Consumer Protection, Fed Style

One of the big unsettled issues for the congressional conference committee considering financial reform is whether to create an independent financial consumer protection agency.

That’s what the House bill does. The argument for an independent agency is that consumers need a strong advocate in the financial marketplace.

The Senate decided that an independent consumer financial watchdog wasn’t needed, and that the consumer financial protector should live in, of all places, the Federal Reserve. After all, the Fed already has responsibilities to “implement major laws concerning consumer credit.” We all know how well that worked out.

The problem is that the Fed has functioned as a protector of the big banks, never more so than since the big bank bailout and in the battle over financial reform.

Despite promises for greater transparency, the Fed has repeatedly resisted attempts to get it to disclose all the favors it’s done for financial institutions since the bailout. If the Fed had put up half the fight against bank secrecy that it’s waged on behalf of bank secrets, consumers would never have been subjected to all those lousy subprime loans.

It is telling that no actual consumers or consumer organizations actually think that housing consumer protection inside the Fed is a good idea. Who does? The big banks and the Fed.

For those who still need convincing that a Fed-housed consumer protection agency is a bad idea, the Fed has provided a more recent example of what it means by consumer protection.

Last month it unveiled a database that’s supposed to help people choose the most appropriate credit card.

The database might be useful to professional researchers but provides little that would be of use to ordinary consumers. It presents the credit card statements by company but provides no other search functions, such as comparing credit cards by interest rates or fees.

Some of the presentation suggests that the information was dumped onto the Fed’s website without much thought. Bill Allison, who is editorial director of the Sunlight Foundation, a non-profit organization that digitizes government data and creates online tools to make it accessible to readers, said the following:

“I don't think there's anything wrong with posting it, but this is obviously not data you can search,” Allison told Bailout Sleuth.

He also pointed out that some of the agreements themselves aren't particularly informative. He cited the entry for Barclays Bank Delaware, which notes that the bank may assess fees for late payments and returned checks. “The current amounts of such Account Fees are stated in the Supplement,” the agreement reads.

But that supplement is not contained in the Fed's database. The Fed promises to go back and refine its database. But if they’re not devoting the resources to get this right now, with their ability to protect consumers under the microscope, do you really expect they’ll do better later?

An independent consumer protector is not simply some technicality to be bargained away. We’ve learned from the bubble and its aftermath that consumers need all the help they can get. Contact your congressperson and tell them you’re still paying attention to the reform fight. Check out your congressperson and see if they’re on the conference committee. If they are, your voice is especially important. While you’re at it, contact the president and remind him we won’t settle for any more watering down of financial reform.

Action / Federal Reserve / Financial Reform Legislation / Martin Column - 06/02/2010

The Marx Brothers' Guide to Financial Reform

“Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” asks brother Chico in the madcap classic “Duck Soup.”

It’s the middle of the night in the imaginary European nation of Freedonia. Chico has disguised himself in a scheme to convince a skeptical wealthy widow, the country’s major creditor, that he’s actually the country’s newly elected president (Groucho) to get her to hand over Freedonia’s top secret war plans.

The trouble is Chico’s Italian accent.

And Harpo. He’s disguised himself as Groucho too. And of course there’s Groucho. Three Grouchos. Who’s the real one?

Chico’s line reminds me of the not so funny antics of the Obama administration and our political leadership in their various efforts to convince us that financial system should be left intact and that reform should just be left up to the same regulators who colluded in creating the economic crisis and protecting big bankers’ interests.

That’s essentially what our leaders have proposed, wrapping themselves in the disguise of real reformers.

We may have been blinded for a while by the riches the bankers were offering us, but we can see clearly now what they were: a gaudy mirage.

If we didn’t get it when the economy crashed, we get it now, after we toted up the bill from the unsavory wreckage of Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, as well as the expense from the equally unappealing survival of Goldman-Sachs.

It’s plain to see that if any bank presidents lost their jobs they were handsomely compensated. None have been forced to face foreclosure or have had their unemployment or health insurance cut off.

The rest of us have a choice: believe our leaders or own eyes.

We understand what happened: the bankers got too big and powerful, got rid of all the rules, got greedy and brought the economy down – except for the part that kept churning out gargantuan bonuses to the financial titans.

