You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 506

PLAYS: 350

(White House Chief of Staff and later Treasury Secretary James Baker with "friend" - coincidence? We think nope.)

Smoke and mirrors, sleight of hand, stratagems and feints - all those characterizations to sum up the Reagan Economics plan. In this interview, part of the CBS News Face The Nation series from August 15, 1982, White House Chief of Staff, later appointed Treasury Secretary James Baker is asked point blank about the wildly varying opinions on the economic state and on the deficit.

George Herman (CBS News): “When do you personally think the deficit may be below $100 billion?”.

James Baker: “Well George, the official figure is of course is what I gave you and I recognize there are differences of opinion with respect to that. I think the point is that . .is that these ballooning deficits that we see are the reason why it is very important that the Congress implement the budget resolution that’s before it and it’s very . . .this is the reason it’s very important that we have a tax bill and that tax bill pass the Congress. Now, it’s really not important when I personally think the deficit might be below $100 billion. In the first place, I’m not an economist, and I really don’t have any independent view of that. The important thing, I think is that we need to constantly keep our eye on the fact that deficits are a major problem in this country. And that the ever expanding size of these deficits keeps interests rates up. And the fact that interest rates are remaining too high is what prevents the recovery from taking place. So it’s very important, we think, that as an administration that we . .that we do some responsible surgery, if you will, on these deficits”.

I guess having knowledge of economics wasn't a prerequisite for being appointed Treasury Secretary in 1985, at least not in the Reagan White House. I think its' safe to say the world o' crap we're in right now didn't necessarily start on January 2001.

But memories tend to be selective and short.

That's why we're here.

Republicans blaming the Obama administration for this horrendous recession is like an arsonist blaming the fire department - and yet, there's a certain usefulness to their attacks. After all, liberals complaining about the administration's economic policies got us nowhere. Maybe they'll actually listen when Republicans do it!

Growing discontent over the economy and frustration with efforts to speed its recovery boiled over Thursday on Capitol Hill in a wave of criticism and outright anger directed at the Obama administration.

Episodes in both houses of Congress exposed the raw nerves of lawmakers flooded with stories of unemployment and economic hardship back home. They also underscored the stiff headwinds that the administration faces as it pushes to enact sweeping changes to the financial regulatory system while also trying to create jobs for ordinary Americans.

President Obama's allies in the Congressional Black Caucus, exasperated by the administration's handling of the economy, unexpectedly blocked one of his top priorities, using a legislative maneuver to postpone the approval of financial reform legislation by a key House committee.

Two buildings away, at a session of the Joint Economic Committee, Republicans escalated their attacks on Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, including a call for his resignation.

"Conservatives agree that as point person, you failed. Liberals are growing in that consensus as well," said Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Tex.). "For the sake of our jobs, will you step down from your post?"

Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.) took a different tack. "I don't think that you should be fired," he told Geithner. "I thought you should have never been hired."

The Democrats are also fed up with the president's economic policies. Rep. Pete DeFazio, progressive:

"I have had a number of people say to me, 'I feel the same way you do but I'm not going to say it.' People are worried it will rub off on the president who still enjoys popularity," he said. "I tell them I still support the president. I just think he is being poorly served by his economic team."

"The truth of the matter," DeFazio added, "is that we have not changed the way the money is being used. It is not being used for the purpose it was supposed to be used for. We are not creating jobs and we have not aggressively taken on the culture of Wall Street."

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 66

PLAYS: 11

(In case you were getting all dewey-eyed for the 70s)

Before George P. Schultz landed in the Reagan Administration as Secretary of State, he served for a while as Treasury Secretary under Richard Nixon, right during the fabled Energy Crisis of the 1970s.

Granted, we hadn't gone through this kind of thing before. It was 1973 and we were about to be distracted in a big way by Watergate, but the thought of skyrocketing gas prices, panic buying at the pumps and oil companies raking in massive profits just hadn't happened this way before or to this extent.

And so everyone, including Schultz was busy scratching their heads wondering what to do as is evidence by this exchange during his appearance on Meet The Press from December 2, 1973.

Irving R. Levine (NBC News): “Would not higher prices for gasoline favor higher income groups to the disadvantage of lower paid people?”

