C&L Welcomes Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the Financial Services Committee
By Howie Klein Wednesday Apr 08, 2009 11:00am
Having watched-- with a great deal of pride-- Barney Frank's congressional career for nearly 3 decades, it's with a real sense of awe that John and I are hosting him live today at Crooks and Liars. I hope you'll join us in the live comments forum to get to know the man who Roll Call rated the 7th most powerful member of the House, the man who Out just named the 5th most powerful gay person in America, and who is surely rated by Republican members in Congress as the person they least want to tangle with.
In fact the Chairman's unflappability gave me the idea of marrying his images to a classic Tom Petty song, "I Won't Back Down," something he has earned the reputation for never doing. Please enjoy the music, but also enjoy the Chairman looking very much like he's about to give Fox-thug Bill O'Reilly a coronary as Bill-O the Clown's attempts to ambush and bully him fall dismally flat. Last month when a barely literate obstructionist Missouri Congressman with a very fancy toupee attempted to read a staffer's talking points blaming the Bush-Republican economic meltdown on Barney, the Chairman let loose with a rebuttal that Todd Akin is probably still puzzling over and trying to comprehend. When congressional staffers vote in the semi-annual Washingtonian poll, somehow Todd Akin doesn't get mentioned but the Chairman always comes in at the #1 brainiest, the #1 funniest and always in the top 3 hardest working and top 3 most eloquent.
The Almanac of American Politics describes every member of Congress, They go on and on about Barney but before we start our conversation with the chairman, I thought I'd share a few lines with you:
In the House, Frank quickly gained a reputation as one of the smartest talkers and best debaters in the chamber-- maybe one of the best of all time. Frank listens to others’ arguments and engages them in his inimitable rapid-fire delivery... He is admired even by Republicans for his intellectual rigor and honesty; at the same time he is a wily political operator. He does not profess to be a political theoretician, though few in the House exceed him as such.
(h/t Heather)
Login or Register to post comments.
Chairman Frank, we're impressed with how you've been handling the work that's being done on the financial meltdown at the Financial Services Committee. Before we get into the specifics of that though, I wanted to ask you a more personal question. At what point in your life-- if there was a point-- did you decide you had to stand up strongly to bullies. Was that something that happened in childhood. Or were you always so dogged? It strikes me as interesting that although you don't back down, many congressional Republicans seem to respect and admire you and, at least, vote for you as the House's smartest and funniest member.
I went to public schools in an industrial urban area as a double minority – gay and Jewish (the first was secret; the second wasn’t). Given that, I learned early that I would occasionally run into hostility and it was important to stand up to it, because otherwise you would encourage it. But to be honest, my instincts to fight back when attacked is not purely strategic in motivation. I just can’t conceive of letting someone take swing at me and not hitting back.
Representative Frank:
Do you believe that the newest report on TARP from Elizabeth Warren's Congressional Oversight Panel warrants a hearing by Congress into the lack of transparency and accountability in ALL the bailouts so far?
Why or why not?
We have been working continuously to improve oversight. We recently sent to the President’s desk a bill enhancing the authority of the Inspector General as he requested and we are working with the GAO to increase their legal right to inquire into the workings of the Federal Reserve where they are involved in the TARP program. In line with this we will be working to support the transparency and oversight recommendations of the oversight panel and that will include holding a hearing. At this point, when we return from recess on April 20th, the Committee calendar is filled with two important legislative initiatives – a bill to protect consumers against abuse by credit card companies and a bill to restrict irresponsible subprime lending. These are bills that we passed in 2007 when the Democrats first took the Congressional majority, but which could not pass the Senate because of the threat of unbreakable filibuster. With the new margin in the Senate I am optimistic that these can become law this year. We will be able to take up the oversight panel’s recommendations sometime in the first part of May, once we have completed work in Committee on these two important bills.
Representative Frank:
Does "will be able to take up the oversight pane's recommendations" mean "will take up the oversight pane's recommendations"?
Some of are concerned that if S&L regulator Bill Black's view that the current crisis is driven by fraud is correct, then we, the taxpayers, are handing trillions of dollars over to thieves, who should be prosecuted and not rewarded.
Can we look for hearings into these matters sooner rather than later, with a rationale that otherwise trust in the marketplace cannot be restored?