We understand what we need to do, too: break up the big banks, curtail their power and wall off their gambling games from the economy the rest of us have to live in.

But the leadership that’s trying to control the debate seems hopelessly out of step with the country.

Not all the politicians are as clueless as the leaders. In fact, more than a dozen senators have signed on to what not long ago would have been considered a radical proposal – to audit the Federal Reserve. It already passed through the House by a wide margin.

This terrifies the administration, which doesn’t want any more details leaking out about the favors the Fed has been granting the big banks at public expense.

So the president’s chief of staff, former investment banker Rahm Emanuel, is working the phones. If the administration favored real reform, they’d be stiffening the politicians’ resolve against the massive bank lobbying intended to gut strong regulation. But instead, the president has sent Emanuel out to do the regulators’ bidding, to dissuade senators from voting for a Fed audit.

In the Senate, a handful of senators have proposed a stronger dose of reform than the administration and Democratic leadership have prescribed. But the Senate’s Democratic leaders are squeamish about even allowing their colleagues to debate these more robust proposals.

Meanwhile, the Republican leadership seems to be getting inspiration from the same Marx Brothers’ movie they’ve been glued to since Obama got elected –  “Horse Feathers.” Rep. John Boehner and Sen. Mitch McConnell may not have any ideas of their own but they’ve managed to perfectly capture the spirit of the lead character, Samuel Quincy Wagstaffe (played by Groucho) in his opening number, “Whatever It Is, I’m Against It.”

The Marx Brothers’ wit and wisdom never go out of style but they’re especially timely now. They began their film careers satirizing the hysteria surrounding a real estate bubble: the Florida land boom in “Cocoanuts” in 1929. “You can get any kind of a house you want,” Groucho assures prospective buyers as he auctions off some land of dubious value. “You can even get stucco.  Oh, how you can get stuck-o.”

While he poked fun at speculative investing, in real life Groucho was also a victim. He lost his savings in the 1929 crash. “Some of the people I know lost millions,” he quipped bitterly in his autobiography. “I was luckier. All I lost was two hundred and forty thousand dollars. I would have lost more, but that was all the money I had.”

Federal Reserve / Goldman-Sachs / Lehman / Martin Column / Outrage / President Barack Obama / Too Big To Fail - 05/05/2010

Around the Web: Taking Reform Fight to the Streets

The Republicans apparently think it’s too soon to start debating Wall Street reform, and the Democrats didn’t seem to mind too much.

After all, their secret weapon is coming to town: The banker America loves to hate, Goldman-Sach’s Lloyd Blankfein, who will testify Tuesday before the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

But the political theater can’t conceal what’s really happening. The lobbyists are working overtime working to kill, dismember or water down legislation.

The public’s continuing frustration and rage over the on-going bailout and continuing disconnect between Wall Street and Main Street finds little expression in what passes for debate in D.C.

A handful of Democratic senators – Kaufman, Shaheen, Merkley, Brown, Sanders, Levin and Cantwell – are waging a battle for the party’s soul against a leadership and administration that wants only as much reform as will not offend Wall Street. Meanwhile, the Republican leadership postures and preens and preaches about how the Dems’ proposals will hurt Main Street while they try to woo Wall Street campaign donors away from the Democrats.

What we have been getting from the Obama administration are words of caution, from the president to top economic adviser Lawrence Summers.

The Fourteenth Banker suggests a disinvestment campaign like the one that brought pressure on South Africa.

There will also be demonstrations across the country all week to galvanize public support for reform.

Around the Web / Martin Column - 04/26/2010

Around the Web: Rookie Senator Fumbles Financial Reform

The news media / blogosphere have been having too much fun at the expense of the former Cosmo model who could be the key 41st vote if Republicans decide to kill financial reform.

It’s no shock Sen. Scott Brown would oppose it, given the enthusiastic support he got from Wall Street in his recent election, taking the Massachusetts seat long held by Ted Kennedy.

But Brown apparently got a little flustered when a reporter asked him to explain what exactly he was opposed to. It was one of those trick questions: What areas in the bill would Brown like to see fixed?

Brown responded by asking what the reporter thought. “Well, what areas do you think should be fixed?” Brown said. “I mean, you know, tell me. And then I’ll get a team and go fix it.’’

