Auditing the Fed – Democratize Power

On May 4, 2010, In Background and Research, Congress, Corporations, Current Leadership, free markets, The Public, By Tiffiniy Cheng

Why can’t we have accountability to the public, especially when we’re talking 2 trillion dollars outstanding from the Federal Reserve? Auditing the Fed should be about stopping big power tricks. But, why? Yesterday, Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said that the Fed created $1.3 trillion out of thin air — he did.

Here’s something I’ve been itching to write about and it requires more time and space, but why should the Fed be democratized, de-powered in its current state, and more accountable to the public? Why should we expect that the $1.3 trillion thin paper be ensured for the public’s interest rather than the big banks? Well, that’s part of the answer there – no government should be favoring one set of elites over the equal treatment of all parts of the industry (the small banks and medium-banks), even if the elites create many jobs because the non-elites can create those jobs too and actually do, but the basic principle is strong — everyone needs a chance to be able to create jobs.

We as country believe in equal treatment and equal opportunity — we should not have erected an institution that picks winners and losers, instead the Fed should have been erected as it originally was intended by the farmers in the 1890′s, in the interest of creating an institution that would create equal opportunity in the marketplace to replace the big banks holding all the gold then.  Instead, in 1913 the big banks erected the populist’s idea but for their own sake, this is now what we call the Fed. Equal opportunity is supposed to be what a free market is intended to create, but it doesn’t when the Fed is picking winners and losers and when big is favored over small and especially when big begets bigger and the Fed picks them even more and sets up a discount window for them too and there is a legislated bailout plan for them when they fail.

USAWatchdog reports, “Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke admitted the central bank created $1.3 trillion out of thin air to buy mortgage backed securities.  This shocking admission came from the Joint Economic Committee hearing on Capital Hill last week.”‘ You can help audit the Fed here.

So, why shouldn’t an institution that has the power of government behind it be democratized, and if not de-powered. Dean’s great on this, too, but on a purer note about independence, etc.

So, as there is a push for auditing the Fed, what is the real goal that we want from the audit? Why are we asking you to support no new powers for the Fed here? Why are we following Dean Baker on democratizing the Fed? Is it just so that the Fed can’t inflate away debt? I think there is an end-goal that anyone who cares about uhh.. about your own mother and father and your friends and people on the street around you over a few can agree on. The issue is not debt or money in actuality. Money is interesting but focus on it doesn’t get at the root of the issue, it’s power plays.

It’s about power because power gets all the money and then is able to manipulate the way whatever system works. So, to state explicitly, I don’t believe that those with the most money have the right to determine the way our politics or society works. I don’t, society woudn’t work and many know that society is not working — 300,000 + in foreclosure every month. But big powers will game any system, and have gamed gold, so make it so the system isn’t prone to being gamed.

Money is complicated. There are activist campaigns for a new Monetary Act. Money is complicated.  I can see it going somewhere.

All of money essentially comes out of thin air and evaporates that way too, or rather money is complicated.
To reform money you can’t think about money per se, but about the power to create money and to inflate/deflate it.
So, if we make the Fed elected regionally or democratically elected, accountable to the public’s interest, and if transparency can lead to that accountability, we will have a Fed that is subject to political pressure and must show us that they are not picking winners and losers themselves.
Different groups throughout time rail against this monetary system and that one — we must instead end the big bankers’ piggy bank of whatever form is has taken and is in now, especially those funded by taxpayers. The system we have is irrelevant, rather we must set up the system to be democratic. Yes?
We can make auditing the Fed an accountability measure, one step closer to making whatever system of money we have democratically accountable. We must accept that people will start moving to the top in any system, then those on top are going to game whatever it is we have. Thus, we need to make the system that we have resistant to being gamed.
I think economist, Nassim Taleb may well agree — he’s a top-notch dude, as far as I can tell.
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Letter in Support of Kaptur’s Great Efforts

On April 11, 2010, In Congress, By Tiffiniy Cheng

This letter is being sent to Marcy Kaptur, feel free to send it:

The Honorable Marcy Kaptur

United States House of Representatives

Washington, DC 20515

March 31, 2010

Dear Representative Kaptur:

We are writing in support of H.R. 3995, the “Financial Crisis of 2008 Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Act of 2009,” authored by Representative Marcy Kaptur.

