September 27, 2008
Elaine Meinel Supkis
I spent 8 hours with no breaks, observing the US House as it tried to deal with the complete collapse of the entire US banking system. While debating the $700 Billion Bank Bail Out Bill, I was astounded at the lack of knowledge, the shallow discussions, the stone-walling, the wailing of Gollum Sachs complaining about not sleeping, but no discussion as to how Congress enabled and assisted in this collapse. So here is a comprehensive article about just ONE aspect of this historic banking disaster: the death of the Glass-Steagall Act and how it enabled the banking lending bubble.
Time to examine the bill from Congress that helped to recreate the toxic trusts of the Roaring Twenties:
The bills were introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) and Thomas Bliley (R-VA). The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote largely along party lines with Republican support in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. Democrats agreed to support the bill only after Republicans agreed to strengthen provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act and address certain privacy concerns.
The final bipartisan bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
The banking industry had been seeking the repeal of Glass-Steagall since at least the 1980s. In 1987 the Congressional Research Service prepared a report which explored the case for preserving Glass-Steagall and the case against preserving the act.
Many of the largest banks, brokerages, and insurance companies desired the Act at the time. 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 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.
The Gramm-Leach bill was a 100% GOP affair. Many commentators on the right would like to make this affair Bill Clinton's responsibility. The bipartisan nature of the vote for this bill definitely puts a lot of responsibility on both parties. But the initiative for the impetus behind this and the bankruptcy bill lies within the GOP. A number of Democrats desired this, too. But nearly the entire GOP desperately wanted these bills.
For example, in the Senate, only one Democrat voted for the bill. All Republicans but 2 voted for it. Only one of the two didn't vote at all, the other voted 'Present.' 79% of the House voted because of the addition of provisions that would encourage these new-fangled financial institutions to lend to inner city neighborhoods. The House alterations to this terrible bill gave the GOP a veto-proof majority.
Continued>>>
http://elainemeinelsupkis.typepad.com/money_matters/2008/09/elaine-meinel-8.html