Eat the Press’s Jason Linkins snorted on Huffington Post: “Yes. Some reporter may want to point out the epic collapse of the derivatives market to Scott Brown, and he will assemble a team of... I don't know...sled dogs? To fix it? Is that good? Will that work?”

Brown told the Globe he opposed a consumer financial protection agency because it would add another layer of regulation.

“Which is, of course, true,” pointed out Washington Monthly’s Political Animal Steven Benen. “ That's the point of the legislation. The financial industry went unchecked and nearly destroyed the global economy. That's why the legislation is being considered – to bring oversight and accountability through regulation.”

Brown also faces some hard second-guessing on a novel argument he made against financial reform on Face the Nation last week: it’s a jobs killer. He asserted that it would cost his state 35,000 jobs – about 17 percent of the state’s financial sector workforce.

When the Globe followed up to nail down Brown’s source for that statement, his staff told the newspaper he got the figures from MassMutual, an insurance company based in the state that has opposed financial reform.

But company officials said Brown had misunderstood them; they were talking about job losses the state had already suffered. Even those figures were grossly inflated, the Globe found. According to the state’s Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development, the state has lost about 19,000 jobs in the financial sector, which includes the insurance industry, and also at banks, securities firms, investment management companies, and real estate businesses.

A MassMutual official insisted the company agreed with Brown anyway; similar losses could result from financial reform, he insisted. Sen. Brown stood by his earlier statements.

Whatever. A Globe columnist found Brown’s projections, as well as MassMutual’s, preposterous. “The idea that anything in the Senate bill could create additional job losses on a similar scale as the damage caused by the earthquake in the real estate and brokerage industries is simply nuts,” Globe columnist Steven Syre wrote.

Perhaps sensing an opportunity in Brown’s confusion, President Obama put in phone call to Brown from Air Force One.

The president probably didn’t bring up the question posed by Washington Monthly’s Benen: “Do you ever get the feeling that maybe Scott Brown isn't quite ready for prime-time, and that his service in the Senate is more humiliating than it should be?”

Around the Web / Martin Column - 04/21/2010

Around the Web: Can WAMU be the Blue Cross of Financial Reform?

During the debate over health care reform, the public was galvanized by the disclosure of  outrageous insurance rate increases by Blue Cross.

It was that public outrage that finally got the healthcare legislation passed over Republican opposition.

Now Senate backers of  a strong overhaul of the financial system hope that televised hearings on the details of the reckless lending, incompetent management and multiple regulatory failures that sank the nation’s largest savings and loan will fuel support for financial reform in the face of relentless opposition from Wall Street.

The hearings got underway Tuesday in the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, headed by Sen. Carl Levin,D-Michigan.

In strong contrast to hearings  held recently by the congressionally appointed committee to investigate the financial crisis, Levin’s opening hearing was tough, pointed and thorough. Levin said he intended for the hearings to serve as a case study for what happened at financial institutions during the meltdown. He compared WAMU’s selling and packaging of  high-risk option ARM and no-doc loans to dumping “pollutants into a river.”

Calling Washington Mutual’s former CEO Kerry Killinger “a forgotten villain of the financial crisis", Fortune’s Colin Barr sets the stage here. Business Week recounts the testimony here. CSPAN carried the hearings live they can be viewed here.

The star witnesses from WAMU were Killinger and former Chief Operating Officer Stephen Rotella. Killinger testified that WAMU was unfairly targeted by regulators because it not “too clubby to fail” as were larger financial institutions. Killinger insisted WAMU could have worked its way out of the crisis if regulators hadn’t eventually shut it down.

On Friday, we’ll hear from the regulators, who were well aware of WAMU’s questionable lending and securitization but continued to find that the savings and loan was financially sound.

Around the Web / Martin Column / Outrage - 04/13/2010

Bursting D.C.'s Bubble

The battle for financial reform comes down to the ownership of one critical piece of real estate, one that has managed to avoid the crash that has ended the dreams of security for so many: the nation’s Capital.

“We’re at a critical moment point in our democracy,” Elizabeth Warren, the congressional bailout monitor, told those of us gathered on a webinar Wednesday. “Either the banks own Washington or the people do.”