In the eighteen months since fraudulent and corrupt business practices in the mortgage area and on Wall Street collapsed the economy – costing taxpayers trillions in lost wealth and savings – it is difficult to point to any successful prosecutions of major players in this debacle. Compare this to what happened after the Savings and Loan (S&L) crisis of 20 years ago. According to Department of Justice (DOJ) statistics, no less than 1,852 S&L officials were prosecuted and 1,072 were jailed. Over 500 of these were top officers.[1]

Why the difference? In the wake of the S&L crisis, Congress pushed regulators to investigate and prosecute. Congress also provided significant new resources to this end. A series of strike forces based in 27 cities was staffed with 1,000 FBI agents and forensic experts and dozens of federal prosecutors.[2] Given the size and sophistication of the institutions now involved, even more resources will be needed to give prosecutors a fighting chance.

The “Financial Crisis of 2008 Criminal Investigation and Prosecution Act of 2009” authorizes the Director of the FBI to hire 1,000 more agents and additional forensic experts. The bill also authorizes the DOJ and the Securities and Exchange Commission to hire additional investigators and prosecutors to step up the pace of criminal and civil prosecutions.

Without these additional resources, it is highly unlikely that sufficient criminal prosecutions will be undertaken to deter the next corporate crime wave. Worse, the American people who have lost so much during this crisis will be bereft of the justice they deserve.

We urge your support of this important measure.

Sincerely,

Your name here

 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

The Great Contradiction of American Politics

On March 24, 2010, In Background and Research, Congress, Corporations, By Joe Costello

Bloomberg has released a poll(tx yves) with the headline “Wall Street Despised in Poll Showing Most Want Regulation“. It is very interesting to say the least. Some of the highlights:

  • Most people interviewed in the Bloomberg National Poll say they don’t like Wall Street, banks or insurance companies and favor letting the government punish bankers who helped cause the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
  • 57 percent of Americans have a mostly unfavorable or very unfavorable view of Wall Street.
  • Banks are viewed badly by 54 percent of poll respondents.
  • 60 percent have a negative opinion of insurance companies.
  • The majority of poll participants — 56 percent — say big financial companies are more interested in enriching themselves at the expense of ordinary people.

Fairly substantial numbers against the ruling doctrines and institutions of the past thirty years. However, there’ a catch:

  • Almost seven out of 10 people surveyed support using current bank regulators for consumer protection, backing positions held by the financial industry and Republicans over President Barack Obama’s proposal to establish an independent agency.
  • More than 40 percent of Americans say the government has gone too far in measures to fix the financial industry; 37 percent say it hasn’t done enough.
  • “Anything the government gets their fingers in, they mess it up,” said poll participant Norman White, 60, a community college electronics instructor who lives in Colfax, Lousinia. “I don’t have a very high opinion of the government running anything.

What this poll reveals is the great contradiction in American politics. We are at the end of the Reagan Revolution, the great reactionary movement of American politics against the New Deal and “big government.” The heroes and myths of the era, such as Wall Street and “free markets”, lay shattered on the ground. But just as importantly, the distrust of government, not only in this poll, but all polls, is at record levels. Thus, simply mouthing platitudes from 70 years ago or trying to instill faith back in government with massive bills filled with subsidies for mega-corporations isn’t going to get you far.

The poll also shows most Americans don’t like the nation’s top corporate bosses. Almost two-thirds say they have an unfavorable opinion of business executives, a rating that rivals the public’s disdain for Congress, which was viewed with disfavor by 67 percent of respondents.

Having followed this issue for a long time, neither of these numbers are new, however they are historically high. The question of whether large corporations have too much power in this country has been at or above 70% for a couple decades, in fact, the power of giant corporations has always been an issue since their inception a century and half ago. But today, with both parties in the pockets of the mega-corporations, it is never realized as an issue. Nonetheless, this is the sweet spot of American politics at this point, yet one party will insist on helping the corporations and eventually you through more centralized government, while the other will continue their bankrupt philosophy of laissez faire, thus, political advantage to neither.

