Bio
Nancy Pfotenhauer is a senior policy adviser on domestic issues for the John McCain presidential Campaign.
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

Recent Comments

Moving our economy forward

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 57
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Over recent days and weeks, America has been shocked by a continued, unfolding crisis involving some of the biggest names in the U.S. financial sector: Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers, and now AIG. Americans are rightly concerned about our economy and the impact that this Wall Street-bred crisis will have on Main Streets across the country, especially with so many of us accepting the realities of close to $4-a-gallon gasoline, as well as higher prices on food and other items. What’s clear is that the next president must implement a plan that will guarantee Americans a far greater measure of financial security than what we currently have. That means creating more and better-paying jobs, keeping fuel prices down and increasing domestic energy production, protecting Americans’ valued investments, and, of course, keeping the tax burden as low as possible. Those are all goals that would be met by implementing John McCain’s proposed policies and initiatives, which I would like to summarize here, today.

Let’s start by talking about what’s on everyone’s minds right now: The outright mess created by some of Wall Street’s biggest players and the poor management and casino culture evident there. The end result of this recklessness has been the threatening of millions of Americans’ retirement investments, savings, and insurance policies, which in hindsight looks frustratingly predictable. Two years ago, John McCain was warning that we were in trouble in this area, specifically with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While his warnings then went unheeded, the need for reform is now clear, and that reform needs to comprise three elements:

  • First, transparency with regard to investments needs to be greatly increased. Derivatives and mortgage-backed securities are complicated financial instruments, and it is essential that going forward, no one is able to use them to hide bad investments that no prudent investor would make. Ensuring that risks cannot simply be kept “off the books” and “out of sight, out of mind” is critical.
  • Second, making sure that oversight means oversight — and that responsibility for conducting it is not spread between countless agencies that have failed, collectively, to do their jobs, while engaging in turf warfare. In pursuing reform, the emphasis needs to be on ensuring we have the best federal agencies to do the job right — not that we have a dozen of them doing it, and badly.
  • Third, instituting comprehensive regulations to protect Americans who trust financial institutions with the hard-earned money they plan to use in retirement, or to pay for their children or grandchildren’s college. In addition to ensuring constant access to the books and accounts of our banks and financial institutions, John McCain plans to reduce the amount of debt and risk banks can take on, and take steps to prevent the kind of wild speculation that has contributed to the current crisis.
  • These are sound, comprehensive, and pragmatic steps that need to be taken — though, of course, the future strength of our economy, job growth, and prosperity for American families depends on far more than implementing just these reforms.

    It’s also essential, if we aim to promote job growth and across-the-board prosperity, that we keep taxes low for working families and for small businesses, and keep spending in check so that we are not setting Americans up for tax increases in the future. Barack Obama’s economic proposals are problematic with regard to both of these points. On one hand, he wants to vastly increase federal spending by hundreds of billions over just one four-year term. On the other, he wants to raise taxes — and not just on the “very wealthy,” either, as he often claims. Small-business owners, many of whom bring in just over $250,000 and file under the personal income tax schedule, would be hit by Obama’s tax increases. Paying more in taxes will harm their ability to hire more workers, pay employees more, and offer them better benefits. With so many Americans hurting and concerned about the need for more and better jobs, hammering small businesses is exactly the wrong thing to do; yet it is exactly what Barack Obama implicitly pledges to do. By contrast, John McCain will cut their (and other Americans’) taxes, and keep spending in check while eliminating the most egregious wastes of taxpayer money — something Americans can all agree is a priority.

    Another issue of great urgency right now is making sure Americans have

    • 57
    • Sparkle (
      )
       

    Comments

    Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
    Sort: Newest | Oldest
    gncox 5 pts

    I have read and watched as this political mess has gotten completely out of control. I am ashamed to be a Republican or to even know a Democrat. What I am proud of is my belief in America and what it once stood for. I think I have that in common with those that have thrown down their Democratic political titles and affiliations and understand that there is just right and wrong.

    Believe me when I say I am not particularly thrilled with John McCain. I do believe that Sarah Palin is the real deal and can communicate with and understand the majority of people of this nation. Obama on the other hand scares me to death or I wouldn't be setting here on the side of the road on a wireless modem. So lets forget our voter registration for a little bit. If you are employed by a specific group with a vested interest just say so. I just need to vent before my 54 years cause me to clutch my chest and wreck.

    You cannot raise taxes on people who make over $200,000.00 per year. It is an immpossibility as these are the very people that set the prices that everyone pays for goods and services. I know, I am one of them, taxation by proxy is not a solution and just gets past on.
    I agree Bush is not Einstien, but the first five years was pretty good. The last two with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barney Franks, and Cris Dodd has been a castastrophe. If I remember correctly everybody got mad because we couldn't find WMD's(weapons of mass destruction) in Iraq. I think we have found the WMD's holding a seat in a leadership position in Congress.
    The US Government cannot provide everything to everybody all the time. There is a thing called personal responsibility and the time has come to call the markers in. Everyone is lining up according to what they are promised, there is no promise land on this earth. The poor will get poorer and more dependant. 
    History should tell us a great deal and I think we all should make a great demand or lose the very thing this countries foundation is based on. If John McCain is to become the next President of the United States, the gloves are going to have to come off and when he reaches across the isle, he should be stepping on some republicans to crack a few democrats. Hats off to those on both sides of the isle who voted against that terrible bailout bill.