Warren was referring to something that the Democratic Senate whip, Dick Durbin, said last year about the place where he works, in an rare moment of a politician telling the truth:  “The banks own this place.”

Elizabeth Warren, a tireless promoter of consumer protection and truth teller about the decline of the decline of fortunes of regular folks, prefers to view Durbin’s declaration as premature.

But a more definitive answer is not far off, according to Warren; it could come next month. The full Senate is expected to begin debate on financial reform when it returns from recess this month with a final vote in May.

Congress is one place where the bubble hasn’t burst. The value of those congressional seats hasn’t gone down since the crash; it’s gone up. Representatives and senators are raking n more than ever from corporate lobbyists.

The banks are fully mobilized, unloading $1 million a day to block, neutralize and weaken reform. The webinar, sponsored by Americans for Financial Reform and Americans for Responsible Lending, was an effort to galvanize reform supporters into action.

As reluctant as I am to disagree with Warren about anything, on this one I’m with Durbin. From the evidence, it’s hard to see how Wall Street hasn’t gotten everything it wants from the politicians, even after the greatest financial meltdown since the Depression.

The question is whether we can take back that inflated piece of real estate and reestablish its true value.  Can we turn our frustration and rage over the bailouts and our elected representatives’ impotence into action?

There are marches – April 29th on Wall Street and May 17 on K street, where the lobbyists have their offices. And there are elected representatives to inundate with messages in favor of reform. Reform advocates can’t match the bankers’ cash, but they have people power on their side.

One questioner asked Warren at what point the Senate reform proposal from Sen. Chris Dodd, which was initially strong before Dodd watered it down, would become so weak it wouldn’t be worth supporting. Warren didn’t answer the question directly. “They’re not leaving much margin for error,” she said.

Unfortunately, when it comes to financial reform, the devil is in the details, and we have to insist on real reforms.

That means:

× Breaking up banks that are too big to fail (Dodd’s proposal doesn’t do that now).

× Creating a strong and independent financial consumer protection agency  (Dodd proposes to house it in the Fed, with other banking regulators able to veto the consumer protector’s decisions)

× Forcing banks to have more “skin in the game” (The Senate bill require bankers to keep money in reserve equal to 5 percent of loans they bundle and sell off; European regulators require twice that amount).

× Congress setting the amounts of capital financial institutions would have to keep on hand, rather than leaving it for the regulators to decide.

What we’ve learned in the past several months, from the report on the Lehman bankruptcy and the Fed’s recent disclosures on its involvement in Bear-Stearns takeover by J.P. Morgan, is that regulators weren’t asleep at the switch before, during and after the financial crisis. Rather, the regulators have actively colluded with the banks in an attempt to conceal the banks shady practices. Too much of what is being called financial reform is actually just maintaining the status quo while pretending to overhaul the system.

I don’t agree with a lot of what the Tea Party has offered. They don’t offer much in the way of positive proposals, and seem particularly weak in grappling with the issue of unchecked corporate power. But I think they’ve shown how a group of people (with some corporate funding) can shake up and shape a national debate. The Tea Party has no corner on frustration, anger, betrayal or the sense that something has gone deeply wrong in our country. There’s no reason we can’t channel that frustration and anger to plant the flag of real reform in the middle of real estate that, after all, belongs to us. Now’s the time to do it.
Here’s how to contact your senator and representative. Here’s the web site for Americans for Financial Reform.

Action / Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / Too Big To Fail - 04/08/2010

Around the Web: On to Financial Reform

With the Obama administration and the Democratic leadership declaring historic victory on health care reform, the next big item could be fixing the troubled banking system.

It could make the battle over health care look like a walk in the park. The financial industry, Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats are all lined up to kill or weaken it.

They’ve already succeeded in getting Sen. Chris Dodd to weaken his reform proposal, which the Senate Banking Committee passed Monday on a 13 to 10 party line vote. Here’s the Atlantic’s take, including what Dodd had to say Monday.

Getting Dodd to soften his stance probably wasn’t that tough. He’s traditionally a staunch ally of Wall Street and only took a strong stance when it looked he was going to have to face angry voters. But then Dodd dropped out of the race, became a lame duck and returned to form as the financial industry’s best friend.

