A WSJ editorial, No Bondholder Left Behind, is advocating for the separation of risky financial services companies from commercial banking.

It is the same position advocated by Obama adviser and former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, Bank of England Chairman Mervyn King, former Citigroup CEO John S. Reed, progressive economists, James K. Galbraith and Dean Bakerand and Nobel laureate economist Joseph E. Stiglitz.

Glass-Steagall Act is a depression era law passed in 1933 that prohibited commercial banks from owning riskier financial companies or engaging in those types of activities. The Act was weakened by Reagan and Congress in the 80's and repealed in 1999, by legislation promoted by former Senator Phil Gramm, McCain's chief economic adviser during the 2008 campaign, and signed by President Bill Clinton.

"Some economists state that the 1999 legislation spearheaded by Gramm and signed into law by President Clinton -- the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act -- was significantly to blame for the 2007 subprime mortgage crisis and 2008 global economic crisis."

So far, the Obama administration has chosen to regulate these banks instead of breaking them up. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker is the only prominent voice in the administration advocating for a return to Glass-Steagall.

Update: The WSJ editorial states in the last paragraph,

"... the other way to reduce moral hazard is to limit certain kinds of risk-taking by institutions that hold taxpayer-insured deposits, as suggested by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker and Bank of England Chairman Mervyn King. This has its own problems. But unlike the emerging plans in Washington, it is credible and would give capitalism a fighting chance to survive regulatory reform."

"Institutions that hold taxpayer-insured deposits" refers to banks. "Certain kinds of risk-taking" refers to the type of derivatives created by the wall street's gambling houses.

From the Huffington Post

"In an unprecedented defeat for the Federal Reserve, an amendment to audit the multi-trillion dollar institution was approved by the House Finance Committee with an overwhelming and bipartisan 43-26 vote on Thursday afternoon despite harried last-minute lobbying from top Fed officials and the surprise opposition of Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who had previously been a supporter."

I am an Obama supporter. I worked on the campaign making calls and donated substantially to it. I must say I have been disappointed by their unwillingness to deal with wall street in a substantial way. The media meme is that Obama's drop in the polls its all about jobs jobs jobs. I don't think so.

With the financial health of so many Americans either in shambles, on the brink, or threatened by increasing unemployment, you would think that someone would stand up for the working class. I think many Americans believed Obama would be different and would act on their behalf. But IMO, from a distance, the new administration's handling of some aspects of the financial crisis seemed like nothing has "changed."

Some of the government regulators who oversaw the worse financial collapse since the Great Depression, were given prominent positions in the new administration. The lack of action on excessive bonus pay, consumer protection, future regulation and too-big-too-fail has put into question whether or not this administration had our best interests at heart.

I think the combination of these factors have eroded Obama's support. Obama's administration's action in these matters appear to defend the wealthy instead of the majority of Americans. The money we used to bail out the banks is not being used to help America's small businesses and by extension, American workers, as was promised. Instead, It is finding its way into more profitable short term investments that do nothing for the average worker.

If Obama spent the past 9 months working on job creation, a focus of dubious value, IMO, it would have little positive effect on his poll numbers, if at the same time wall street bonus pay and regulation, consumer protection, and too-big-too-fail were handled in the same manner as they have been so far.   

I realize that my comments might not be well received by some who participate on this blog. But, unlike the Fox News crowd, I think we need to be critical when criticism is justified.

We've all heard about the 60 vote rule involved with reaching cloture. You need 60 votes to place a bill on the floor, where the bill can be debated, and amendments can be offered, debated and voted on. You need 60 votes to end debate. The general impression is that 60 votes is the only way to end the debate and conduct a vote on a bill. But in fact, that is not the case. There is another way to end debate that requires time, perseverance and 51 votes. Maybe its because Senators are too lazy to fulfill the responsibilities involved with filibustering that this other method is rarely mentioned.

According to Senate rules on the filibuster, debate on a bill can continue until everyone who wants to speak get two chances to speak. Once all 41 or so Senators opposed to the bill get to speak twice, the filibuster is over.

Under Rule XIX, unless any special limits on debate are in effect, Senators who have been recognized may speak for as long as they wish. They usually cannot be forced to cede the floor, or even interrupted, without their consent. (There are some exceptions: for example, Senators can lose the floor if they violate the Senate's standards of decorum in debate, or, as discussed later, they may be interrupted for the presentation of a cloture motion.)  ...

Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or on the number of Senators who may speak on a pending question. It does, however, tend to limit the possibility of extended debate by its provision that "no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate."