    Mom to Gio 5 pts

    I read a fascinating and enlightening explanation of the debacle on Wall Street with historical context.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/a-nation-o... ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/a-nation-o... )

    I remember wondering how it was that so many people were making so much money early on in the sub-prime markets and when the bill would come due. 

    Mescher 5 pts

    And, yes, that sounds like Washington as usual.  That is some kind of change they are talking about!

    miteegirl 5 pts

    Interesting group and they complement each other well.  I'm especially impressed that he's got Buffett on his team, especially since he is so conservative when it comes to the market yet has such a long track record of seeing complex effects and implications of legislation on market movement.  I've long been a fan of Warren Buffett and haven't seen anyone to match him on prudent and confident long term financial decision-making.

    It's also intriguing to see Volcker on the team, since this is familiar territory for him.  His experience with ending stagflation in the Carter years is reassuring.

    Good on Obama for including Paul O'Neill.  Talk about a maverick who spoke truth to power and paid the price.  He predicted our current budget deficit.  It must be a bitter "I told you so" to Bush.

    I'm not as big a fan of Rubin and Summers, especially since I suspect they had a role in leaning on Clinton to pass Gramm-Leach-Biliey.  However, I do like that Obama pulled them in for two reasons:  1) that he isn't looking for "yes" men/women around a table...I can imagine Rubin and Buffett/Volcker having different points of view about the amount of regulation needed for effective financial markets, 2) they both have relationships with the U.S.' financial peers in foreign countries and the International Monetery Fund needed to get assistance to get through this thing.  I can see the necessity and yet, ugh, Rubin.  

    Laura Tyson ( http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/27/news/economy/tyson... ) is also not afraid to counter Rubin and Summers, has been quite critical of the deficit and REALLY seems to have a handle on how the market changes affect the average American instead of being solely concerned about investors and the global economy.  SHE is a breath of fresh air.  I love that she is on there.

    Thanks, Lara.  This tells me a lot about Obama's management style in dealing with crisis.  Bring in a room full of smart, experienced people who don't necessarily agree with you or each other.  Get the whole picture as well as listen to the pro's and con's from people who aren't afraid to disagree with each other.  There is real bipartisan representation in that room, both politically and in their approach to financial strategies.  Nice.

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    Republicans took control of both the house and Senate in 1994.  The Clinton years didn't show a surplus until 1998 - four years later.  You could say it was the first two years of the Clinton administration with a Democrat controlled House but the House had been a Democrat majority for the 40 years prior to that, too...with the last surplus being 1969.  You'd think if it was because of all the good efforts of the Democrat controlled Congresses we'd have seen surpluses for decades.  We didn't.

    Put it this way, the only thing that stands out as different during the Clinton years was that Republicans gained control of the House for the first time in 40 years.  Admittedly, a few things could have happened to produce that surplus.  Republican reigned in spending.  The largest tax increase ever from the early years of the Clinton administration could have produced more revenue.  A combination of the two?  Or, was it that capital gains taxes were higher and intake was higher because of the dot com bubble?  It's never as simple as the charts make it out to be.

    Also, the National debt still went up over a trillion dollars during the Clinton years.  I think some people hear about the Clinton surplus, especially when they talk about "squandering the surplus", and think we paid off all our bills and set money aside somewhere.  Oh, no, no, no.  Not at all.  We may have spent less than we took in for a few years but we surely didn't pay our overdue bills.  Imagine running your credit cards to the max and then realizing you've put too much on credit so you decide it's time to live within your means and only pay cash for everything you buy.  Only you leave that large credit card balance out there and decide never to pay the bill. 

    LePlusJeune

    www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

    Laracolvin 5 pts

    Hi, all. I just found this on Politico. It's the list of Obama's participants/advisors who were present or participated by phone in the meeting today in Florida.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13606.ht... ( http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13606.ht... )

    Notions of Identity ( http://www.notionsofidentity.com )

    RightistWrongs.com 5 pts

    This is a great forum.  I love a good debate.  It's when I learn the most.  When you put out your opinions (based on what you think is well-known-fact) then someone tells you exactly where you're wrong, and they cite the source so you can see for yourself. 

    Tina Righter

    www.RightistWrongs.com ( http://www.RightistWrongs.com )

    RightistWrongs.com 5 pts

    But that was your point, no?  Your point above was that a republican controlled house's effects will be seen years after.  My point was the house & senate were democratic majority before Clinton (102nd) and when he first became pres (103rd).  Their effects were seen after - all the years of positive progress.