For example, Dodd has abandoned support for a strong independent financial consumer protection agency, instead placing it within the Federal Reserve, which has ignored consumers in the past even though it had authority to protect them. In National Journal’s Clive Crook’s assessment, Dodd’s proposal will enshrine “too big to fail” banks in law rather than fix the problem.

Now the full Senate will consider it. Here’s Barry Ritholtz’s analysis of what should be on the final bill.

Around the Web / Consumer Financial Protection Agency - 03/22/2010

Back to the Future of Reform with Sen. Chris Dodd

Dodd moves to scale back Consumer Financial Protection Agency plan

In an attempt to lure the Republican votes needed to get a sweeping overhaul through the Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan for a less powerful Bureau of Financial Protection.

-- Los Angeles Times, March 2, 2010

Dodd Proposes Financial Protection Committee Housed in Treasury Department

In new attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get semi-sweeping overhaul through Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to create a Financial Protection Committee inside the U.S. Treasury.

-- Los Angeles Times, March 28, 2010

Dodd Proposes Professor of Financial Protection at University of Connecticut

In renewed attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get modest financial fixes through Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to give the University of Connecticut $150,000 to hire a professor to teach the public about financial protection.

-- Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2010

Dodd Proposes Dial 1-900-4Protection Line

In a leisurely attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get itsy-bitsy, not too scary reform bill through Senate, the Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to set up a 900 number to be answered on weekends by volunteers from credit card customer service departments. Costs of the program will be defrayed by charge of 99 cents per call.

-- Los Angeles Times, May 20, 2010

Dodd Proposes Facebook Financial Protection Page

In further attempt to lure the Republican and Democrat votes needed to get any kind of friggin’ bill through Senate, the soon to retire to the financial industry Banking Committee chief is circulating a plan to create a Facebook page where consumers can share financial protection ideas with each other.

-- Los Angeles Times, June 15, 2010

Dodd Proposes Wall Street Protect Consumers

Fuhghettaboutit.

-- Los Angeles Times, July 4, 2010

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Harvey Column / Uncategorized - 03/02/2010

Less Kabuki, More Reform

Does the president get it yet on financial reform?

Or is his tougher stance toward the bankers part of a kabuki performed for the public while real reform is compromised away backstage?

The politics around the battle for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency are thick with intrigue and shifting positions.

A separate agency is a crucial aspect of any reform because the present regulators have done such a dismal job of protecting consumers’ interests.

We have every right to be suspicious of the president and the Democrats, based on their timidity in fighting for stronger regulation and holding accountable those responsible for the crisis.

The latest cause for doubts stems from the unsavory spectacle of Democrats and Republicans falling over themselves to reassure Wall Street that they are the bankers’ best bet to represent the interests of the financial industry.

Meanwhile, the president appears be jawboning the key Senate author of reform, Chris Dodd. A long-time recipient of Wall Street largesse, Dodd was facing a tough reelection campaign, based on some of his more unsavory dealings with Wall Street. In the midst of that campaign last November, he came out with a tough reform proposal, including an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

But as his campaign looked increasingly hopeless, Dodd decided to retire. Since then he’s been signaling that he wants to back off the independent consumer agency.  President Obama met with Dodd last month and insisted that the independent agency is “non-negotiable.”

President Obama has his own changing political calculations. He originally supported a milder version of bank reform passed by the House. After the Democrats lost Ted Kennedy’s Massachusetts Senate seat several weeks ago, the president all of a sudden decided to haul out his lone financial adviser who has advocated breaking up big banks, former Fed chief Paul Volcker. (Previously Obama had been ignoring him, letting a cast of Wall Street insiders run his handling of the banking crisis.)

Obama, with Volcker by his side, voiced support for breaking up the largest big banks as well as placing some new limits for some of the banks’ riskier activities.

Earlier this week at a Senate hearing, Dodd aimed unusual criticism at the president, questioning the timing of his announcement, labeling the president’s embrace of Volcker’s ideas “transparently political.”

Dodd didn’t stop there: he suggested that the president’s proposals to get tough on the big banks threatened the process of crafting a reform proposal that would get bipartisan support.

Key Republicans have already indicated what that would mean – no independent consumer financial protection agency, for one thing.