A legislative day ends only with Senate adjournment. The leadership can "recess" the Senate at any time, instead of "adjourning" it, in order to allow opponents of a bill to exhaust their allotted opportunities to speak. A session recessed overnight, would continue the next day and be considered part of the same legislative day. In this manner, a legislative day could potentially last weeks or months.

I don't know if it came to that, if Democrats would stick together through weeks or month's of filibustering. It wouldn't take only 51 Senators to keep the process moving forward.

Senators often can circumvent the two-speech rule by making a motion or offering an amendment that constitutes a new and different "Therefore, the two speech rule requires not a mechanical test, but the application of the rule of reason." Riddick's Senate Procedure, pp. 782-783. debatable question. For example, each Senator can make two speeches on each bill, each first-degree amendment to a bill, and each second-degree amendment to each of those amendments as well.

Amendments can be used as a delaying tactic. The amendments don't have to be germane to the bill being debated. But they can be defeated by 51 votes to "table" the amendment. Tabling it defeats it and discussion on the bill can resume. The document linked here, is a senate.gov pdf that discusses in detail the rules and practical application of the filibuster. Good reading to you all.

P.S. - As an aside, during the 20th century, the filibuster was used most often by Southern Democrats -- the predecessors of much of today's Republican base -- to block civil rights and anti-lynching legislation.They have a formidable history of using it to maintain the status quo.

Last Tuesday, Republican State Senator's David Schultheis tweeted "Don't for a second think Obama wants what is best for U.S. He is flying the US Plane right into the ground at full speed. Let's Roll."

His statements were taken by some, including some from his own party as a reference to the 9/11 plane crash.

The Denver Post reported that  State Senate President Brandon Shaffer, D-Longmont, demanded Wednesday that Schultheis retract his statement, calling it "appalling." Senate Minority Leader Josh Penry, R-Grand Junction, agreed the statement was inappropriate. "Dave shouldn't have gone there," Penry said.

5280, Denver's Magazine reported "Ed Kowalski, a director for the New York-based 9/11 Families for a Secure America, believes Schultheis was "clearly" referring to Flight 93 when he used the words of the passengers who fought to take back the ill-fated plane: "Let's roll.""Kowalski also disagrees with many of Obama's policies but says, "Let's not cheapen what happened on Sept. 11 by making random and or ill-fated comparisons to current policy."

There are some folks you just don't see the connection between Schultheis's tweet and 9/11. Why would anyone take the state Senators statement as a reference to 9/11? I'll respond in Q&A form.

Q. When was a US plane flown into the ground at full speed?
A. On September 11th, 2001.

Q. Are there any other examples of a US plane being flown into the ground?
A. Not among the major crashes that get National Press.

Q. Aren't other major plane crash equivalent to "flying the US Plane right into the ground at full speed"?
A. No

Q. Why aren't they?
A. Because, with the exception of 9/11, there is no evidence that a major crash was the result of "flying" a plane into the ground at full speed. The major crashes are the result of equipment failure and/or pilot error. They are not "flown into" the ground, they "fall to" the ground. In addition, since most crashes occur while taking off or landing, these crashes occur at low speed or stall speeds, not at full speed.

Q. Why would anyone want to fly a plane into the ground?
A. The "only" know nationally covered case of intentionally flying a plane into the ground occurred on 9/11. That was the result of terrorism.

Q. Besides, the Democratic President and the Republican minority leaders of the Arizona State Senate,  Ed Kowalski, a director for the New York-based 9/11 Families for a Secure America, are there any other pertinent people who see this as a reference to 9/11?
A. Yes.

Q. Who?
Republican State Senator's David Schultheis.

Q. What a minute, isn't that the guy who made the statement in the first place?
A. Yup.

I thought GOPer's believed in respecting the commander-in-chief? Do these folks believe in anything?

AP is reporting that President Obama has rejected all the options that his National Security team have offered him.

From a distance, the new administration's handling of some aspects of the financial crisis seemed like nothing had "changed." Some of the government regulators who oversaw the worse financial collapse since the Great Depression, were given prominent positions in the new administration. The lack of action on excessive bonus pay, consumer protection, future regulation and too-big-too-fail financial companies has put into question whether or not this administration had our best interests at heart.

Presidents are dependent on their advisers to help them navigate the mounds of policy issues that face them on a daily basis. Those advisers also provide options to the President when action is required on his part. Many of the administration's critics question whether Obama's advisers are serving him well.

It is too early to tell. I hope this act of independence is a new beginning. It may be that the President is finally taking control of Afghanistan. Hopefully the same will occur with the issues surrounding the regulation of the financial sector. 