Schultz: “Not necessarily. The . . obviously you have a family budget with so much purchase of gasoline and fuel oil, and to the extent that lower income groups use proportionate to their income a little bit more than higher income groups, it has some of that effect. But I don’t think it’s a major problem in the family budget.”

Levine: “ But would not a lower . . .

Schultz: “It’s much more of a problem than if we don’t pay the price that is necessary and we don’t have any fuel.”

Levine: “But would not a person with a big income feel free to buy whatever amount of gas is necessary to do the driving that he wishes to do, where a lower income person would not be able to?”

Schultz: “That is true of all kinds of things that are reflected in the buying power of people at different incomes.”

Levine: “ Do You oppose rationing entirely, even as a last resort?

Schultz: “Well I said it should be the absolute last resort, and I’m not really sure that it is a genuine alternative in the sense of being really a workable type of system. Of course there are various kinds of rationing, and depending on how its designed it could work better or worse. I think it is worth remembering that toward the end of World War Two we had patriotic fervor and so on, we had six thousand people in OPA, enforcing . .getting after people in the black market, which I think gives you an idea the difficulties of a rationing system.”

Okay, no simple answer. But the disconnect associated with "well, only higher income people drive" strikes me as typical Republican response. Even during the course of the interview, Schultz offers a few snide asides about higher and lower economic brackets. And of course, he was very much in favor of letting the marketplace go insane.

Remember the definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over expecting different results - or as a friend put it, doing the same thing over and over and knowing what the results are going to be.

I just don't know what the best options are here, but I'm not feeling reassured that the people advising Geithner were making so much money from the people they're supposed to be regulating:

Oct. 14 (Bloomberg) -- Some of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s closest aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation, earned millions of dollars a year working for Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Citigroup Inc. and other Wall Street firms, according to financial disclosure forms.

The advisers include Gene Sperling, who last year took in $887,727 from Goldman Sachs and $158,000 for speeches mostly to financial companies, including the firm run by accused Ponzi scheme mastermind R. Allen Stanford. Another top aide, Lee Sachs, reported more than $3 million in salary and partnership income from Mariner Investment Group, a New York hedge fund.

As part of Geithner’s kitchen cabinet, Sperling and Sachs wield influence behind the scenes at the Treasury Department, where they help oversee the $700 billion banking rescue and craft executive pay rules and the revamp of financial regulations. Yet they haven’t faced the public scrutiny given to Senate-confirmed appointees, nor are they compelled to testify in Congress to defend or explain the Treasury’s policies.

“These people are incredibly smart, they’re incredibly talented and they bring knowledge,” said Bill Brown, a visiting professor at Duke University School of Law and former managing director at Morgan Stanley. “The risk is they will further exacerbate the problem of our regulators identifying with Wall Street.”

Gee, ya think?

[...] Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams said the department needs people with a deep understanding of markets and the financial system, especially as it works to fend off the worst recession in half a century.

“The secretary thought that the best way to utilize their talents was to allow these individuals to provide advice to the secretary on policy issues through appointments as counselor,” Williams said.

All of Geithner’s counselors are subject to federal ethics rules, including a pledge to avoid contact with their former firms for at least a year, Williams added.

Most officials at the Treasury who have been approved by Congress come from academic, legal or non-Wall Street backgrounds.

Barney Frank is weakening the administration's proposed regulation of predatory lending because, well, the conservative Blue Dogs won't go along with the original version. The industry, of course, is taking that as encouragement, and they're pushing for an amendment that would neuter state consumer protection laws:

He would also drop language requiring providers to adhere to a “reasonableness” standard in offering products; in other words, financial institutions would have been required to asses whether there products were clearly understandable to consumers. That language was seen as too vague and would leave providers open to legal challenges.

The Administration is willing to go along. In an appearance Sept. 23 before Frank’s committee, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner acknowledged some of the criticism of the Administration’s proposals and called Frank’s proposed changes, “a pragmatic helpful way to make sure you have the choice for protection.”

“There are lots of different ways to make sure that you don’t create too much unbridled authority that would be damaging to what’s an important part of our financial system,” Geithner said, according to the Associated Press.

