Voters Believe Government Is Biased In Favor Of Bankers

 The chart above reflects the results of the new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between January 31st and February 2nd of a nationwide sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,272 registered voters). The margin of error for adults is 2.9 points, and for registered voters is 3.0 points.

It shows that the American public overwhelmingly believes the government is biased in favor of rich bankers. They are right!

Public Thinks Government Is Biased In Favor Of Banks

The American public thinks the Republican-led government is biased. Biased in favor of banks and against consumers. That's the opinion of a majority of 52%. And they don't like that. Only 2% thinks government should be biased in favor of banks, while 26% thinks they should favor consumers and 49% thinks neither should be favored. The public wants a government that is fair to everyone. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen as long as the Republicans are in power.

These charts reflect the results of a recent Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between April 22nd and 24th of a random national sample of 1,500 adults, with a margin of error of 3 points.

Why Aren't These Bankers In Jail ?

Once again we hear of fines being levied against some of the giant banks for illegal (criminal) activity. The following is part of an article from The Huffington Post:

The age of multibillion-dollar bank fines with no admission of wrongdoing is over. The Justice Department announced Wednesday morning that five banks pleaded guilty to market manipulation, while also paying billions of dollars in fines. 

Barclays, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan and the Royal Bank of Scotland admitted to illegally distorting foreign exchange markets. The banks formed what they called "The Cartel" and aimed to set a key currency marker, known as "the fix," at mutually beneficial values. 

The fix is set every day at 4 p.m. London time and is used in the more than $5 trillion currency market to determine the price of trades and the value of large institutional holdings. Traders at the banks used instant messaging chat rooms to discuss where to set the fix.

In addition to admitting guilt, the banks will also pay fines. Barclays will pay $650 million, Citigroup $925, million J.P. Morgan $550 million and RBS $395 million. Barclays will pay another $1.3 billion to New York State, federal and U.K. regulators.

The Justice Department said it was charging the banks' parent companies because the wrongdoing was pervasive, and that the banks' punishment was "fitting considering the long-running and egregious nature of their anticompetitive conduct." To put the fines in context, in 2014, Barclay's net income was $3.5 billion, Citigroup's was $7.3 billion, J.P. Morgan's was $21.8 billion and RBS' was $3.9 billion.

Will this stop the giant banks from engaging in criminal activity? After all, aren't those fines large enough to hurt those banks? Sadly, the answer to both of those questions is NO. While the fines might sound big to us normal Americans, they are not that large to these banks. The truth is that the fines don't even cover the amount of money the banks stole -- meaning the banks still are turning a profit off that criminal activity.

This is far from the first time the giant banks have been caught engaging in illegal activities to fatten their already enormous profits. And why shouldn't they continue to do that? If they are not caught, they get huge profits from that criminal behavior -- and if they are caught (like they were this time), they still profit from the illegal acts (just not as much as if they hadn't been caught). In other words, there is no reason for them to stop stealing.

So, how can we stop this illegal banking activity? I believe it would require at least two things:

1. Make the fines big enough to more than cover the money made from the illegal behavior. I would suggest something like 20% to 30% more than they earned from the criminal behavior.

2. Send the CEO and the CFO of any banks found to be engaging in criminal activity to prison for at least ten years (and anyone else in the bank found to be participating in that criminal behavior).

You can be sure that if you or I stole from one of these banks we would be sent to prison. Why shouldn't the same thing apply when the banks steal? No bank or banker should be to big to pay for their crimes.

(Note -- the cartoon image above was found at the website of the Western Rifle Shooters Association.)

Bernie Is Still Making A Lot Of Sense

This bill probably won't pass in the Senate, and has a snowball's chance of survival in the Mojave in summer, if it gets to the House of Representatives. But it makes a lot of sense. Wall Street bankers have already shown us that there are no limits to the unethical and illegal behavior they will condone, as long as it enhances their bottom line (profit margin). For them, nothing matters as much as the almighty dollar -- and putting any of them in charge of the Fed is like putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The GOP will kill this bill though, because they care more about the bankers and other corporate executives than they do about ordinary Americans. They think those foxes should have the key to the henhouse (and sadly, too many Democrats agree).

A Novel Idea

How's that for a novel idea? Instead of bailing out the thieves, you throw them in jail and bail out the people who had trusted those thieving bankers. This makes so much sense that one has to question why it wasn't done in this country. Could it be that the Wall Street banks and giant corporations own the politicians that run our government -- and too many people are either so stupid or such sheep that they won't do anything about it? I think that's a question that needs answering.

This Woman Terrifies Wall Street Bankers

The lady in the picture above is Elizabeth Warren. She is the person who was most responsible for creating the new government Consumer Protection Bureau (part of the Wall Street reform bill) -- designed to protect ordinary Americans from being taken advantage of by the giant Wall Street banks and other financial service industries. President Obama wanted to put her in charge of that new bureau, because he knew she would never give in to Wall Street in her efforts to protect consumers.

But the Republicans weren't having any of that. In a naked attempt to protect their Wall Street buddies, they blocked her appointment -- and they made it clear they would never allow her to be confirmed. That turned out to be a huge mistake, because she withdrew her name and returned to her home state of Massachusetts -- where she entered the race for the senate seat held by Republican Scott Brown (the same seat once held by Ted Kennedy). Wall Street poured millions of dollars into Massachusetts in an effort to defeat her, but she handily won that race on November 6th.