Thanks again!
Congressman Frank, thanks, this answers one of my questions further down, but I share Lambert's concerns per Bill Black's take, if you get a chance to follow up on this.
Thank you so much for spending some time with us. We always remember who can hang.
My question to you is, do you think that legislation leading to a national health care program is really feasible in THIS Congress, despite the stranglehold insurance companies seem to have on legislators? Do you think such a development might happen during this current administration?
Thanks again. Peace.
Katie Beyers
KC, MO
I hope so. And there is clearly no downside to trying. One improvement is that the business community which fought health care reform under President Clinton finally understands that it is important economically as well as socially. For example, if we had a rational health care system in this country in which health care was not given primarily through jobs, General Motors would be a lot better off – as would its workers. So the answer is I am not sure we will win, but I am sure there is no fight that is more worth making in this Congress.
Again, thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Frank, great answer. You do us proud Sir.
(For some definition of "rational" *)
* HR 676...
I'm so glad you could join us on C&L today, Chairman Frank. My readers will have many questions for you to answer and I want to thank you for stepping up.
Remember you (and your mom) from back in the early 80's when I was a student at Brandeis. She was such a delight.
What do you think is the greatest misconception concerning the bailout by the media and therefore the public at large?
Do you agree with Paul Krugman that this recovery may take way longer than we hope? There are some real estate indicators that appear to be recovering in certain markets....
Thank you for your generous reference to my mother. She was a great fighter for social justice. As a leader of elderly groups who insisted that older people commit to the full agenda of economic fairness and not simply focus on elderly related issues. I’ve missed her since she died in 2005 and it was particularly poignant to me that she wasn’t around to hear Dick Cheney single me out for an attack in his first post Vice Presidential press conference. She would have kvelled (for a translation ask somebody at the nearest Seder). As to your question: the biggest misconception is the view that the 700 billion will be entirely given away and that none of it will be recovered. I am optimistic that most of it will be repaid in the form of dividends and principal repayments. We have in the first six months received 29 billion in dividends and the outstanding loans are still to be repaid. I’m particularly proud that an increasing number of banks are complaining that the restrictions we have imposed on their compensation, entertainment, and requirements to lend are so onerous that they want to give the money back. In fact, in the economic stimulus bill that passed I succeeded in putting in language that makes it easy for them to repay the money so that when they complain about these restrictions I tell them they can avoid them by paying us back. I believe well over 10% of the 700 billion will be recovered well before the first year of the program, and I believe that we will ultimately recover at least 80% of it. And maybe even make a small profit.
I never looked at it that way. Nice play Chairman.
I don't really have a question at this time, but I just want you to know, how much you and your work is appreciated.
petty mission of trying to sandbag freshman Democrats to be able to make them into videos and try to embarrass them? That's a Lee Atwater form of politics the GOP is so fond of.
The effort to embarrass freshman Democrats is a major occupation of the House Republicans because it fills a vacuum – the vacuum created by their unwillingness and ideologically rooted inability to participate in making constructive policy. And it’s not just freshman Democrats they are trying to trap. I spoke at the Kennedy School at Harvard on Monday night and a conservative law student asked me a question, as if it was his spontaneous idea, which was in fact a right wing talking point – I had been asked exactly the same oddly worded question in exactly that form by Members of the Republican Congressional hit squad the week before. This was either a remarkable coincidence or part of an effort to get me to pull a George Allen. By the way, the question was, Am I responsible for the subprime crisis because it happened on my watch? I.E. after I became Chairman on January 31st, 2007. My response was that I did not feel responsible because once I was the Chairman the House passed tough legislation to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; to ban irresponsible subprime loans; to put restraints on runaway executive compensation; and to create a code of unfair and deceptive practices to be used in restraining banks. This part of my answer was generally omitted when the right wing propaganda machine ran excerpts. The entire interchange will soon be available and we will post the link at www.house.gov/frank.
just watched it on Youtube, it was definitely a hit job.
Call them out and get it on the record. Only way.
Chairman, I have another question for you. We seem to be doing a dance around a word no one likes: "nationalization." Is there some kind of strategy to just slip into bank nationalization slowly, as seems to be happening now, even though that will be far more costly and painful than just getting it over with and nationalizing the damn banks in one fell swoop?
