
Somehow Dudley is to be believed, when Treasury isn’t? As far as I can tell, both are plugged into fantasy regarding today’s capital structure as it rests atop a moribund, still contracting physical economy doomed to continue doing do so, and thus condemned to collapsing every facet of the capital structure itself. The former (Dudley) abides fantasy supposing a supra-national, unaccountable global banking dictatorship cannot be allowed to fail, while the latter (Treasury) is painted into the corner where the only game in town is playing make believe the banking system’s collapse now is impossible.
This bogie Dudley identifies–call it a hopelessly insolvent banking system’s “false flag”–going by crocodile tears identifying “large costs to society” in fact is a concern the forgotten man could throw right back into the faces of such incompetents as Dudley, asking where was concern for large costs to society when investment in human capital was being scaled back while leverage over capital stock of every kind (including human capital) was being skyrocketed, this while the capital stock’s diversity likewise was set on a purposely contrived course contracting with ever more increasing acceleration? Is this not the framework by which a so-called 1% has earned the disdain of a so-called 99%? Is this not the means by which justice has been trampled, domestic tranquility compromised, defence weakened, the general welfare pissed upon and liberty sold to a rigged and hopelessly insolvent market???
Mr. Dudley (or any similar faux social order savior), are you a subversive traitor to the principles for which the United States stands?
The problem with bailouts is they can by no means defend the social order their advocates claim with their crocodile tears to be fighting for. Bailouts of illegitimate, unproductive credits only kick the can down the road, forestalling inevitable collapse. Not to say they make things worse, because all it takes is an Executive and a Congress not completely bamboozled by monetarist hogwash, understanding the matter of issuing credit for the sake of increasing capital stock in all its forms, and problemo solved irrespective of how much bigger bailouts have made problems become.
Lew’s statement quoted above about the TBTFs needing to be solved by the end of 2013 or “we’re going to have to look at other options:” Is this comment as astonishing as I think it is? Looking at other options is a euphemism since nothing so far has worked – what possible other options? I can only really think of one and that’s nationalization. Last week there was an offhand comment by a CNBC talking head about the new worry that if the financial mess doesn’t get fixed “the Fed could lose its independence.” Yay!
“The emergency resolution authority created under Title II [of Dodd Frank] explicitly forbids any bailout by taxpayers.”
“The United States of America does not torture.”
“All man are created equal.”
Making our own reality, since 1776.
That is the Catch 22 that seizes up my brain cell ever since I heard the word “resolution authority” which is to result in “orderly resolution”.
I can’t see anyway this could be orderly in 24 hr repo markets, money markets and derivative markets unless the Fed + FDIC + Treasury jumped in and made all creditors and trading counterparties immediately whole, and it would be at taxpayer expense, and also probably kill the buck. (FYI – The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has that funny name because they are supposed to keep banks, or the Fed, from killing our bucks)
At a minimum, I would ask the Fed and Treasury talking heads for the computer simulation, or at least utube video, that diagrams how that all works?
The Armageddon Looting Machine: The Looming Mass Destruction from Derivatives
Five years after the financial collapse precipitated by the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy on September 15, 2008, the risk of another full-blown financial panic is still looming large, despite the Dodd Frank legislation designed to contain it. As noted in a recent Reuters article, the risk has just moved into the shadows:
[B]anks are pulling back their balance sheets from the fringes of the credit markets, with more and more risk being driven to unregulated lenders that comprise the $60 trillion “shadow-banking” sector.
Increased regulation and low interest rates have made lending to homeowners and small businesses less attractive than before 2008. The easy subprime scams of yesteryear are no more. The void is being filled by the shadow banking system. Shadow banking comes in many forms, but the big money today is in repos and derivatives. The notional (or hypothetical) value of the derivatives market has been estimated to be as high as $1.2 quadrillion, or twenty times the GDP of all the countries of the world combined.
According to Hervé Hannoun, Deputy General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements, investment banks as well as commercial banks may conduct much of their business in the shadow banking system (SBS), although most are not generally classed as SBS institutions themselves. At least one financial regulatory expert has said that regulated banking organizations are the largest shadow banks.