What we need is to revive and evolve the principles and institutions of this republic, understanding the people are sovereign. We need to revive the imperative of self-government, now lost to history, that if we are to have democracy, it must be decentralized. If we advocate the use of government, we must first revive its legitimacy, and the only way that is going to be done is by bringing the American people back into politics and into the decision making processes of government.

Cross-posted from Archein: The Great Contradiction of American Politics

Tagged with:
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Senator Kaufman Breaks from the Congressional Silence

On March 16, 2010, In Background and Research, Congress, By Tiffiniy Cheng

Senator Kaufmans’ speech the other day is certainly the most full and most thoughtful speech/writing coming out of Congress. It was a pleasure to read, I could feel the bats hitting home runs with each paragrah. He has a bright mind and thinks carefully about structural and fundamental change. This speech gets technical, but if there is anything worth referencing that is also comprehensive, this is the speech. Amazing, where has Kaufman been. Now is the time to show him your support. I think we should put this on our policy page.

Senator Kaufman breaks from the silence

Wall Street Reform That Will Prevent The Next Financial Crisis

March 11, 2010

Introduction:  Where the Burden of Proof Lies

Financial regulatory reform is perhaps the most important legislation that the Congress will address for many years to come. Because if we don’t get it right, the consequences of another financial meltdown could truly be devastating.

In the Senate, as we continue to move closer to consideration of a landmark bill, however, we are still far short of addressing some of the fundamental problems – particularly that of “too big to fail” – that caused the last crisis and already have planted the seeds for the next one.  And this is happening after months of careful deliberation and negotiations, and just a year and a half after the virtual meltdown of our entire financial system.

…

That is why I believe that reorganizing the regulators and giving them additional powers and responsibilities isn’t the answer.  We cannot simply hope that chastened regulators or newly appointed ones will do a better job in the future, even if they try their hardest.  Putting our hopes in a resolution authority is an illusion.  It is like the harbor master in Southampton adding more lifeboats to the Titanic, rather than urging the ship to steer clear of the icebergs.  We need to break up these institutions before they fail, not stand by with a plan waiting to catch them when they do fail.

Without drawing hard lines that reduce size and complexity, large financial institutions will continue to speculate confidently, knowing that they will eventually be funded by the taxpayer if necessary.  As long as we have “too big to fail” institutions, we will continue to go through what Professor Johnson and Peter Boone of the London School of Economics have termed “doomsday” cycles of booms, busts and bailouts, a so-called “doom loop” as Andrew Haldane, who is responsible for financial stability at the Bank of England, describes it.

The notion that the most recent crisis was a “once in a century” event is a fiction.  Former Treasury Secretary Paulson, National Economic Council Chairman Larry Summers, and J.P. Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon all concede that financial crises occur every five years or so.

Without clear and enforceable rules that address the unintended consequences of unchecked financial innovation and which adequately protect investors, our markets will remain subverted.

These solutions are among the cornerstones of fundamental and structural financial reform.  With them we can build a regulatory system that will endure for generations instead of one that will be laid bare by an even bigger crisis in perhaps just a few years or a decade’s time.  We built a lasting regulatory edifice in the midst of the Great Depression, and it lasted for nearly half a century.  I only hope we have both the fortitude and the foresight to do so again.

Thank you, Senator Kaufman, for your clarity, rigor, and service.

Tagged with: • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

A run down of Dodd’s Bill and Economic Justice Reform

On March 15, 2010, In Background and Research, Congress, Current Leadership, free markets, By Tiffiniy Cheng

I couldn’t agree more with this editorial from the NYTimes about what needs to get done to put families and small and medium-sized businesses at the seat of economic power and political power over the big banks.

From what we hear, Mr. Dodd had just as hard a time with some of the Democrats on his committee.

What Mr. Dodd needs to do is to introduce the toughest and smartest legislation he can to revamp the financial system and protect American consumers. And he and President Obama need to twist the arms of Democratic committee members to bring the strongest possible bill to the Senate floor.

Their rallying cry couldn’t be any clearer: Whose side are you on? The banks or the American people?

The American people need a bill that strictly regulates all derivatives — the complex, and often speculative instruments that caused so much trouble here and abroad. It must establish a mechanism for downsizing too-big-to-fail banks, and create a credible procedure by which the government can seize and dismantle financial firms that pose a threat to the system. It must instruct regulators to impose safeguards, like higher capital requirements and limits on borrowing, to curtail risk-taking before it runs amok.