Here is the untold story. While the media has largely focused on Fox News' ratings, they have missed the real story behind the cable news wars. I watched Meet the Press and Chris Matthews Show on the Sunday, October 18th, and listen to Joe Scarbourough, Tavis Smiley and others discuss Fox news ratings as "shooting through the roof" as a result of the White House's attack on Fox News. I thought it ludicrous to make such claims so soon after the attacks, and suspected that these commentators were simply repeating the unsubstantiated claim. I decided to review and track the ratings for Fox News and the other cable shows to see if I could determine a change in cable news viewership.

The following graphs displays the results of cable news program ratings trends over a 5 week period starting on September 28th, 2009 and ending October 30th, 2009. This time span encompasses the White House's recent criticisms about Fox New's right wing bias. The 5 week span begins two weeks prior to Anita Dunn's

"the reality of it is that Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party. And it is not ideological... what I think is fair to say about Fox, and the way we view it, is that it is more of a wing of the Republican Party."

The following charts exclude weekends.

Daily Ratings - Dates are the Monday of each week.

As you can see the trends in daily ratings are rising for MSNBC. Both Fox News and CNN ratings are trending downward.

Prime Time Ratings - Dates are the Monday of each week.

Likewise the trends in prime time ratings favor MSNBC. Both Fox News and CNN ratings are trending downward.

Obviously, these graphs represent a ratings snapshot and cannot be predictive. What they do suggests is that the White Houses calling out Fox News has not lead to the ratings "boom" that Fox News has claimed and the many in the media have assumed to be the case.

Finally I plotted the 5 pm to 10 pm cable shows to look at the ratings trendlines over the same period of time. The following chart displays the changes in the trendlines from the beginning to the end of that period of time.

MSNBC is clearly doing better during the past 5 weeks.

The discussion about the effects of the White House's attacks have been largely concentrated on Fox News ratings. You might remember that the White House met with Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann on Monday the October 16th right in the middle of the White House's coordinated attack on Fox. No ones talking, so we don't know what transpired, but you have to wonder if these coordinated attacks, that fly in the face of "conventional wisdom," and defied conventional wisdom(it would help Fox News), may have benefited MSNBC in the end.

If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.

You know it's coming. 

It's the story that keeps on giving. Miss California pageant officials got a hold of the film several months ago. Apparently, the film convinced Carrie to withdraw her law suit against them. Gay marriage bad, XXX good? I wonder how the religious conservatives, right wing nuts, and Donald Trump will spin this?

Here's the story. Designed to fail? Will we ever catch a break? Feels like Alice in Wonderland.

They will likely be upset and feel deceived. Some are likely to abandon the CHANGE, at least for awhile.

At least some of their concerns are beginning to be considered. Like executive compensation --the fact that we are paying for those multi-million dollar bonuses -- and consumer protection.

ROTFLOL!!!!!!

Well you know, the public has been duped ever since the actor became President. Maybe enough people will believe it?

On second thought, he's may be right! The last time we had extreme income distribution (1920's), the ensuing crash lead to Glass-Steagal Act which prevented banks from owning  financial companies and vice-versa. Roosevelt came into office and tax the bankers and their friends over 80% income tax. It took a while, but after our WWII success we experience 40 years of expanding wealth for the middle class.

He just may be right.

Morning Joe, like many of his right wing buddies, frequently equates right and left wing extremists as the same stating that "extremists on the left did the same when Bush was President, calling him Hitler."(paraphrased) Mika frets whenever a story appears to be hitting the right wing's extremists over some looney claim (eg. birthers) without reminding everyone that extremists on the left called Bush II Hitler, when he was in office. She likes equivalence even when its false.

Please tell me if my memory serves me right. During the Clinton and Bush II eras, I don't remember hearing anything about Clinton murdering Vince Foster or Bush being called Hitler in the mainstream media. I remember seeing 30 seconds or so of mainstream coverage on the million (more than fringe) person anti-war demonstration in England, weeks before BUSH II invaded Iraq. The left-wing fringes who believe that Bush II let Al Queda hit the WTC towers in order to invade Iraq and steal their oil also received little coverage except after Rosie O'Donnell pushed it on her show and later on "The View." Even then I don't think it got much coverage.

Neither the left-wing or the right-wing fringes got much mainstream coverage in the Clinton and Bush II eras. At least that's my memory. But with Obama, it seems like the extremists on the right are going mainstream. The town halls, birthers and teabaggers made their way into mainstream venues when in the past they would have been largely ignored. If so, doesn't that make "them" very different from their counterparts on the left?