Now she is a United States Senator. When she takes the oath of office as the newly elected Congress convenes in January, she will be more powerful than ever. And guess what Senate Committee the Democrats are thinking of putting her on. That's right -- the Senate Banking Committee. That would be a nightmare for the giant Wall Street banks, because Warren understand the way the financial industry operates and knows all the loopholes they use to commit their nefarious deeds against the consumers -- and she would be in a perfect position to plug those loopholes and insure the consumer gets an even break.

As you might expect, this terrifies Wall Street. The last thing they want is someone who knows their tricks and is too honest to be bought off to be in a position of power. Last week the Wall Street lobbyists did their best to try and block her appointment to the Banking Committee, but it became very clear that Democratic leaders weren't listening (probably because Wall Street spent hundreds of millions of dollars to defeat President Obama and other Democrats in the election).

So this week those lobbyists are trying a different tack. They are talking her up for appointment to the Senate Finance Committee -- and even more prestigious committee and one new senators are almost never put on. But Wall Street would rather have her anywhere but on the Banking Committee, where she could interfere with their playing fast and loose with the rules and with consumer money.

I know the Finance Committee is a plum assignment, but I really hope Warren and the Democratic leaders see through this attempt by Wall Street to control appointments. Warren should be put on the Banking Committee -- because that is where she could do the most good for American citizens. If that wasn't true, then Wall Street wouldn't be so scared of her going to that committee.

Bernie & Barbara Want To Fix The Fed

It was bad enough that the Wall Street bankers played fast and loose with the few regulations that Republicans had left in place, and in doing so, kicked off the current recession. But what is even crazier is to let those same greedy bankers on the governing board of the Federal Reserve (which sets monetary policy for this country). And Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Barbara Boxer (D-California) agree that doing so is sheer madness. Here is what they have to say:

Can you believe that, only four years after Wall Street and the Big Banks brought our economy to its knees, many of those same bank CEOs are helping to shape policy at the Federal Reserve?

Talk about the fox guarding the hen house. These executives are serving as directors of the very same Federal Reserve that bailed them out in 2008 -- and is supposed to regulate them today.

It's unbelievable, and we've got to do everything we can to end these outrageous conflicts of interest.

The General Accounting Office has detailed instance after instance of top executives of financial institutions and corporations who could have used their influence as Federal Reserve directors to financially benefit their firms -- including board members who were affiliated with banks and companies that received near-zero-interest emergency loans from the Federal Reserve during the financial crisis.

The American people deserve a Federal Reserve that is truly independent from the financial institutions it supervises and oversees. That’s why our Federal Reserve Independence Act would:

• Prohibit banking executives or employees of companies regulated by the Fed from serving on the Federal Reserve’s board of directors;
• Prohibit the banking industry from choosing any members of the Federal Reserve’s board of directors; and
• Prohibit Fed employees or board members from owning stock or investing in companies that the Fed regulates, supervises or oversees with absolutely no exceptions.

Americans deserve a Federal Reserve that works for them, not just the top one percent. Congress needs to pass the Federal Reserve Independence Act -- and you can help us do it.

It is time for change at the Fed -- real change. Thank you for joining us and helping to make that change happen.

Sincerely,

Bernie Sanders and Barbara Boxer
U.S. Senators

If you would like to add your support to this crusade to fix the Fed (and I urge you to do so), you can go here and become a citizen co-sponsor of this effort.

Wall Street Bankers Are Doing Very Well

As most of us still remember, it was the giant Wall Street bankers that triggered the current recession by playing fast and loose with creditor and investor monies after the Republicans removed many of the rules regulating their behavior. Now nearly 17 million Americans are unemployed and another 8.7 million are working part-time because they can't find a full-time job. And it doesn't look like things will improve for ordinary Americans anytime soon.

But it didn't take the banks long to bounce back, with Congress (both parties) and the Bush administration bailing them out to the tune of $700 billion. Now they are back making record profits and giving enormous salaries and bonuses to their executives. This is exemplified by the CEO salaries of the 10 largest of these banks. Here is what they make:

Jamie Dimon -- J.P. Morgan Chase
Cash..........$6.6 million
Stocks/options..........$14.2 million
Total..........$20.8 million

Robert P. Kelly -- Bank of New York Mellon
Cash..........$7 million
Stocks/options..........$12.4 million
Total..........$19.4 million

John Stumpf -- Wells Fargo
Cash..........$6.6 million
Stocks/options..........$11.0 million
Total..........$17.6 million

Ken Chenault -- American Express
Cash..........$5 million
Stocks/options..........$11.2 million
Total..........$16.2 million

Richard K. Davis -- U.S. Bancorp
Cash..........$4.1 million
Stocks/options...........$12.0 million
Total..........$16.1 million

James Gorman -- Morgan Stanley
Cash..........$4.7 million
Stocks/options..........$10.2 million
Total..........$14.9 million

Richard D. Fairbank -- Capital One
Cash..........$100,637
Stocks/options..........$14.8 million
Total..........$14.9 million

Lloyd Blankfein -- Goldman Sachs
Cash..........$6.5 million
Stocks/options..........$7.7 million
Total..........$14.2 million

C. Robert Henrikson -- MetLife
Cash..........$5.8 million
Stocks/options..........$8 million
Total...........$13.8 million

James E. Rohr -- PNC Financial
Cash..........$3.9 million
Stocks/options..........$7.7 million
Total..........$11.6 million

Note that a great deal of their compensation is in stocks and options. This has the effect of getting them to make sure the short-term price of company stock remains high (rather than considering the long-term effects of their actions on either the company or the economy). And the money received from stocks and options is taxed at a rate of only 15% (a smaller rate than that paid by many in the shrinking middle class).

Do these people really need another tax cut? Instead, why don't we ask them to pay the same tax rate on ALL of their income that other Americans pay.