    Also every year of Clinton's terms, the deficit was decreased (and then the surplus increased) by about $50 billion (I think I said .5 above, as if its not confusing enough, huh?).  So every year, we spent less than we made.  No other pres' terms achieved such continuous progress.  it was continuous improvement, every year.  Those were good times in the economy.  We need it again.

    Tina Righter

    www.RightistWrongs.com ( http://www.RightistWrongs.com )

    miteegirl 5 pts

    Can I just say how proud I am of this Blogher dialogue right now?

    Seriously.

    The amazing research, the citations of sources, the civility, the respect for each others' opinions...it is outrageously heartening to read.  Top notch.

    Earlier today, I was walking and wondering why we--as citizens--often treat politics like we treat sports.  We have "our team", we don't want to hear anything bad about "our team", we sometimes act foolish in our efforts to demonstrate our loyalty and take it far, FAR too personally.

    But politics is not equal to sports.  It is much more complex.  It demands allegiance to issues and facts, not people and parties.  And the issues and parties can change and realign.

    Patriotism is not a bumper sticker or a t-shirt.  It is having the courage to stand and listen to others who may not agree with you.  To want to fight hard for the whole truth and not just what is easiest to hear.

    Someone asked earlier, "where are the patriots?"

    I say, "You are the ones you've been waiting for."

    miteegirl 5 pts

    That would be a very hard pill to swallow.  But I don't believe that corporations should have more representation than private citizens, which is the case right now.

    Banning lobbyists, taking the money of lobbyists out of campaigns and day-to-day congressional activities. That would be a start.

    Right now, anyone who calls the United States a democracy or even a Republic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic ) is wrong.

    We have a plutocracy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutocracy ), a corporatocracy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy ), an oligarchy ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oligarchy ).  A government run by corporations and the very wealthy.  This is not representative of the majority of the American people.  And this is not what we claim to be striving for.

    I'm not criticizing the free market or wealth.  I'm criticizing unlimited power.  A real representative democracy relies on checks and balances on power and information.

    miteegirl 5 pts

    The gold standard for fact checking is three independent sources.  

    You've got WaPo.  That's one.  Find me two more separate sources and we can talk about Raines :)

    miteegirl 5 pts

    Honestly.  I'm gone for, what?  3-4 hours?  And I come back to this masterpiece?

    YOU. ARE. AWESOME.

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    The Washington Post referred to Raines as an Obama economic advisor three times this year and the neither the Obama campaign or Raines ever asked for a correction - not until the McCain campaign began quoting the WaPO this week, that is. 

    LePlusJeune - proud Independent

    www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

    Denise 9 pts moderator

    Lots of links tend to get flagged as spam. Sorry about that! :-)

    ~Denise
    BlogHer Community Manager

    Flamingo House Happenings ( http://www.flamingohouse.net/ )

    Tacomamama 5 pts

    :(  Maybe an administrator can dig it up, quick?  I spent a long time writing it.

    Tacoma Mama ( http://www.tacomamama.com )

    Southerngirl 5 pts

    Mis information is a nice way of saying that this is a flat out lie.  Frank Raines has emailed the McCain campaign (Carly) and asked that they stop refering to him as an advisor to Obama since he is not now nor has he ever been.   Jim Johnson headed the VP search committee for what five minutes (ok a few days) so he is not an advisor either.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/19/itimei-ne...

    Michelle

    I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

    Tacomamama 5 pts

    That had always been my understanding of the history but I had never actually looked up the details. 

    I am definitely not an expert in bank regulation so I am learning as I go, this is pretty raw, with links, so that you all can go and look and read also. I am using some Wikipedia links and some text lifted from Wiki, (which has a license which allows this) because the authors do a good job of explanation the legislation.  If you do not trust Wiki and want to read further, they have cited original sources.

    Again, much of this is not my words, they came from Wikipedia, via a GNU Free Documentation License ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_the... ), but I have put them together from several entries into one timeline.  So, in the spirit of that license please pass this on and alter or play with it as you please, just be sure to attribute it to me and Wikipedia.

    Here are a few pieces, maybe more coming:

    - 1933 (following the 1929 economic collapse) The Glass-Steagall Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act ) of 1933 established the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Deposit_Insur... ) (FDIC) in the United States ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States ) and included banking reforms, some of which were designed to control speculation, including Regulation Q, which put a limit on the interest rates ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interest_rate ) that banks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank ) could pay, including a rate of zero on demand deposits ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demand_account ) (checking accounts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checking_accounts )).

    - 1956 the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Holding_Company_... ) is passed, preventing financial institutions from owning non-financial
    corporations. This is significant because this restriction prevents an
    ownership structure similar to Japan or Germany in which banks own the
    majority of large industrial enterprises.  It also prevents bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.  At this time, both chambers of congress have a democratic majority.

