More than 20 progressive organizations representing millions of voters are putting their weight behind a five-point agenda for the next stage of Wall Street reform. What these groups will formally announce Tuesday, in an event featuring Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, sets a high but practical standard for what a candidate would have to embrace to be considered a progressive on reining in the financial sector.
Although restoring Glass Steagall is the highest priority, restoring the US Postal Service banking (that is included in the fifth bullet point) needs to be expedited to prevent more Murkins from falling in to the high interest trap. A Postal bank would reduce demand for payday lenders to the extent we would probably not even need to regulate them.
Its hard to believe Clinton will ever agree to restore Glass Steagall when you consider that the Clintons receive millions of dollars in dividends each year as pay back for killing Glass Steagall.
"Broad support for the agenda will limit Clintons ability to pivot" That seems unlikely, as she will have 4 years to pander to the right, why would be move left? Also, no mention of how Sanders would do here.
"...if this agenda helps elect new Senate and House members committed to not allowing Wall Street to keep rigging the economy against the rest of us."
That is a big if but that is what is needed. But I am less worried about Clinton pivoting if she is elected than being able to get the things done that she promised. She claims to be good at working with Republicans but clearly that is very challenging and the Republicans have moved much further to the right since Clinton was in the Senate.
The further the GOP moves to the right, the more cover they give Clinton to move further to the right. The further right Clinton moves, the more corporate money she and the Democratic Party get.
Clinton's claim that she "is good at working with Republicans" is spot on.
I would suggest that:
1. having lower rates for capital gains is basic and something that definitely needs to be added to this start of an agenda.
2. Increase the progressivity of the income tax rates to Eisenhower levels.
Yes, laws are there-although they are weaker, but the enforcement apparently is not. I heard that Holder was an attorney for Wall Street- now he's back there. Probably did not want to throw his buddies in jail
I agree, my point is why is Sanders not mentioned in the article! Only Clinton is mentioned, and how Clinton will be 'limited'.
losing track of reality here. ppl seem to forget that the people that would vote on these changes are the same ppl that are benefiting from the system the way it is now. I/e the congress lately owned and operated by the big corps and wall street and I don't see them voting to cut their benefits the same as they will never reign in the IRS or vote themselves into fiscal responsibility
very funny, elect a progressive congress, that's almost as funny and the article itself. again not gonna happen when the choices are limited to the business as usual hacks as the only choice. yeah just keep electing and re-electing the same o same o pols and hope that they will some how have a change of heart and become a true defender of the constitution. remember the stale mantra they keep shoving at us 'change it from within' or 'incremental change' both of which means no discernible change.
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
You got that right, at a firm called Covington & Burling.
If you're interested in the details, you'll want to read The Divide, by Matt Taibbi. In it, he spells out how Obama - through Holder, his first attorney general - basically just stopped prosecuting Wall Street criminal activities, right when "America had exploded in the biggest white-collar crime wave in its history." (The Divide, p. 30)
That's half of the equation, by the way. Under Obama, white-collar crime got a pass, while the financially less well endowed - largely African American - have been subjected to ever-more-oppressive and aggressive policing, feeding the "prison-industrial complex." In Taibbi's words, "...the two approaches don't match, and there's no way that can ever be right." (The Divide, p. 139)
Clinton is already so far to the right she scares Dick Cheney!
All about Wall Street and nothing in there about stopping Wall Street's purchase of the Democratic Party since Bill Clinton sold it out to them.
How much campaign cancer do we need before we have enough?