The Hidden Government Guarantee that Props Up the Shadow Banking System
The amendment to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 that created this favored status for repos and derivatives was pushed through by the banking lobby with few questions asked. In a December 2011 article titled “Plan B – How to Loot Nations and Their Banks Legally,” documentary film-maker David Malone wrote:
This amendment which was touted as necessary to reduce systemic risk in financial bankruptcies . . . allowed a whole range of far riskier assets to be used . . . . The size of the repo market hugely increased and riskier assets were gladly accepted as collateral because traders saw that if the person they had lent to went down they could get [their] money back before anyone else and no one could stop them.
Burning Down the Barn to Get the Insurance
http://webofdebt.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/the-the-armageddon-looting-machine-the-looming-mass-destruction-from-derivatives/
I’m not expert on these questions but I can recognize a blatant refusal to make a reply. The answer, or rather, non-answer to Warren’s Question 4 is a case in point. It’s a 2 part question, asking first whether Treasury has done research on “advantages enjoyed by very large banks.” The answer is a straightforward, clear “No.” The second part of the question is, “If not, why not?” The Agency makes absolutely no attempt to address this request, not even to give a phony answer, thus showing utter contempt for the Senate’s oversight function.
Self-Sustaining Community
You cannot reboot an economy without self-sustaining communities, and empires are in the business of expunging such communities, because an empire must have artificial scarcity and excess labor to drive its ponzi. Without those ingredients, there is no reason for the middle man of middle men, proliferation of unnatural law.
Labor cedes property to capital and government to middle class to set up the quantum battery, labor distillation. Capital chases property and the middle class chases money. In America, the Republicans work directly for capital, and the Democrats work indirectly for capital, growing a middle class, against labor.
Self-sufficient communities are the beginning and end of the loop. There have been many, many successful models throughout History, all hunted and expunged by capital with the employment of the middle class for the purpose. Both capital and middle class define labor to their own end, shorting themselves out by maximizing rent to labor accordingly.
Up here, the maroons are exporting their timber and fish to Asia, stockpiling redwood in hedge funds, and replacing the productive economy with low-quality pot sales, subsidized hotel tax, and RE re-re-re-refinancing. And they, 2/3 of which work directly or indirectly for the government, are bitching for secession, by waiting for a democratic plan and empire approval. Crack me up. The law follows behavior, not the other way around.
The entire universe is wired. The reason their black boxes blow up is because they are not wired to complete any circuit in the universe. If you build an appropriate foundation, the circuit, the derivative, will present itself, to take you wherever you want to go, or you can die a slow death hiding in your parent’s basement, railing against the empire on its Internet.
The Internet, money and property are all derivatives of previous communities. The empire understands the contiguous dimension it presents itself with satellites, i-phones and peer pressure. That’s it. Build your own dimension, and capital will chase your property, middle class will chase your money, blah, blah, blah. Always begin by turning the empire on its head.
The artificial business cycle, and ultimate depression, is all about expunging real labor, adaption to natural feedback, with artificial labor replacement, which responds to the artificial stimulus presented for the purpose. Simply move forward, by learning from your children and providing them with a foundation for the purpose. I gave my children a foundation long before the empire took them, and the empire still has no idea where I am going. Horde all you like.
These guys don’t think twice about commandeering land to grow pot and leave all their garbage behind when they are done, to acquire food, clothing and shelter, and drive their idiot cars around town, burning oil, in triumph, but don’t think once about growing food, making clothes or building shelter. That’s it; stick it to the man.
Let them chase yesterday’s money and last week’s property, while you get on with life. If you do nothing but bitch about tyranny, that’s exactly what you get. They cannot implement a simple rule, like the Volcker Rule, because they are all hiding behind the lie of complexity.
I’m not sure I understand the fascia of your post, but from a reader’s perspective it seems the lede is buried in the final sentence.
Unless it has nothing to do with the previous randomness, in which case; nevermind.
What is the flipside of TBTF? How do these people expect to reboot the TBTF ponzi? What are you watching vs. where is the ball really at, and who is picking it up?
Alternative Energy
Make no mistake; the big money is committed to gas. It just let government play with other alternatives to ‘prove’ them not viable, and there will be lots of money printed on both sides of the bet as the outcome perception oscillates, and both will fail, because intelligent young people are not going to build their futures on stupid.
Canada, and its Queen, sold its soul when it re-elected Harper. If you want to see the future of that economy, go up to Alberta and talk to any driller. Those kids couldn’t raise children if their life depended upon it, and it does. Fortunately for Canada, it has much more breathing room for error.
