Motion for a Recess

Banks and Brokerages

With the fall of finance, Wall Street, and the global economy, there were many calls to not only fix the problem but to figure out the root of the causes. President Obama heard the calls and formed the Economic Recovery Advisory Board when he came into office early 2009. He appointed former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, a man widely known and respected, as the chair of the board.

It seems, as of late, that Mr. Volcker’s suggestions have been ignored by the administration that called on him to save the country from the closest we have been to economic wreckage since the Great Depression. Why, you may ask, are they ignoring a prominent economist and knowledegable expert? Volcker has been suggesting bringing back a modern form of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act that was passed during the Great Depression. Its provisions included the prohibition of bank holding companies from owning financial companies, presumably those involved with stocks and other derivatives. The Glass-Steagall Act was effectively repealed in 1999 by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, allowing banks and brokerages to combine and reap tremendous profits at the expense of the average citizen. Of course, most big banks are completely against such an action (how can they make those fat profits they’re starting to make again?). The banking lobby is calling it an antiquated law that would be ineffective in today’s climate and consequently make America much less competitive on a global scale. Volcker, understanding these criticisms, retorted:

“People say I’m old-fashioned and banks can no longer be separated from nonbank activity…That argument,” he added ruefully, “brought us to where we are today.”

Economist and Nobel laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz has echoed the same sentiments as Volcker but fully cognizant that the former Fed Chairman is “embarked on a quixotic journey.” Former Citigroup CEO John S. Reed has joined the small chorus of Glass-Steagall-ites and has endorsed the same proposal saying it would “go a long way toward building a more robust financial sector.”

I agree with these men in saying that banking activities should be completely separate from other financial activities. Unless President Obama’s new proposal has better guidelines for these banks, what’s to stop them from repeating their actions with a resulting taxpayer-funded bailout? Limiting executive pay? That’s almost a laughable offense if they weren’t serious. Maybe the new “Too Big to Fail” bill will reveal the insights to which way the administration and Congress are planning to deal with the current crisis.

Diet, Food, & Politics

Sustainable food once seen in activist circles is starting to gain acceptance as some norm. This week, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order hoping to turn vacant lots – basically any area that is city-owned but unused – into small gardens. The idea is to create a vibrant local economy while reducing greenhouse gas emissions produced from shipping food and reducing the dependence on mass-manufactured foods. The premium on fresh food is probably worth the

Recently, a California law requiring the disclosure of nutritional information at certain restaurants came into effect. You’d be amazed at how much people would deter towards eating certain foods when shown the nutritional information. Especially considering how many calories there are in many restaurant items. Coincidentally, an experiment done on monkeys showed that restricting your caloric intake could lead to a longer and healthier life.

It’s great that these necessary steps are being done to make consumers aware of what goes into their body. We often trust what is served to us on a plate just because there’s a sign in the front marked ‘A’ (the restaurant sanitation grade). Too much money is wasted on preventable diseases (read: obesity and diabetes). Information is a huge part of the reason why all of these things happen. Overall, they are great steps towards creating a healthier future. These new movements along with some type of universal health care are what will improve this country.

Lugar In the Right Direction

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) has signaled for the US to make a move in the right direction. Sanctions on Cuba have done nothing to help the US and, in fact, have just strengthened Cuba’s communist resolve. Let’s hope this goes somewhere.

Barr Lines Up with Libertarians

Bob Barr, once the ardent Republican representative from Georgia and currently the Libertarian Party’s candidate for President, has finally come to terms with one of his many controversial positions – the War on Drugs. It was Barr who was a vocal supporter and policy-maker for the War on Drugs and repeatedly defended his position. He repeatedly blocked any medical marijuana legalization initiatives started in D.C. by claiming:

There is no legitimate use whatsoever for marijuana. This is not medicine. This is bogus witchcraft. It has no place in medicine, no place in pain relief…

But now the Libertarian, who is increasingly viewed by many Republicans as to what Nader is to the Democrats, has reversed his position on marijuana and the War on Drugs. I’m glad that he can finally admit to his failures and move on from there. Whereas some politicians hide behind statements or subtly make changes to fit the political arena, I think Barr made a wise decision by admitting outright that he was wrong and his policy was a complete failure.

…when government attempts to solve our societal problems, it tends to create even more of them, often increasing the size and depth of the original problem. A perfect example of this is the federal War on Drugs.

Good job, Barr. Although I don’t support you, I do greatly respect you and your (new) views.

The ‘Spite’ Vote

Last week, Clinton finally conceded the Democratic nomination to Obama after a grueling primary season. She proved to be a tenacious and somewhat ironic ‘comeback’ candidate who proved pundits and others wrong with her continued support and wins in the many latter primary states. But the math finally became obvious and the Clinton spin team ran out of gas. She unequivocally backed Obama in her concession speech on Saturday; a speech which left critics wondering, had the same content and tone been used throughout the primary season, she might have built her base with more support to clinch the nomination.

Her speech was meant to unify the badly bruised and seemingly divided Democratic party. Some supporters immediately backed Obama, others did so reluctantly. But a few others decided that instead of not voting at all, they would back John McCain. The same McCain that promotes policies counter to those of Clinton (and Obama, since they nearly have the same policies sans healthcare). The same McCain who, at least in this Senate, has one of the most conservative voting records. To me that makes absolute zero sense. That tells me that those ardent Clinton supporters were not really supporting her for her policies. It’s fine that they won’t vote for Obama but when you go a complete 180 and support someone who is the complete opposite, that is just ludicrous.

The Co-Chairs of University of Iowa Students for Hillary also released a memo today indicating that they would vote for McCain. They advocated the rest of the group’s members to do the same:

We do not agree with him [McCain] on everything, and this is why we urge you to strongly support Democrats up for re-election to congress. He served our country, he is right on immigration, right on global warming, and he voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have banned Marriage Equality.

I guess since they agree on these three issues, that makes him a good alternative to Hillary. Interesting deduction, people.