Frank is also seeking to clarify just who would be regulated by the new agency, to address complaints by the US Chamber of Commerce that every small business that provides credit to its customers, or the service providers such as CPAs or advertisers who work for them, would be regulated by the new agency. Administration sources from economics chief Larry Summers on down have dismissed those criticisms as nothing more than “scare tactics” but they have nonetheless been effective. In an effort to eliminate that confusion and take it off the table as an issue, Frank will propose language that clarifies that many such businesses will not be included in the new agency’s mandate. Only bona fide providers of consumer finance offerings will be included.

In proposing the changes, Frank is “bowing to political reality” says Howard Glaser, a former top lobbyist for the Mortgage Bankers Association who now runs his own firm. In a note to clients, he points out that the Administration’s proposal was running into trouble with conservative Blue Dog Democrats.

They appear to have raised many of the concerns that have been voiced by the financial services industry and its allies at the US Chamber of Commerce, who have been lobbying heavily against the plan for the last couple of months. They argue that the proposed agency would cut back on the availability of credit, discourage innovation, and tie up many banks and small businesses in a new web of regulation. The Chamber and the community bankers have been taking the lead in fighting off the Administration’s proposal, since small business folk and local bankers who serve them win far more sympathy than do big banks and mortgage brokers at the moment.

Not that Frank’s moves are likely to slow them down. Even amidst news reports this AM that Frank was pulling back on the proposal, the Chamber announced a press conference for tomorrow morning once again criticizing the agency and how it would hurt small business.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (98)

PLAYS: (284)

David Sirota on CNN's American Morning explaining why the White House throwing Van Jones under the bus was such a terrible idea. They've done nothing but show the right wing that they will cave if they decide to attack a progressive working in the White House.

ROBERTS: The president hired Van Jones to find more green jobs, putting more Americans back to work and helping the environment. Now, Jones is looking for a job himself. He has been under fire for some pointed comments about Republicans and a petition that he signed back in 2004 questioning what the Bush White House knew about 9/11. He has now resigned.

To talk more about that, let's bring in syndicated columnist David Sirota and David Frum, the editor of newmajority.com and former speech writer for the Bush White House.

David Sirota, let's start with you, because you wrote quite a scathing column that appeared on the newleft.org and as well on the huffingtonpost.com, saying you're absolutely outraged by the way the White House handled this.

SIROTA: Van Jones is a national hero for his work on green jobs. He's known as an expert on energy policy, on economic policy. He's somebody who made a mistake, who acknowledged that he made a mistake a long time ago, and he was tossed out by this White House.

And I think what we can learn from what happened is what this White House values and what this White House doesn't value. The White House stuck by Tim Geithner as Tim Geithner was involved, the treasury secretary, in a tax scandal. He's accepted gifts from the banking industry. The White House stood by him.

The White House has stood by other people, like Ben Bernanke, who has really been at the heart of our economic problems. And they're basically putting Van Jones out to pasture because of something Van Jones said was a mistake.

And I think what's going on here is that the White House is listening to the white right wing's political terrorists, people like Glenn Beck, people like conservative activists who have targeted Van Jones because Van Jones is an African-American with a progressive movement background working on behalf of social justice.

That's something, unfortunately, that is apparently, according to the right wing, not allowed in this country.

Continue reading »

Someone's sounding just a little touchy, aren't they? Yes, Tim, you and your buddies from Wall St. have done such a bang-up job, I can understand why you're upset by all these questions:

WASHINGTON -- Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner blasted top U.S. financial regulators in an expletive-laced critique last Friday as frustration grows over the Obama administration's faltering plan to overhaul U.S. financial regulation, according to people familiar with the meeting.

The proposed regulatory revamp is one of President Barack Obama's top domestic priorities. But since it was unveiled in June, the plan has been criticized by the financial-services industry, as well as by financial regulators wary of encroachment on their turf.

Mr. Geithner told the regulators Friday that "enough is enough," said one person familiar with the meeting. Mr. Geithner said regulators had been given a chance to air their concerns, but that it was time to stop, this person said.

Among those gathered in the Treasury conference room were Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Mary Schapiro and Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairman Sheila Bair.

Friday's roughly hour-long meeting was described as unusual, not only because of Mr. Geithner's repeated use of obscenities, but because of the aggressive posture he took with officials from federal agencies generally considered independent of the White House. Mr. Geithner reminded attendees that the administration and Congress set policy, not the regulatory agencies.