The fact that the Queen had to increase participation with gay entitlement to your children’s future, like all the other actors, tells you everything you need to know about gas exploitation, and Irving. In America, gas is a penny, trying to stop a dollar. Good luck with that.
Fed independence is and always has been a false assumption.
what is Japan TBTF doing right now?
DEMOCRATS BACK IN POWER FOR SUCCESS FOR MIDDLE CLASS
1945-1980 democrats worked hard in creating a successful middle class
that had jobs that paid enough to afford a nice home,
Health Care and Education for children.
Since 1980, it has been decades of loading them with debt in order to afford a middle class life style. Since 1980, the top 1% had a 281% after Tax income and middle 20% got 25% which was less than. Inflation. The wealthy had the money to loan and took advantage of it.
The Outsourcing of our Manufacturing Industries was biggest sham and hit on the middle class and decent paying jobs.
The Tax Code was loaded with goodies for the rich and corporations
There is a series of Solutions to reverse course before we go over that cliff.
Progressive Flat Tax by Group. Tax Total Income not AGI with the loads of exemptions
Assure a progressive Flat Tax that will balance our budget and start paying down that horrid Republican created Debt of $17,000 Billion
Fed fund campaigns and election—6 months—3 primary 3 general—free equal tv time—No personal or outside money. Debate a week=12-=adequate to evaluate candidates
Since no need to raise campaign funds keep em on job not on road.
Ban ALL federal employees from accepting anything with a financial value.
This closes K Street Bribery.
It give middle class a chance to win an election since they cannot be bought.
Burn the tax book—It gets enough revenue $1300B that immediately balances our budget.
Start anew—Exemptions must serve a common good not fat wallets
Who (or what) are these “Democrats” of which you speak? I don’t believe I’ve seen or heard of such a creature in several decades.
DEMOCRATS BACK IN POWER FOR SUCCESS FOR MIDDLE CLASS
1945-1980 democrats worked hard in creating a successful middle class
that had jobs that paid enough to afford a nice home,
Health Care and Education for children.
Since 1980, it has been decades of loading them with debt in order to afford a middle class life style. Since 1980, the top 1% had a 281% after Tax income and middle 20% got 25% which was less than. Inflation. The wealthy had the money to loan and took advantage of it.
The Outsourcing of our Manufacturing Industries was biggest sham and hit on the middle class and decent paying jobs.
The Tax Code was loaded with goodies for the rich and corporations
There is a series of Solutions to reverse course before we go over that cliff.
Progressive Flat Tax by Group. Tax Total Income not AGI with the loads of exemptions
Assure a progressive Flat Tax that will balance our budget and start paying down that horrid Republican created Debt of $17,000 Billion
Fed fund campaigns and election—6 months—3 primary 3 general—free equal tv time—No personal or outside money. Debate a week=12-=adequate to evaluate candidates
Since no need to raise campaign funds keep em on job not on road.
Ban ALL federal employees from accepting anything with a financial value.
This closes K Street Bribery.
It give middle class a chance to win an election since they cannot be bought.
Burn the tax book—It gets enough revenue $1300B that immediately balances our budget.
Start anew—Exemptions must serve a common good not fat wallets
Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew in July said that if too big to fail is not solved by the end of this year “we’re going to have to look at other options.” He didn’t elaborate on what alternatives President Barack Obama’s administration might consider.
I predict:
– A much larger fleet of armored cars
– Establishment of one or more dedicated transport lanes for them in the direct routes between Treasury vaults and headquarters of the big banks
A dedicated secure subway line is also a possibility.
The significance here is that Treasury does not oppose the TBTF banks acting unitedly. They are not going to sacrifice any one of their number.
FYI, a little reminiscing on Paulson’s roll in creating the TBTFs:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/09/17/financial-terrorism/
Sorry, “role.”
Also, thanks to NC for not letting the thieves get away with revisionist history.
Just getting to Monday’s blog. “Disingenuous” or inadvertently honest, or too unimportant to even proof-read their reply- Per Treasury: “Section 608 of the Dodd-Frank Act will help reduce the possibility that losses associated with derivatives DO NOT spread to insured depository institutions.” Warren should request clarification of that, and not assume it is a typo.