And any legislation worth its salt must have at its core a strong Consumer Financial Protection Agency. That agency needs to be an independent body, with broad power to police the financial system for unfair, abusive and otherwise unsound lending in mortgages, credit cards, auto loans and other forms of debt.

Lenders adamantly oppose a new agency, in part because their dodgiest offerings — like subprime mortgages of yesteryear or short-term “payday loans” — are often their most profitable.

So, we also have a layout here of what Dodd’s new bill contains. It makes some steps towards reform, but for the most part you don’t walk away feeling like the economy won’t collapse again and most of the capital in this country won’t be tied up in financial transactions and big banker pockets. Here is a point-by-point dissent/assent run down.

NYTimes lays out the bill, commentary in between:

Among the most recent provisions in the bill to emerge, according to people who have been briefed on the draft, is one that would curb Wall Street’s influence over theFederal Reserve Bank of New York. Its president would be appointed by the president of the United States, not by a board that includes representatives of member banks.

One step closer to being able to democratize, and hold accountable the regulatory system. That’s great. Of course, it’s a small step.

Another rule would ban bank officers from sitting on the New York Fed’s board, meaning that Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase, would probably have to leave the board.

Very important to turning oversight measures into ones that are enforced and serve the interest of the country rather than a few bankers.

The legislation would create a consumer protection agency within the Federal Reserve to write rules governing mortgages, credit cards and other financial products, said the people, who insisted on anonymity because the details were still in flux.

Apparently, the mission of this nested CFPA is pretty solid on consumer protection, but the Fed is not democratized or accountable or have done their job. Bad idea.

In a concession to liberals, states’ attorneys general could sue violators of those rules, and the agency would have enforcement powers over large banks, mortgage originators and servicers, and other large lenders.

I learned at the Fordham University “Breaking up the Banks: New Ideas for Limiting Bank Size” conference on Friday, that this is a very good option for watching over the banks. State AG’s, according to Zephyr Teachout, are often political and beholden to the public and often enforce rules when they are overstepped, especially by big corporations.

But in a nod to Republicans, the bill would allow a council of regulators, led by theTreasury, to overturn proposed consumer rules by a two-thirds vote. And although the consumer protection agency would have a director appointed by the president, it would be housed within the Fed, an anathema for consumer advocates.

A council is fine if they are independent and meeting regularly and actually play a role.

The bill would also reshape the regulatory role of the Fed. It would be entrusted for the first time with oversight of all of the largest and most interconnected financial companies, even if they are not banks. And it would continue to oversee the largest bank holding companies, those with $50 billion or more in assets — about 35 companies, includingBank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.

The Fed is rightfully criticized for failing to protect American consumers, but Dodd is not addressing this concern. Bad.

But even as the details were being hammered out Sunday evening, questions remained: can Democrats tap into the vein of populist anger over the excesses of Wall Street and shepherd the bill through, 18 months after the near-collapse of the banking system almost wrecked the economy? And can they avoid getting caught up in the partisan struggle that has held back health-care reform?

We need to organize ourselves on this issue. Only if the public calls for the smart, rigorous solutions are we going to get anything serious out of Congress.

…

The bill would also reform the sprawling market for over-the-counter derivatives, making derivatives transactions more transparent. But many companies that use derivatives to hedge, or manage, commercial risk would be exempt, a source of consternation for reformers.

It’s not clear that there will be any suffcient amount of transparency. Those proposed to be exempt should not be. We need to reveal the shadow banking market for what it is and make them accountable because we see that they were able to take down the country.

The bill would allow regulators, after a study, to implement elements of a proposalPresident Obama put forward in January. Named for Paul A. Volcker, the former Federal Reserve chairman, it would prohibit deposit-taking banks from investing in or owning hedge funds or private equity funds, and from making trades unrelated to their clients’ interest, a practice known as proprietary trading.

This seems like a political concession to people like us, but it’s likely to not be used often. That’s what non-reformers expect. Bad.

