Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Defending of the Rich and Powerful

It's unfortunately becoming fairly common that when something genuinely good is happening in congress, the White House is fighting against it:
The White House, Federal Reserve and Wall Street lobbyists are kicking up their opposition to an amendment to audit the Fed as a Senate vote approaches, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), the lead sponsor of the measure, said on Monday.

Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), who is shepherding the bill through the Senate, told Sanders Monday afternoon that "there's a shot we'll be up tomorrow," Sanders told HuffPost.

In the spring of 2009, Sanders brought a similar amendment to the Senate floor and won 59 votes. Eight senators who voted against it then are now cosponsors of his current measure.

"I think momentum is with us. But I've gotta tell you, that on this amendment, you're taking on all of Wall Street, you're taking on the Fed, obviously, and unfortunately you seem to be taking on the White House, as well. And that's a tough group to beat," said Sanders.
If you're wondering why we need an audit of the Federal Reserve, it's as if they can't stop giving us more reasons:
Earlier on Monday, HuffPost reported that former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan wanted dissent kept secret so that people outside the Fed wouldn't involve themselves in their debates.

"We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand," Greenspan said, according to the transcripts of a March 2004 meeting. "I'm a little concerned about other people getting into the debate when they know far less than we do."

Sanders said that Greenspan's comments are all the more reason for an audit. "I think it just adds a lot of weight to what we are trying to do," Sanders said. "It just points to the fact that if there was more transparency then it in fact would have allowed the debate to take place about the subprime mortgage [sic] unfolding crisis at that point. It may have prevented the horrendous recession that we're in now and the near collapse of the financial institutions."
The funny part about the White House opposing this bill is that it actually fits perfectly with their bipartisan fetish. Except when it's a group of democrats and republicans coming together to propose something threatens the power of the Federal Reserve and our banking industry... then the need for bipartisanship suddenly vanishes.

It's also good to have another issue where Obama is seen siding with the the banking industry, a stance that's sure to be a winner at the polls. The "Obama is in Wall Street's pocket" theme hasn't really caught on yet with the media, but with Tim Geithner and Larry Summers running your banking policies, it's only a matter of time.

1 comment:

  1. So what do you want to bet that Summers and/or Geithner get the boot in spectacular fashion riiight before the election, a-la Rumsfeld?