Almost three weeks ago, Senator Bernard Sanders introduced the Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act – S. 2746. At the end of last week, U.S. Representative Maurice Hinchey introduced the same bill into the House of Representatives. The legislation would enable the government to escape its current state of dependence upon huge private finance firms that are perceived as so intricately interwoven into the American economy that they could not fail without destroying the foundations of our nation’s wealth.
The legislation, if passed, would require the Secretary of the Treasury to identify all financial companies that are “too big to fail”. Then, within one year, the Secretary would be required to break up these companies into smaller companies that would not be too big to fail.
As a result, the marketplace could work without the terror that defined 2008, knowing that finance firms would rise and fall on their own merits, rather than surviving merely because they had become dangerously bloated. There would be no more need for government bailouts, and no more need for huge increases in the federal debt. Our economy would be much healthier, and the only people who would have something to lose would be the top executives who control the “too big to fail” companies.
Why is it, then, that no one but Sanders and Hinchey will sign their names to the Too Big To Fail, Too Big To Exist Act? Plenty of members of the House and Senate complain about the bailouts. They give lots of speeches declaring that these finance firms that are “too big to fail” should not have become so large. They pose an awful lot, striking a tone of terrifying indignation. Yet, when they have an opportunity to cosponsor legislation that would actually do something about the problem, they do nothing.
Why?
Could it have something to do with the fact that, for the 2008 election alone, commercial banks made $37,239,212.00 in campaign contributions, securities and investment firms donated $156,493,633.00, and credit companies made firms in the business of finance and credit gave $7,776,773.00 to politicians?
Well, with the banksters and Wall Street (Goldman Sachs) running the show, what did you expect?
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/
scroll down to the article: Fed Reserve Endorses “Crony Communism” for Wealthy
i’m getting very depressed. and that crony communism article made it worse.
every time i hear the line – privite profits/public losses- it infuriates me more.
in that same line of thought, relating to health care, the naysayers vent on government failures like S.S. and medicare. medicare is in the red because insurance companies hold policies on people in relatively good health, while the government takes all the sick and eldery.let them cover the aged and give the rest of the country to the public option and see who’s books balance then. S.S. is losing money because of the fact that the wealthy have a cap on their social security taxes. have them pay at the same rate as the rest of us (on all their income) and abba dabba gadabra, no more S.S. worries.
communism is the perfect system for these profit mongering corporate types. no competition. i don’t see why they are not jumping all over the government takeover racket. afraid someone else might get a piece of the cake, i guess.