Mr. Geithner, without singling out officials, raised concerns about regulators who questioned the wisdom of giving the Federal Reserve more power to oversee the financial system. Ms. Schapiro and Ms. Bair, among others, have argued that more authority should be shared among a council of regulators.

"You are talking about tremendous regulatory power being invested in whatever this entity is going to be," Ms. Bair told the Senate Banking Committee last month. "And I think, in terms of checks and balances, it's also helpful to have multiple views being expressed and coming to a consensus."

Bair testified yesterday in front of the Senate committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs and she probably caused Geithner's blood pressure to shoot through the roof. Oh well! I'm a big fan of hers and I appreciate her consistent support of workers and small business.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1123)

PLAYS: (6634)

Here's another prime example of those wonderful compassionate conservatives for you. Bill Bennett on CNN's State of the Union just can't seem to get himself to endorse extending unemployment benefits right now, not because he doesn't care about the unemployed, of course. That would sound uncaring, now wouldn't it? He's just concerned that "they have already spent so doggone much money". When Donna Brazile points out that you didn't hear these complaints from Republicans when Bush was giving away the bank with tax cuts for the rich, war spending and giveaways to the drug companies, check out the look on Bennett's face. He doesn't have to say a word. That expression says it all.

They end up on a hard break, so we never do get to hear just what Bennett's compassionate conservative reply would have been, but I'm sure sure it would have been more of the same similar to his earlier remarks. I just wonder if Bill Bennett has ever had to want for anything in his entire lifetime? From the condescending look on his face while she was talking, I would guess not.

YELLIN: Let me ask you about that today because there are indications that there could be, at least the Treasury secretary is not ruling out the possibility of middle class tax increase. How would that play, politically, for President Obama, if that had to happen?

BRAZILE: Well as we know, that 95 percent of the tax relief that was offered in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act went to middle class Americans. So I would hope at a time when middle class Americans and others are feeling the squeeze from the state governments and the local governments and now the federal government with the debt, I would hope that this would not be an issue right now. But if he's talking about putting this in the mix in terms of how we pay for health care reform, we need to take a look at it.

YELLIN: Bill, does that make you think, oh, this is going to look good in 2012 for the elections?

BENNETT: I'm really not thinking about that, but the interesting thing is, it's not so much President Obama and the Democrats versus the Republicans at this point. In many ways, it's President Obama and the American people. And the more they're hearing, the more skeptical they're becoming. Thus you see his polls going down. I don't want to be gloomy, I want to be upbeat. It's always morning in America as far as I'm concerned.

But the problem is, when people look at these various proposals, like health care or like cap and trade, what they're getting is, they may have additional burdens on them, additional taxes or additional costs. And that doesn't, A, encourage them, B, it doesn't encourage a long-term recovery.

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (725)

PLAYS: (1326)

When I think of how much the Bush administration shoved down the country's throat on strictly partisan votes, it makes me crazy when Democrats start talking about being bipartisan. This kind of talk by Tim Geithner on This Week with George Stephanopoulous is more like it:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let me ask you about health care. The negotiations seem to stall out in the Senate, they are going to try to come back by Sept 15th. The House committees have all passed the bill. One of the things that, Senator Grassley, we just saw, is asking about is that he says he wants some assurance, some guarantees really, that whatever deal, if they strike a deal, a bipartisan deal in the Senate finance committee it's going to hold all the way through the process. The Senate floor, the House floor, the conference committee, can the administration give him that assurance?

GEITHNER: I think that is what every legislator wants. They want that to be of confidence.

STEPHANOPOULOS: They are not going to get it through?

GEITHNER: You know, (chuckles), we want to have an outcome that meets these core principles the President laid out. Which is we want to make sure that we're doing something that is going to reduce the growth in cost over the long term, expand access, improve the quality of care. Do that in a fiscally responsible way that does not increase, increase unduly the burden on average Americans today. That's the basic test. And we're going to try to make sure that we achieve that with the broadest consensus as possible.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You want broad consensus but Senator Grassley, his colleague Senator Enzi are saying that they need those assurances, that can't get them?

GEITHNER: Well again, you know (laughs) we want to make sure we get this done. And we're gonna- as the President's said, we're going to look at anything reasonable, consistent with those principles that's going to get this done.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You want it to be through consensus, the President has said he wants a bipartisan bill if possible, but do you believe it is possible if necessary to get meaningful health care reform with democrats only?