    - 1980 Congress Passes the Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act, ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depository_Institutio... ) giving the Federal Reserve ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve )
    greater control over non-member banks. Its main purpose was to force
    all banks to abide by the Fed's rules. It also allowed banks to merge.
    Its secondary purpose was to allow credit unions ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_union ) and savings and loans ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan ) to offer checkable deposits ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Checkable_deposit ). The law also removed the power of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors under the Glass-Steagall Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass-Steagall_Act ) and Regulation Q ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulation_Q ) to set the interest rates of savings accounts.  Congress at this time has a Democratic majority and Democratic president Jimmy Carter signed the bill into law, in a climate of increasing pressure for de-regulation by the right.  (But yes, Dems were definitely in the majority at the time.)

    - 1980 Ronald Reagan is elected.  Promises to fix the growing recession through supply side economics, freeing up more money for the economy through de-regulation and lower taxes. Also known as "trickle down" theory - by putting more money in the hands of companies and the wealthy, prosperity will trickle down to the middle class.

    - 1982 The  Garn-St Germain Depository Institutions Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garn-St_Germain_Depos... ) is passed, de-regulating the savings and loan industries and creating Adjustable Rate Mortgages (ARMs).  At the time this law was passed, Republicans had gained control of the Senate, although Democrats still reigned in the House of Representatives.

    -  1986-1991 - Savings and Loan Crisis.  747 Savings and Loan associations fail.  Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year
    drop from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II ).  While this is going on, the US also experienced the stock market crash of 1987.

    - 1989 the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIRREA ) is passed by a Democratic majority congress.  It established the Resolution Trust Corporation ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_Trust_Corp... ) (RTC) to close hundreds of insolvent thrifts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan ) and provided funds pay out insurance to their depositors. It moved thrift regulatory authority from the Federal Home Loan Bank Board ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Home_Loan_Ban... ) to the Office of Thrift Supervision ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Thrift_Supe... ) (OTS) (within the United States Department of the Treasury ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Departm... )) to regulate thrifts.

     - 1994 Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_Holding_Company_... ) of 1994  repeals the provisions of the Bank Holding Act of 1956 preventing interstate bank acquisitions, under certain circumstances.  At this time both branches of congress have a democratic majority, but democrats were under the gun as the house fell to the republicans that election season.

    - 1999 The Gramm Leach Blilely Act ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Ac... ) removes most of the remaining provisions of the Glass Steagal Act of 1933 and 1935, opening up competition among banks ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank ), securities ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_%28finance%2... ) companies and insurance companies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance_companies ).  The act allowed allowed commercial and investment banks to consolidate.  The justification was that individuals usually put more money into
    investments when the economy is doing well, but they put most of their
    money into savings accounts ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_account )
    when the economy turns bad. With the new Act, they would be able to do
    both 'savings' and 'investment' at the same financial institution,
    which would be able to do well in both good and bad economic times. 

    Economist Robert Kuttner ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Kuttner ) (among others) has criticized the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as contributing to the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_subprime_mortgag... ).  Economists Robert Ekelund ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ekelund ) and Mark Thornton ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Thornton ) have made similar criticisms, arguing that while "in a world regulated by a gold standard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_standard ), 100% reserve banking ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_reserve_banking ), and no FDIC ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FDIC )
    deposit insurance" the Financial Services Modernization Act would have
    made "perfect sense" as a legitimate act of deregulation, under the
    present fiat monetary system ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-based_monetary_s... ) it "amounts to corporate welfare ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_welfare ) for financial institutions and a moral hazard ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard ) that will make taxpayers pay dearly".

    The Gramm-Leach Blilely Act was passed by a congress with Republican majorities in both houses, and signed into law by a democratic president.

    Tacoma Mama ( http://www.tacomamama.com )

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    Believe me, I lived through it, and it wasn't pretty!  Mortgage rates of 21% were pretty common then.  Yikes!

    He signed the "Depository Institutions Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980"  (link - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=33...

    LePlusJeune - proud Independent

    www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

     He had a Democrat controlled House and Senate the first two years.  Starting in 1994 it became Republican.  So six years Republican controlled. Clinton ran deficits until 1998.  The five budget surpuses in the last 40 years were in 1969 (Nixon), 1998 (Clinton), 1999 (Clinton), 2000 (Clinton), 2001 (Bush).

    LePlusJeune - proud Independent

    www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

    RightistWrongs.com 5 pts

    Many agree with you LePlusJeune. We hear many people talk about Clinton coasting "Reaganomics" through his term. But I think the consistent progress throughout his entire term speaks volumes. Every year shows an additional half billion bucks improvement in the economy. Check the chart: economy deficits for presidential terms ( http://rightistwrongs.com/2008/09/17/which-politic... ) (confession: sorry, I can't help it, enginerds are addicted to graphs)

    Clinton did have a republican majority house and senate but not until later in his presidency. In the first years he had a democratic house and senate (103rd).

    The congress and senate before his term (102nd) was also majority dem. All that data is avail at senate.gov ( http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/history/one_item_... ) with links to the house stats.