The Democrats are caught: The bankers who fund their campaigns are demanding watered-down reform that will ensure business as usual. Angry voters are demanding robust regulation and accountability.

The president has to demonstrate that his embrace of Volcker’s ideas isn’t just a gimmick. He’s got to flesh his proposals out with details and fight for them in public and not compromise them away in the back rooms.

Contact the president and let him know what you think. Let your senator know, too, that you’re tired of political theater. It’s past time for real reform.

Consumer Financial Protection Agency / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 02/04/2010

Fed Up: Down With Bernanke

President Obama can’t credibly rail against Wall Street fat cats while fighting for their chief enabler.

Here’s all you need to know right now to decipher the confusing messages from the White House and the Democratic leadership:

Ignore the faux populist rhetoric and keep your eyes on the contentious U.S. Senate vote on confirmation of Ben Bernanke to a second term as chair of the Federal Reserve.

If Obama and Democrats want to show they now “get it” on why people are so angry over the mishandling of the bailout and the economy, they should dump Bernanke without delay.

But the White House and Democratic leadership, including senators Harry Reid and Chris Dodd, continue to strongly support Bernanke. Other Democratic senators, like Russ Feingold, Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer, as well as Republicans such as senators Richard Shelby and John McCain, oppose him.

The prime reason Bernanke deserves to be dumped is that he is not a reformer or strong regulator during a time of reform and increased regulation. The crisis hasn’t caused him to reconsider. Bernanke even opposes a key plank in President Obama’s reform proposal – the Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

He may nod reassuringly in the direction of Main Street but he’s an insider of the Wall Street elite whose prevailing philosophy is a combination of “What’s good for Wall Street is good for the U.S.A” and “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

Some observers credit Bernanke with keeping the country from slipping into another Great Depression.

The country managed to avoid an economic fiasco on the scale of the depression. But why should Bernanke get the credit?

Everything the Fed does is cloaked in a secrecy and doublespeak that mocks the president’s promise of the most transparent administration in history.

What we know for sure about the Fed’s response is that it shoveled cash and cheap credit in the direction of its favored Wall Street targets. Bernanke and the Fed have resisted disclosure of any facts and figures about what they did. When the details do emerge, they smell fishy.

For example, Reuters reported on emails that were obtained through subpoena by Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, who is investigating the role of the Fed in the AIG bailout.

What Reuters found was that the Fed, under Bernanke’s direction, along with the SEC, wanted to protect the details of the AIG bailout with a level of secrecy usually reserved for matters of national security.  In the emails, Bernanke’s staff ridicules the clamor for more public disclosure about the bailout.

At issue are payments the Fed made to firms that carried insurance with AIG on bed bets those firms had made on investments. Those firms, called counterparties, included the likes of Goldman Sachs. The Fed paid off AIG's counterparties 100 cents on the dollar on their bad bets: extremely unusual with companies in such deep distress relying on the kindness of taxpayers not to take some losses.

Just what do Bernanke and the Fed have to hide? Whose interests are being protected?  We need to get to the bottom of those questions, not reward those keeping us from the answers to them.

Even if Bernanke did get credit for his role in the bailout, that wouldn’t be enough reason to confirm him for another term. He missed the housing bubble before the meltdown and has shown no indication he would recognize another bubble when it occurs. He has also misread the impact of the economic stimulus.

In addition, the Fed under Bernanke's watch failed at on one of its cores missions – reducing unemployment. Bernanke is more afraid of increasing inflation than he is of increasing unemployment. It’s time for the Fed to shed its cloak of secrecy and elitism and push for an economy that benefits everybody, not just Wall Street. That transformation will be challenging; Bernanke has shown he’s not the kind of leader for these times.

Obama’s treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, is trying out the old scare tactics, threatening that the markets will fall if Bernanke loses his job. But these are the same kinds of scare tactics that a previous administration used on Congress to forestall debate in its haste to push a poorly considered bailout scheme. We may have expected such tactics from the Bush Administration, but President Obama set higher standards for his administration. Now is the time for him to live up to them.

Contact the president and let him know what you think. Let your senator know too.

Federal Reserve / Martin Column / President Barack Obama - 01/25/2010