The bill contains no real solution to too-big-to-fail, no real enforcement guarantees, the bad guys are off the hook, the financial system will continue to be as big and dangerous and full of risk taxpayers will likely own. Dodd made a few good steps forward and major steps backwards.

In sum, Elinor Ostrom, first woman Nobel Laureate of political science said, “I did my Ph.D. research years ago. I’m not against government. I’m just against the idea that it’s got to be some bureaucracy that figures everything out for people.” We need to stop the big banks and securities markets from doing whatever they please to make exorbitant amounts of money and steal from our public treasures, we don’t need a big bureacracy to do it. We need smart, transformative proposals that get at the meat of it. It needs to be a partnership between government and the public to hold the banks accountable to society, which means cutting out the waste and the covers and doing the job of making markets be fair.
 
2 Comments
Leave A Response

Call-in week this week – Join hundreds of groups

On March 1, 2010, In Congress, By Tiffiniy Cheng

We sent the following message to our list today, please make a call today:

Bank CEO’s are threatening Americans to pass off any kind of reform to secure our economy as higher costs to consumers, rather than letting it cut into their CEO profits! What? This kind of dangerous power is shameless. They need to be broken up and their out-of-hand debt machines need to be broken down.
This week there is a national call-in day to Congress. ANWF is joining hundreds of coalition groups to make hundreds of thousands of phone calls to let Congress know we’re sick of big bank lobbying and we want our jobs and economy back.

To join in, simply call toll free 1-866-544-7573, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. EST. Now is the time to do it. This is an easy call to make just tell them how you feel about the economy. Breaking up the banks is a structural reform that has everything to do with making the economy work for you, the public.

Breaking up the banks is not only good for the economy, it can be fun. Stay informed and help change the way people are thinking about the economy with us on our blog, facebook, or twittr. Your posts are welcome on the blog, write us with submissions — tyc@anewwayforward.org

The Senate is finally addressing the economic crisis and touching on financial reform legislation this week. Tell them what’s important to you, and show support for structural reform. Here’s something you can say: “Support financial reform that makes Wall Street banks accountable, shrink the ‘too big to fail’ banks, have a regulatory focus on consumer protection and small business growth, and close the loopholes in regulation and among regulators that have worked against consumers.”
The financial services industry spent over $344 million on its lobbying in 2009 and more than 1,500 lobbyists registered with Congress to work on enacting new rules. In defiance, we’re going to make thousands and thousands of calls. Help us take this country back from the corporate party.

Please let us know what you want to see next, or if you can start volunteering to organize a small protest.

Tagged with:
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Nationalize, Reorganize, Decentralize is the Litmus Test for Senate bill

On February 24, 2010, In Background and Research, Congress, Current Leadership, By Tiffiniy Cheng

Pearlstein of WPost makes a good summary of the stalemate in financial reform in Congress (not in the public mind you):

“There are many parties to thank for this stalemate: Liberal Democrats who insist that the only solution is to micromanage the financial services industry from Washington. Conservative Republicans who can’t accept that their deregulation went too far and can’t bear the thought of handing a legislative victory to President Obama. A financial services industry that says it supports regulatory reform in general but can’t agree to any specific changes. And regulators, in denial about their own failures, who remain determined to preserve their power and influence. “

Unfortunately, Pearlstein, a well-informed financial crisis writer shortchanges fundamental plans to real reform that were left out of the “new solution” by calling the solution attractive. The bill has no Volcker rule as recently pushed for by Obama and which would cap the size of banks at their current size and a stopping of some propietary trading; or that Glass-Steagall separation that keeps your money away from out-of-hand growth for big banks and extreme risk for the American taxpayer, and pushes for an undemocratized single regulator and passes by our most important crusader, Sheila Bair. Our litmus test for financial reform is still “nationalize, reorganize, decentralize” in the face of a crisis and in the construction of a financial industry in the present.

The shape of the regulator doesn’t matter, but its harmony, function, accountability and transparency.

Here’s what the compromis[ed] bill has:

“The compromise hammered out between Dodd and Corker would establish a single regulator of federally chartered banks with a dual mission and an independent source of funding, based on my conversations with several key players. One division would promulgate and enforce rules to protect consumers; the other would fulfill the traditional role of supervising banks for safety and soundness. Supervisors from both divisions would participate in the periodic reviews of bank operations, and any conflicts between the two would be resolved by the head of the agency.”