    Tina Righter

    www.RightistWrongs.com ( http://www.RightistWrongs.com )

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    What about Obama advisers Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson?  Both former Fannie Mae CEO's?

    And, aside from the evidence that Fannie was cooking its books to trigger big bonuses, there's also the issue of performance. Mr. Raines's 2003 compensation was over $20 million. That's about $14 million more than the median for CEOs of very large companies. What did Mr. Raines do to deserve this giant sum? Not much. In the five years that Mr. Raines has been at the helm, Fannie's cumulative shareholder return, including reinvested dividends, has been 4% compared with the 23% achieved by the S&P financial sector. - http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109770752803244715...

    And Robert Rubins is the person who urged Clinton to sign Gramm-Leach-Bliley, is he not?

    LePlusJeune - proud Independent

    www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

    MMarquit 5 pts

    My issues with Phil Gramm, etc. have been well covered. What irks me is this about McCain's health care proposal: "He will provide a $5,000 refundable health care tax credit –
    effectively, cash – for families so they can either choose their
    employer-sponsored plan or shop around for a new one."

    You forgot to mention that this tax credit also comes with something very interesting: Employer-sponsored health care premiums will be counted as income (they aren't now). So the plan essentially mainatins the status quo. You get the credit, but first your taxable income goes up. It would be great for me, though, because I pay individual health care and do not have an employer sponsored plan. But just becuase it would benefit me, doesn't mean I think it's good for the economy as a whole.

    This Time, It's Personal ( http://www.bloggingprofessional.blogspot.com )

    Yielding Wealth ( http://www.yieldingwealth.com )

    Southerngirl 5 pts

    Here is what I can find so far on Obama's advisors.

    From Bloomberg.com  ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&am... )

    Three academics -- Austan Goolsbee ( http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/austan.goolsbee/webs... ), 37, a University of Chicago professor and columnist for The New York Times, Jeffrey Liebman ( http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Jeffrey%0ALie... ), 39, a pension and poverty expert at Harvard University, in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and David Cutler ( http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=David+Cutler&... ), 41, a Harvard health economist -- form the core of Obama's economic team

    A trio of seasoned Washington hands bolsters the academics: Karen Kornbluh ( http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Karen+Kornblu... ), policy director in Obama's Senate office; Daniel Tarullo ( http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Daniel%0ATaru... ), a professor at Georgetown University in Washington, and a former senior economic adviser in the Clinton administration; and Michael Froman ( http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Michael+Froma... ), the chief of staff for former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin ( http://search.bloomberg.com/search?q=Robert+Rubin&... ) who now works with his old boss at Citigroup Inc ( http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=C%3AUS ).

     From ABC ( http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/07/tw... )

    Bush administration veterans former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and former Securities and Exchange Commissioner William Donaldson ( http://www.sec.gov/about/commissioner/donaldson.ht... ) will join former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, and more traditionally Democratic economic advisers such as former Clinton Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, billionaire liberal Warren Buffett, AFL-CIO President John Sweeney, and SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger.

    None of this is from within the last few monts so it it may have changed.

    Michelle

    I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

    RightistWrongs.com 5 pts

    Good point. Since we have a democratic congress, it would go to reason that a democratic president would be more effective right now. But I think we really need a non-partisan system (not a bi-partisan) and get back to ethics and away from lobbyist $$$.

    But how do you take the politics out of politics?

    Tina Righter

    www.RightistWrongs.com ( http://www.RightistWrongs.com )

    RightistWrongs.com 5 pts

    Just from the media, I know much more about McCains economic advisors (Fiorina and the "look at the miracle of McCain's BlackBerry-guy) and can't think of the name of one of Obama's.  Uh oh, another research project...

    Tina Righter

    www.RightistWrongs.com ( http://www.RightistWrongs.com )

    miteegirl 5 pts

    and I think that Clinton was very, VERY wrong not to veto the Bill.  One of the Fortune 500 companies I worked for before 1999 specialized in financial leasing deals and complex financial asset management.  Although I wasn't frontline for them, I still knew enough at the time about what was going on that taking down the barrier was a really bad idea.  It was talked about quite frequently around the office water cooler.

    I can't seem to get accurate data about the "on the ground" interactions that spurred the Conference Report vote.  Or whether Clinton had ever intended to veto the bill.  If he did not, then my point stands.  No use for Biden to grandstand against a done deal when you can use reciprocity later.  