Those of us who follow politics closer are likely to be aware of most of these stories. When these stories go mainstream, it lends some credence to the story and influences a percentage of the population, even if its a small percentage. If anything, during most of Bush II's tenure, the right-wing and its extremists moved more mainstream, left-wing extremists were ignored and more moderate liberals were marginalized. So much for the liberal media.

So why is the mainstream media covering such nonsense? Obviously, the media needs controversy to draw an audience. The fact that this is what they have turned to, speaks to the powerlessness of the Republican party in general, and the weakness of moderate republicans. It isn't that no reasonable leader in the Republican Party exist, but the party will not accept a reasonable Republican as their leader. Additionally, more moderate outlets, see Fox New's success and hope to improve their ratings by inching in their direction. More extreme views make it onto CNN and other outlets.

IMO, the White House has good reason to break tradition and push back against the mainstreaming of these extremists, including Fox News because more and more, the fringes are gaining mainstream attention and that attention is likely to influence a percentage of the population. If you keep getting hit, and ignore the attacks, ala Sen. Kerry's swift-boating, then you run the risk of appearing weak and losing support.

Gallup headlines that Obama's September '09 media blitz had no effect on the President's job approval. Said another way the slow, long-term drop in the President's approval was halted after the media blitz. There was a point to the blitz and it was somewhat successful.

Fox's ratings rose after the White House's comments last week. Some view this as a win for Fox news and a lost for the White House. I don't think so. Those viewers are tuning in to see what the White House is talking about. I think shining more light on Glenn Beck is good. Perhaps it will help keep CNN from needing to slide further to the right.

If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.

Modified and reposted.

I was listening to Olympia Snowe on Morning Joke this morning and was stunned by her explanation of why she would not support a public option.

She presented four reasons:

1) the public option would create an unfair advantage against the insurance companies.
2) the public option, like all government programs, would cost more.
3) government run programs are less effective.
4) this would create another bloated government bureaucracy.

Items 1 & 2: A public option would create an unfair advantage and would cost more. Huh! Since the public option would have to pay for itself -- the money collected by the program would pay for the medical services provided -- I don't see how a public option that cost more than private insurance would create an unfair advantage? The price of the public option would be set by the cost of the services provided. Sounds like double talk to me. Am I missing something?

Insurance industry profits have increase 428% in the past 8 years or so. The public option could function without the need for profit. I think it would cost less. A lot less.

Item 3: Government run programs are less effective.

Here is a partial list of successful government programs.

Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Environmental Protection Agency
Tennessee Valley Authority
National Park Service
Medicaid
Medicare
National Aeronautics & Space Administration (NASA)
Social Security
Family & Medical Leave Act
National Weather Service
Consumer Product Safety Commission
Centers for Disease Control & Prevention
Government Grants
Food & Drug Administration
Americans with Disabilities Act
Servicemen's Readjustment Act (GI bill)
Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act (another GI bill)
Peace Corps
European Recovery Program (Marshall Plan)
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS or cash for clunkers)
Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act
Public Broadcasting
Public Schools & Universities
Public Transportation (it has a lot of faults but a lot of people need it to get around)
Public Libraries
Fire Department
Workers' Compensation (ex Sate Compensation Insurance Fund of California)
Rural Utilities Service
Community Development Block Grant
Housing & Urban Development (HUD)

Item 4:  The public option would create another bloated government bureaucracy.

Who cares? Obviously some people do. But if the public option cost less and pays for itself than what difference does it make?

Her objections to the public option are just a regurgitation of the Republican/conservative memes against government.

If you found this post of interest, provocative, or believe others might benefit from reading it, please recommend. Thanks.

Well the press is reporting that the opt-out public option compromise proposed by Senator Tom Carper (D) from Delaware is gaining steam. But practical speaking is there any difference between the two. Certainly, moderate Senators can make a claim of limiting government influence on their constituents medical lives by insisting on the Opt-out. But once this legislation passes, which states are going to opt out of the public option? With 65% of the public supporting the option which states governors and/or legislatures are going to reject for their constituents the benefit of lower medical costs and insurance rates? Is there a state that over time has more to gain by opting out?

Maybe our good old governor from Louisiana, Bobby Jindal will find some way to opt-out and opt-in at the same time, similar to what he did with stimulus money. How about our good old trail hiker governor from the South Carolina; he could publicly reject the plan, while his state legislature works to undermine his decision as they did with their stimulus package. Texas? Minnesota?

If in fact some states decide to opt-out how will the surrounding opt-in states deal with border crossers looking for medical care at opt-in rates?