GEITHNER: George, I think that again this is a big consequential reform of the country. And as many people observes, ideally you want to do this with as broad a base of consensus as possible. But people on the hill are going to have to make that choice, do they want to help shape this and be part of it. Or do they want this country, the United States of America, to go another several decades without doing whatever other serious country has done, which is to give their citizens access to basic quality of care.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But if Republicans can't come to an agreement with the democrats are the Democrats and the White House willing to go it to alone?

GEITHNER: George, again, we're going to try and get this done on the best possible terms consistent with those principles. Can't tell you what it's going to take. But you see what the President is trying to do.

As gratifying as it is to hear tough talk from the Dems, though, there are some very serious drawbacks to doing it through the reconciliation process. It would require Obama to walk quite a political tightrope after dangling major healthcare reform in front of the voters:

Continue reading »

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: 132

PLAYS: 12

(In the era of funny money - $1.5 mil got you this fixer-upper)

As California continues it's circle around the monetary drain, I was reminded of another fiscal crisis on the other side of the country. New York and the big default of 1975 - the one where President Ford all but said drop dead to Mayor Beame and his request for Federal bailout funds. Interesting times - they became something of a pattern for American cities during those years. New York, Cleveland, Detroit. And the offshoots - Prop 13 for California. The Savings and Loan Scandal. All potential crises, swept under the carpet of history and forgotten about.

I ran across this documentary, part of NPR's "Options" series called "Growing Economic Problems for U.S. Cities", which ran in September of 1975.

It features Mayors Abraham Beame of New York and Coleman Young of Detroit, along with Treasury Secretary William Simon and Senators Jacob Javits and Hubert Humphrey, all wrestling with the impending fiscal crisis.

New York City Comptroller Harrison Golden has an interesting take on it - I'm sure much of it echoes today.

“The politicians who developed the tricks and all of the devices that built in the seeds of disaster bear a measure of the blame. So does the media, the press which heralded those sleights of hand as representing mathematical ingenuity or fiscal wizardry. What all those steps were was delaying till tomorrow which should have been the problems on the day in which those tricks were used. The banks are to blame because they made money off of the devices that were developed. The citizens generally and businesses are to blame because they wanted a free lunch, wanted more service without paying for it. There’s plenty of responsibility, plenty of culpability to go around.“

Plenty of culpability. And plenty more now where that came from.

Well! This certainly should be an interesting summer:

WASHINGTON – A House panel has subpoenaed documents that lawmakers say could shed new light on Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke's role in Bank of America's acquisition of Merrill Lynch.

The subpoena comes ahead of a hearing next week in which Bernanke is scheduled to testify.

Lawmakers have accused Bernanke and President Bush's treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, of pressuring Bank of America Corp. Chief Executive Kenneth Lewis into the deal and urging him to keep quiet about Merrill's financial problems.

Not divulging that information would have violated Lewis' fiduciary duty to the bank's shareholders.

Lawmakers also have questioned whether Lewis threatened not to go through with the merger in order to squeeze money from the government.

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (805)

PLAYS: (1775)

Lawrence Kudlow interviewed Dick Cheney on CNBC yesterday and it was all about his views on the economy. Kudlow tried to get Cheney to call Obama a "socialist," but he wouldn't bite on that one. I do have to give Kudlow a little credit here. He didn't just blow right past the part of our history where the Bush/Cheney administration almost destroyed the global economy, and he even put some of the blame on his guest.

Anyway, Cheney suddenly is now very worried about deficits since President Obama has been forced to pump massive amounts of money into the economy to try and save it from Cheney's handiwork. You may remember this little gem from Dick when he got into it with Paul O'Neil:

O'Neill, fired in a shakeup of Bush's economic team in December 2002, raised objections to a new round of tax cuts and said the president balked at his more aggressive plan to combat corporate crime after a string of accounting scandals because of opposition from "the corporate crowd," a key constituency.

O'Neill said he tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits-expected to top $500 billion this fiscal year alone-posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off. "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter," he said, according to excerpts. Cheney continued: "We won the midterms (congressional elections). This is our due." A month later, Cheney told the Treasury secretary he was fired.

In this portion of the interview, Cheney elaborates on the economy as he sees it and is so terrified that President Obama has just ruined everything.