    I am concerned about McCain's economic advisors, including Phil Gramm.  I want to know more about Obama's economic advisors.  Anyone have the scoop?  Because THOSE are the people who will represent the candidates' positions on economic policy going forward.

    anotherjen 5 pts

    Don't forget that it's not just the President that decides the direction of the economy.  WHile it's important (critical really) that the president has an economic plan (links to the two plans here: http://www.nextrichgirl.com/2008/09/the-candidates... can help save the economy, it's the Congress that has the power to levy taxes according to that little thing called the Constitution.  That's why the votes listed above had such power.  The President can veto new taxes or try to push legislation on taxes through Congress, but when it comes down to it, you need to have the votes in Congress.  That's how Bush Senior got stuck raising taxes (at least the easy version of the story), even after his emphatic "read my lips: No new taxes" speech.

    http://www.NextRichGirl.com ( http://www.nextrichgirl.com/ )

    RightistWrongs.com 5 pts

    Leplusjeune's assertion above is correct. The vote that counts on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act is the one on the final bill that was signed into law, vote 354. Votes on previous versions of the bill (vote 105) helped it get to the final stages. What’s important about vote 345 is that it made this bill “veto-proof” (because the congressional vote was also over 2/3s) and Clinton HAD to sign it into law. A Conference Committee is the way we resolve issues when the Senate and the House pass differing bills. You can learn more about Conference votes here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congres... ).

    Biden voted yes.
    McCain didn’t vote (but had voted yes on the previous version).

    It is widely believed that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act passed in 1999, allowed the subprime mortgage crisis to happen, leading to the current problems we’re experiencing with the massive buy-outs.

    Quicky history (lots missing, but this is what I think is important): 1929 Collapse of the US stock Market leads to worldwide Great Depression. 1933 Failure of the US Banking System & Glass-Steagall Act put in place. This introduced FDIC and was supposed to control speculation by keeping commercial banks separate from investment banks. 1980s & 90s saw the Savings & Loan Crisis where 750 S&Ls failed and the Government bailed them out to the tune of $160 billion. This set a very bad precedent. 1999 Republicans introduce the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act to repeal some of Glass-Steagall, the protections put in place to protect us from another depression. HUGE mergers of Banks and Investment Banks happen creating HUGE companies with big liability. Some economists predicted even then, that the mess we are experiencing today would result.

    So whose fault is it? Republicans introduced the bill but everyone approved it. The economy was great at the time and we got careless. McCain originally voted for it and Biden against but in the final vote, Biden (almost everyone) voted for it. I don’t think there’s a good argument for blame to a particular party but maybe someone else has an angle... I'll go listen to the podcast

    Tina Righter

    www.RightistWrongs.com ( http://www.RightistWrongs.com )

    miteegirl 5 pts

    Gramm-Leach-Biley had already been approved in both houses from that May vote.  The only formality left was for language to be amended by the conferees (representatives from both the House and Senate).

    The 4 November vote was not a vote on the merits of the bill.  It was a vote on the language of the bill.  My impression is that the disagreements over the final language were related to Consumer Privacy Protections.

    Voting against the Conference Report stonewalls a bill, but it doesn't kill it.  This bill was already stonewalled by Democrats who disagreed with it from May through November. Congress was getting ready for their holiday break, something final had to be decided.

    Continued stonewalling would have destroyed any expectation of reciprocity in the future for bills that the Democrats were supporting. That is why Conference Reports are rarely declined if they have already been passed by the majority.

    How does reciprocity work in Congress?  The relationships between congressional representatives are what gets legislation pushed through the legislative branch.  It's often a case of "lose the battle, win the war" because of the complexity of the process and the number of votes required. 

    If I am a Senator and I know a bill is already a done deal because, after the votes on the merits of the bill, I am in the minority, I might vote "yea" to the Conference in order to be able to say to someone later, "Hey, remember that time that I didn't stonewall your legislation?  Well, you need to reciprocate and not stonewall mine."  So, I'll agree to let this bill, which has already passed, keep going.  But remember that when I am coming to you later asking you not to stonewall MY bill.

    Welcome to Capitol Hill 101. :)

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    That's exactly what I was looking for.  I have a podcast subscription to Fresh Air.  I missed this one. Scary stuff, I might add.

    LePlusJeune - proud Independent

    www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

    miteegirl 5 pts

    Wallstreet Meltdown > You and Me. ( http://www.blogher.com/whats-next-u-s-economy-dow-... )

    It's especially important that you listen to the audio piece from Michael Greenberger which is linked in that post.  That is really the meatiest explanation.

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    Tina, Clinton did have a Republican majority controlled House and Senate.  He didn't balance the budget all by his lonesome. 

    Sometimes the ramifications from legislation that passes through one administration doesn't show up until the following administration so those kinds of charts and assumptions are misleading.

    LePlusJeune - proud Independent

    www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net )

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    Can anyone adequately explain how Gramm-Leach-Bliley caused this current mess?  Or, are we just being spoon fed another round of political posturing. Inquiring minds want to know. Seriously. 

    LePlusJeune - Proud Independent

    www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    See my reply above pertaining to this particular conference. 

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    You are right to understand the difference between a small business that employs people and one that doesn't.  My own employs several people.  Our operating budget is tight and the slightest change could send people to the unemployment line, especially, in this economy.  The problem, though, is that the tax code is never that friendly where it can discern differences. 

