I asked this question of Josh Romney (Mitt Romney’s son) when he spoke at our tea party meeting last year. He promised to send me an answer but I have not received one. I have asked this question of the Romney Campaign headquarters and the Arizona Republican Party headquarters. None of them will even dignify my request with an answer. So I am asking the public. Maybe someone will know the answer. What is candidate Romney’s position on restoring the Glass-Steagall Act?
After the Great Depression, this Act was passed to ensure a stable banking system by separating investment banking from savings/commercial banking. It worked fine until people like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Charlie Wrangle got it repealed. They needed to do this to pass legislation that would enable the same type of banking mismanagement and risk-taking that led to the Great Depression. Their social engineering was done in the name of making home ownership available to everyone, whether they could afford it or not. To do this they had to enable banks to get in the securities business. Thanks to Frank and Dodd, banks could and did, securitize home loans made to people that couldn’t afford them. Banks passed on the risky loans as though the mortgages were secure loans. However, the only real security behind the economically incapable borrowers was the tax payer.
Obama has gone on and on for four years about the need for bigger government and more regulations and he has implemented many. But he never mentions the one simple piece of legislation that has been proven to work — the Glass-Steagall Act — much less saying he will sign it. His history makes it clear that he will not sign legislation that would actually curtail the wild securities activities of his biggest campaign contributors — Wall Street.
We recently witnessed the $2 billion loss by JPMorgan Chase via its bets on derivatives to “hedge” its other risky securities bets. Granted, in this case, it was supposedly their money they lost (unless we have another Corzine moment), but as Obama has made clear, he has and will use our money to bail them out.
If banks that are funded and backed with customer deposits and making commercial loans were limited to banking and kept out of the securities markets, our financial markets, including mortgages, would be well-served.
Will Mitt Romney support and push for reinstating the 37 page Glass-Steagall Act? Of course it’s harder to hide political malfeasance and earmarks in a 37 page bill than in bills with 2,700 pages.
If anyone knows, please let us know. Thank you.
Bill Sandry
Mesa
Leon Ceniceros posted at 12:13 pm on Mon, May 21, 2012.
Good Letter..........banks should start acting like banks again.
Mike McClellan posted at 12:33 pm on Mon, May 21, 2012.
While I agree with the writer's call for Glass/Steagall's reinstatement, his history's a bit off.
In fact, three Republicans pushed a bill through Congress in 1999 that relaxed Glass/Steagall: Sens. Jim Leach and Phil Graham, and Rep. Jim Bilbey.
Which resulted in the Graham/Leach/Bilbey law, one Senate Democrats warned would lead to banks too big to fail.
mrconservative posted at 12:35 pm on Mon, May 21, 2012.
What exactly is "Glass-Steagall"?
truth posted at 3:20 pm on Mon, May 21, 2012.
In the 23 years that Democrats have occupied the White House since John F. Kennedy took office in Jan. 1961 non-government jobs have INCREASED nearly 42 million, compared with 24 million jobs created during 28 years under Republicans presidents.
Bloomberg.com
ExxonMobil has reclamed the title of American's biggest corporation revenue-maker, in 2011 revenue, a 28% increase over 2010, the combined profits of the 500 bigest U.S. corporations jumped 16% to record $825 billion in 2011.
Fortune
Lets not forget in 2003 the Republican voted not to put a overseer in charge of Fannie and Freddie. Do not let FACTS CONFUSE THE REPUBLICANS.
chuckles3 posted at 8:36 am on Tue, May 22, 2012.
The repeal of Glass Steagall was strongly supported by the Clinton Adminstration as well as the named Republicans. Full disclosure, not selective facts which support your political views-makes you a more credible poster, McClellan.
chuckles3 posted at 8:38 am on Tue, May 22, 2012.
I think truth is confused. His post has nothing to do with the letter, just an anti-Republican rant. Go back on your meds dude.
Arizona Willie posted at 9:16 am on Tue, May 22, 2012.
Until lobbiests are outlawed there will never be meaningful financial reform.
There is too much money to be made by the " LEGAL " crooks.
They can steal without fear of any punishment.
Legislators REFUSE to write legislation outlawing " gifts " from lobbiests.
We need a movement demanding all candidates for office submit their resignation effective immediately if they fail to introduce / sponsor / co-sponsor and vote for legislation outlawing all gifts to elected officials ( at all levels ) even lunches. If the fail to get such legislation introduced the resign. If they fail to vote for such legislation when introduced -- they resign.
They should have to submit those letters of resignation when they file for their candidacy.
A candidate could, of course, refuse to submit such a letter.
But that would pretty much guarantee he would lose the election.
DemocraticDad posted at 12:17 pm on Tue, May 22, 2012.
Although I, like Mike McClellan, think Bill Sandry's history is a bit off...This Progressive, Liberal Democrat agrees, the Glass-Steagall Act NEEDS to be reinstated. As Bill said, "After the Great Depression, this Act was passed to ensure a stable banking system by separating investment banking from savings/commercial banking." It worked great. Its demise was the basis for the economic devastation of the last 5 years.
WOW, I even agree with Leon's post in this thread!
Maybe there is hope for reaching some common ground no matter what side of the political aisle you are on.
Mike McClellan posted at 1:30 pm on Tue, May 22, 2012.
chuckles, guess what? I found a fact! The fact is, chuckles, that Clinton signed the Glass/Steagall act because it was packaged with something he wanted, protections in the the Community Reinvestment Act.
So, yes, Clinton mistakenly signed it. But if you look at -- guess what, another fact -- you'll find that the vast majority of Democrats in the Senate voted against Graham/Leach, while the vast majority of Republicans voted for it.
Abstract01 posted at 10:58 pm on Tue, May 22, 2012.
McClelland, it doesn't really matter why he signed it. If Clinton approved the bill, he is just as guilty as the congressmen that passed it.
What you are saying is that partisan politics was alive and well then, just as it is today. The House of Representatives (Republican majority) pass a budget plan, and the Senate (Democrat-ruled) refuses to pass because it was the other party that presented it. And Pres. Obama declared that he would veto the budget if it did pass the senate.
The federal government is not a sandbox. They need to grow up!
k33j88 posted at 6:36 am on Wed, May 23, 2012.
Kudo's to you, Mr Sandry, for a well-informed, researched letter. Glass-Steagall shouldn't have been repealed. The derivatives market is a land mine that the taxpayer will be ultimately responsible for. It is estimated that there may be nearly 100 trillion of packaged, worthless, derivative securities.
dustbowl11 posted at 7:53 am on Wed, May 23, 2012.
Don't forget Tea Party honcho Richard Armey's role in the repeal as House Majority leader. The King of the Hypocrites.
fae4now posted at 11:12 am on Wed, May 23, 2012.
Ok, so the fingers have been pointed all around. At least we appear to agree that what is needed is the repeal of Graham/Leach/Bilbey and reinstatement of Glass-Steagall.
So the question, going forward, is which of our 2 candidates is more likely to move us in that direction? The corporate profiteer who preaches for less corporate regulation or the "guy who has never worked in the corporate sector" and thus never been beholden to the mantra of profit at any cost?
Seems like a no brainier to me. Keep the fox out of the henhouse.