Transcript via Kudlow below the fold:

Continue reading »

Keep in mind that the very same politicians who are supporting this sort of thing are also telling us, in very grave tones, how worried they are about the deficit and why it's impossible to do things like provide universal health care or more money for education. One could reasonably retort that it's simply a matter of different priorities. Just remember: Although we elect the legislators, it's the corporate lobbyists who keep those high-priced perks coming!

May 22 (Bloomberg) -- Banks negotiating to reclaim stock warrants they granted in return for Troubled Asset Relief Program money may shortchange taxpayers by almost $10 billion if Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s first sale sets the pace, data compiled by Bloomberg show.

While 17 financial institutions have repaid TARP funds, two have come to terms with the U.S. on the value of the rights to buy stock that taxpayers received for the risk of recapitalizing the industry. The first was Old National Bancorp in Evansville, Indiana, which gave the Treasury Department $1.2 million last week for warrants that may have been worth $5.81 million, according to the data.

If Geithner makes the same deal for all companies in the rescue program, lenders may walk away with 80 percent of the profits taxpayers might have claimed.

“For once we’d like to get a fair value when we come into contact with the banking system,” said Representative Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat and chairman of the Investigations and Oversight Subcommittee of House Science and Technology Committee. “We don’t want a ruthless bargain.”

The Congressional GOPers (Party of Corporate Pork) are so, so upset when the wrong people are on the losing end in government bailouts. See if you can spot the delicious irony!

Dozens of lawmakers are challenging the authority of President Obama's auto task force, saying its swift restructuring of General Motors and Chrysler is unjust to investors, dealers and others.

In a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner yesterday, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tex.) said the auto task force is waging a "war on capital" by favoring the United Auto Workers, who are being offered a 39 percent equity stake in the new GM, over bondholders, many of them small investors and retirees, who are being offered 10 percent.

"Choosing sides between equal classes of creditors sets a terrible precedent -- one that could cause serious long term challenges to the financing marketplace by eroding investor confidence at the worst time in our recessionary period," Hensarling wrote in a letter signed by 20 other House members.

Yes, I know there's more to the story. I know Chrysler promised there would be no job losses or closings (which I put right up there with "the check is in the mail). But the absolute cojones of the Republicans, to complain about a protected class - well, I can't let that go without comment.

That's it. I think we need another good Sicilian kinky-haired, olive-skinned, jut-jawed lawyer from Manhattanin there mixing it up with these Banksters.

Pelosi calls for panel to probe Wall Street

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying that the American people are demanding "discipline and accountability" following the multibillion-dollar federal bailouts, vowed today to initiate a legislative commission with broad oversight to investigate the causes of Wall Street irregularities and their full costs to taxpayers.

Pelosi, speaking to the Commonwealth Club of California, said she wants the panel to be modeled after the Pecora Commission, a bipartisan investigative body established by the U.S. Senate in 1932 to examine the causes and abuses of the Wall Street crash of 1929 and to prevent a repeat.
"They investigated what happened in the markets," including conflicts of interests and irregularities that set off such devastating effects on the U.S. economy, she said. When the commission issued its findings during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, "they had tangible recommendations," she said, which helped generate widespread public support for major banking system reforms and new securities laws.

You can watch the video segment Bill Moyers featured on PBS. He had a discussion about the Pecora Commission here. (h/t Heather)

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (1435)

PLAYS: (2890)

Robert Borosage has been calling for hearings on Wall Street for a while now.
CFAF just released a statement on this by Borosage:

We applaud House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s pledge to create a special commission to investigate the roots of the financial collapse similar to the Pecora Commission that exposed the crimes and collusion's of Wall Street in the 1930s.

The devil, of course, is in the details – and the people. The commission needs subpoena power. It needs to be able to expose what appears to be widespread fraudulent and illegal practices – that can only be done with the power to demand production of documents and witnesses. It needs a large, aggressive and competent staff able to sort through volumes of material. It needs time to lay out the case to the public. And it needs courageous commissioners and a fearless prosecutor, a modern day Pecora, committed to unearthing the truth.

I was watching FOX News and every panelist was so terrified by the fact that there could be any kind of hearings about any of the garbage that happened these last eight years. They were calling in madness, but not what the Bush administration did of course. That's why the country is in this frakkin' shape. We need to know why and we need people held accountable.