    Also, I understand that Obama's plan provides for health insurance deductions but someone is going to have to make up the tax difference for that deduction.  Who do you think it'll be?  Health insurance is pre-tax income now.  Additionally, employer health insurance payments for employees are 100% operating expense deductions now.  And that 'capital gains' deduction for small business Obama keeps talking about...how many small businesses pay capital gains?  Hardly any. 

    I don't know, it all seems like a lot of pie in the sky fluff talk to me.  Granted, I get that impression from both sides.  I have no dog in this fight, I'm an Independent.

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    I guess that depends on how a person looks at the purpose of a 'conference report'. 

     It is normal for a senator to vote 'nay' for a piece of proposed legislation until it comes back from the House renegotiated and with extras added in, no?  In this case, Gramm-Leach-Bliley came back with all sorts of add-ons, like a proposal for minted commemorative astronaut coins . I looked over the conference report online at the link I gave you and it's unbelievable what was added in. It was then that Biden voted for it.  He could have voted nay the second time around.  Why didn't he?  Some senators did.  Sure, it wouldn't have made a difference because the bill passed with a 2/3 majority, but still, if he was so against it what about principle?

    miteegirl 5 pts

    The bill passed during Record Vote No. 105 with Biden voting "no" and McCain voting "yes".

    The links you present here are related to the subsequent "conference report" on the differences between the House and Senate on the amendments to the bill.  THAT was Record Vote No. 354.

    So, please check Record Vote No 105 ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li... ) for the actual vote on Gramm-Leach-Biley.

    miteegirl 5 pts

    The vote taken where Gramm-Leach-Biley passed the Senate was Record Vote No: 105. ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li... )  This is where Biden voted "no" and McCain voted "yes".

    The other vote you are referring to (Record Vote No: 354) is the Conference Report ( http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li... ) vote.   The Conference Report is made when a Bill passes one Chamber with AMENDMENTS that are unacceptable to the other.  The Chamber that disagrees with the Amendments asks for a "conference". It seems that "from 1996 through 2000, the Senate had no limit on the scope of conference reports, and some argued that the majority abused the power of conference committees. ( http://thomas.loc.gov/home/enactment/confcomm.html )"  So, researching this particular conference is going to take me longer than I expected as I have to pull documents that are not easily accessible online.

    However, my point is that the bill was passed in Record Vote No: 105.  Not 354.

    miteegirl 5 pts

    Sounds like Mom to Gio's accountant is saying it is after business expenses are deducted, but let's be clear about the different set-ups for a small business.

    I have a small business.  It is an LLC with two partners.  We are consultants.  We don't manufacture goods, so we have no raw materials costs.  I have an office in my house. We have relatively limited operating costs and limited capital investment.  We are a knowledge business with some contractor costs, some business development costs and some tech costs.

    My neighbor down the street runs a little restaurant.  She has 3 full time employees and 5 part time employees.  She has to purchase food, equipment, materials.  She has a kitchen and dining space, has to pay for more insurance than I do, has higher operating costs, etc.

    Perhaps we both take in the same amount of gross income per year.  That doesn't change the fact the we are very, VERY different small businesses.  And that the net income that we draw out of our businesses is very different and that it should be taxed differently.

    So, when we generalize and talk about how either candidate wants to treat small business, it would help to hear what KIND of small business is being discussed.  

    If you or I are a one-person small business and filing under the personal income tax schedule, I have no problem with you or I paying more if your net income after business deductions is higher than $200,000 if you are single or $250,000 if you are married.  

    Why?  Because in the case of my small business, I am not employing people thereby putting people to work and generating more benefits for the community.  I am operating only slightly differently than I was when I was a highly paid consultant in the Fortune 500.  With the benefits that I get to set my own hours, just have clients instead of a client AND a boss, and have less corporate red tape to wade through.  My only BIG setback having my type of small business is the cycles (I don't make an every two weeks paycheck) and having to pay my own large health insurance costs.  Which Obama-Biden is proposing I would get tax breaks on under their plan.

    More about McCain's misleading statements about Obama's treatment of small businesses at Factcheck.org. ( http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mccains_sm... )

    miteegirl 5 pts

    My understanding is that S-Corps are taxed like partnerships are taxed for the sake of federal taxes.  But their liability is treated like an LLC?  (I am not a tax attorney.)  so, "while an S corporation is not taxed on its profits, the owners of an S corporation are taxed on their proportional shares of the S corporation's profits."

    This sounds complicated enough that it would best be answered by a CPA or an attorney, IMHO.  I imagine that Blogher has to have one around here somewhere, yes?

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    That is only the first rollcall vote.  Biden did in fact vote for it in the Senate after the House revised it.  Version dated Nov 4, 1999

     Here are links to the Congressional website:

    http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li...

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s106...

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s199...

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    Can someone explain how this is a possible explanation of the current credit mess?  I know it's being touted all over the net but have not seen concrete evidence.  Almost everyone in both the House and Senate signed approval of it (both Democrats and Republicans including Joe Biden - http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_li... and Bill Clinton signed it into law. 

    The argument using this against McCain should also apply to Biden.