Why the change? Pearlstein says, “Some credit also goes to Obama, whose decision to embrace a more populist critique of Wall Street in recent weeks has rattled financial markets and persuaded big banks to push for a compromise rather than leave a cloud of regulatory uncertainty hanging over their heads. Apparently nothing focuses the mind of a Wall Street banker so much as the prospect of being forced to shut down his proprietary trading desk.”

The bill includes our “nationalize/receivership” rallying cry that would stop the bailouts to too big to fail banks and put them through an insolvency process in order to contain crises and keep capitalism on an even keel: “Dodd, Corker and Democratic Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia are putting the finishing touches on a plan reflecting these judgments. As they envision it, any time a big financial institution is threatened with insolvency, the government would be authorized to take it over and close it down in a bankruptcy-like process. The government could provide temporary loans to ensure an orderly liquidation process and prevent financial panic, but only to the extent that the loan would be repaid from proceeds of the sale of the bank’s assets. Although insured depositors would be protected, creditors, counterparties and investors would all suffer losses.”

Insider scoop from Politico: “Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner meets with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) this afternoon to get a briefing on the progress they’ve made hammering out a compromise on financial regulatory reform and to strategize about how to move things forward.

MEANWHILE, SIGNS OF PROGRESS – POLITICO’s Victoria McGrane reports: The widespread consensus forming Tuesday was that the Dodd-Corker bill won’t be ready until next week – multiple industry sources heard Dodd tell his ranking Republican, Richard Shelby, as much. But the signs are auspicious for a bipartisan bill – and one that might actually be able to pass the Senate. Corker told POLITICO Tuesday that Republican support for the Dodd-Corker product is building behind the scenes.””

The banks are bigger than they’ve ever been, the only good financial reform bill is still nationalize, reorganize, decentralize, tuned for the different stages of a financial crisis and a steady economy.

As Simon Johnson and Peter Boone say, “As a result of the crisis and various government rescue efforts, the largest six banks in our economy now have total assets in excess of 63 percent of GDP (based on the latest available data).”

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Big banks want Dodd to Dance with Them

On January 19, 2010, In Congress, Current Leadership, By Tiffiniy Cheng

As a reigning bank-focused Senator is about to retire, a financial industry lobbysist said that the reigning Senator Dodd will now be free to “dance with the special interests that brought him to the dance in the first place. Us, his loyal donors in the banking community.” But, we pay his salary now and what will he do as financial regulatory reform comes up and the next couple of months is considered the last dance of his stay in Congress?

Now that he is retiring, the corrupt, liberal, head honcho senator, Chris Dodd is most likely going to concede even more to the big banks in his signature reform bill going through Congress. Some say he would fight harder for the public to leave a legacy, but no one yet knows. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is a measure included in the bill and is credited the most with protecting consumers against predatory and usurious products, yet its survival is in question because the big banks want it out of the bill. Ridiculous, right?

Dodd and the rest of Congress need to stop their shenanigans and tell the big banks NO for once!

The big banks are probably right that Dodd wants to dance with them because they brought him to the dance in the first place. It’s a weird thing for them to say, but if it’s true, say hello to the next economic crisis coming up and even larger banks sucking up more public money.

BanksterUSA made a video asking Dodd who he will be taking to the last dance of his career — Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase or Elizabeth Warren of the fight for consumer protection. You can help fill out Dodd’s dance card and tell him to not flirt with the idea of dancing with the big banks. He can do some good and leave a legacy or he can just get super rich and gut the country at the same time.

It’s pretty clear that he will become a big bank lobbyist himself when he retires –he has been a recipient of some of the highest amounts of lobbyist cash and big bank political contributions, he also got a deal on his mortgage for his political power. What else is a man like that going to do because he can’t get elected again in 2010 and is forced to retire and loves the silent ring of A LOT of money in the bank?

Well, we can’t stop him from doing what he desires after he is out of office, but what about not helping the big banks on taxpayer dollars? Dodd, we pay for your pitifully small $200,000 salary. Do what we say. Sign the petition here.

Tagged with: • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
Next Entries »
Go To Top »