    Mom to Gio 5 pts

    If you have an LLC, then it is your after expense income, not your gross recipts.

    Still hoping that Mitteegirl and Tacoma Mama will help with my questions on de-regulation a la Phil Gramm. 

    Leplusjeune 5 pts

    I'd like a solid answer to this also:

     "Small-business owners, many of whom bring in just over $250,000 and file under the personal income tax schedule, would be hit by Obama’s tax increases."

    It is my understanding that it is $250 gross receipts.  Crazy, isn't it?

    Your fellow small business owner

    Leplusjeune

    www.remodelle.net ( http://www.remodelle.net/ )

    Liz Rizzo 5 pts

    "Small-business owners, many of whom bring in just over $250,000 and file under the personal income tax schedule, would be hit by Obama’s tax increases."

    As a small-business owner, I was curious if you are referring to owners with $250K profit or $250 gross receipts. Because if you bring in $250K gross, and then you hit it with all of your expenses, are you "hit" by the Obama plan?

    Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

    I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

    Mom to Gio 5 pts

    Thanks for the explanation.  Tacoma Mama and Miteegirl, can you help explain some things to me, because you both seem to have a better grasp and more historical context.

    Is it my imagination, or did the de-regulation in the Reagan years contribute to the Savings and Loan crisis, and to the new phenomenon of exorbitant CEO salaries? Prior to 1980, it seemed that the disparity in income from middle management, upper management and the executive suite was not as wide, am I remembering this correctly?

    When did we start seeing so many mulit-millionaires with sweet stock deals that insulated them from real people? Wasn't it a by product of de-regulation? 

    I guess what I'm looking for is a sort of tutorial and timeline  that shows cause and effect.  It seems that the regulations helped protect consumers and "the little guys" from the greed and instant gratification of the executive teams in various corporations, who seemed to be going for the quick and exorbitant payouts at the expense of worker's pensions, salaries and health care benefits.

    Can either or both of you shed some light here. 

    I think that when we forget our history, we're doomed to repeat it....

    Thanks, 

    Tacomamama 5 pts

    Perhaps you can help me.  I went over his plan ( http://www.blogher.com/come-sit-my-kitchen-table-p... ) (as posted on the McCain website) line by line and have been trying to discuss it with a McCain supporter since yesterday morning.  Unfortunately, everyone seems to be very busy.

    Here are the issues which concern me most:

    Senator McCain says he will be changing labor laws to allow for more "flexible" hours.  Does this mean he wants to change overtime and other wage and hour laws, and how so?  My husband already works six days a week, so that kind of talk makes me a little nervous.
    You mention the electric car battery prize.   I noticed that this project has the same name (The Lexington Project) as the 2 billion dollars Senator McCain wants us to put toward "clean coal" research.   So, do we not get the sustainable energy research without 2 billion dollars for coal interests?  Is that why Obama is against it? 
    Senator McCain's site talks about his plan to help homeowners.  I noticed, though, that there's a lot of language about being "deserving" and "well-meaning" and then I noticed that only those who can "prove credit worthiness at the time of the original loan" will be eligible.  So, the majority of families recieving sub prime loans probably won't qualify.  Is that why he expects the plan will only help about 400,000 home owners, when 2 million (and rising) are in danger of foreclosure?
    Senator McCain's site talks about improved opportunities for trade by "encouraging the growth of even more jobs in this sector through more free trade agreements which give American firms more access to sell our goods and services abroad."  That sounds to me like more agreements like CAFTA and NAFTA which would cost Americans more jobs.  Is that not what he means?
    Senator McCain's site talks about fixing the budget deficit.  His chief suggestion for how to go about this is to cut Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security.  Is that a good idea?  Because our population is aging rapidly and Gen X and Gen Y'ers such as myself can't afford to support them all.  We really are going to need those programs, aren't we?  How can the private sector possibly provide the same safety net in the current economy?
    Another way in which the senator proposes to fix the deficit is "A one-year spending pause. Freeze non-defense, non-veterans discretionary spending for a year and use those savings for deficit reduction." That seems like a bad idea to me, because when I stop paying my bills usually I have a lot more next month.  We have a lot of infrastructure problems right now, and with my kids in public school I really don't like talk of cutting all government spending.  What will happen if we have another terrible hurricane season?
    Well, I had a few more questions, but those are my major concerns.  If you'd like more details including links back to the original sources, stop by my post from  yesterday. ( http://www.blogher.com/come-sit-my-kitchen-table-p... )  I really want to have a conversation about McCain's economic plan and I'm waiting to hear from one of his supporters.

    Tacoma Mama ( http://www.tacomamama.com )

    RightistWrongs.com 5 pts

    Wow Miteegirl, that really is a neat application. I clicked on all the salaries to get a feel for it. I like when it tells you your taxcut and then tells you in LOUD RED that McCain would tax you $450 more.

    try it

    Tina Righter

    www.RightistWrongs.com ( http://www.RightistWrongs.com )