There are two mistakes that can be made regarding the nationalization of banks. One would be to absolutely rule it out in all cases, but the other is to apply it either prematurely or too inclusively – or some combination of both. Unlike European nations, we have thousands of banks, of various sizes and records. It’s important to note that the overwhelming majority of community banks – small locally oriented banks – have been unfairly lumped in with a handful of larger institutions who have been guilty of some irresponsibility and have made some serious mistakes. It may be that the current approach taken by President Obama will fall short with regard to one or more very large banks. But it would be a mistake not to try what the President is supporting. And I do not believe this effort will make an ultimate decision to nationalize any bank – should that prove necessary which I hope it will not.
Banks can make a lot of money, would nationalizing them be such a bad idea. Isn't it a good investment for public funds.
but isn't it also the case that the problems were caused by, and are concentrated in, just a few big banks?
So, nobody's talking about running thousand of banks.
While we're at it, why don't we turn the banks into regulated public utilities, so people can get loans for houses and cars and college without worrying that the banksters are going to take it all to the track and lose it on the ponies?
My question is about civil rights in this country. Will we soon see an end to massive NSL usage, warrantless wiretapping, retroactive immunity for telecoms, data sweeping, and "free-speech" zones?
I hope this will be the case. The Obama administration is clearly an improvement on its predecessor in this regard, although it would be hard not to be. I will be pressing for them to get rid of everything you mentioned with one exception where I am afraid it is too late legally. I voted against retroactive immunity for the telecomm companies, but it did pass both Houses and get signed into law and I do not think that from a Constitutional standpoint it can be rescinded.
Not to try to monopolize your time, but if it can be too late to do something legally, is there a statute of limitations on such things? And does a certain length of time have to pass before new bills and resolutions are raised to over-turn previous acts?
I have wondered - although the government has removed the ability to file civil suit against an industry before, it has typically done so while also making a second option available.
Doesn't the blanket immunity to civil suit, *without* making another avenue available, constitute a violation the "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." clause of the 1st amendment? Functionally, that clause closed the standard avenue for redress of grievances without opening any suitable alternative.
If that is not a violation of that clause, it seems to me that clause of the 1st amendment is functionally empty. What alternate interpretation of that clause is available?
Jonnan
How long until we'll see the break-up the financial institutions that became "too big to fail"? Is there a time-line, or must there be sufficient solvency before such a process can begin?
A quick question. With the FDIC fund suffering serious liquidity issues due to the extension of public funds to uninsured private entities, and the FDIC and the Federal Reserve now seeking increases in their cap levels from the Treasury Dept.; has there been discussion about charging some form of insurance premium to non public entities, similar to the premiums paid by commercial banks, and if so in what direction is the discussion leaning?
I hope his favorite lobbyist gets indicted! ;o)
your questions addressed as well, Liberal AND Proud! Maybe further down the thread I go? :-/
There are a number of issues of accountability that thus far nobody early in this administration seems to have even started tackling. The ones that come to mind are 1) the issue of government sanctioned torture in the so-called Global War on Terror 2) illegal wiretapping, which is not only a breach of the FISA statute, but of the fourth amendment as well and 3) the politicization of the DoJ during the Obama administration. On that last one, we've not only seen no movement in a positive direction, but seem to be sliding backwards. The execrable Mary Beth Buchanan still holds sway as the US Attorney for western Pennsylvania. The prosecutors who convicted Ted Stevens are now under investigation themselves, where no similar action has been taken in the Don Siegelman case. It's like the Republicans were still in charge.
Action on any of these issues could be coming from the White House, Congress, or the new Attorney General, Eric Holder; but none seem to have the stomach for it.
Can we hope to see some progress on these fronts in the future?
For all of the many, many laws the Bushies broke while in office. Furthermore, I don't believe that we as a nation can move forward without some very real, tangible consequences.
Why did Congress exempt Credit Default Swaps from State Gaming Laws in 2000?
And why don't we get rid of that legislation, too?
I'm a little disturbed at the number of dyed-in-the-wool neo-liberals running the president's banking policy. What can you do to bring more progressive, non-"Third Way" economists (I'm thinking of James Galbraith, specifically) into the discourse (I thought the Senate Banking committee hearing with DeLong and Galbraith was good, yet I noticed that it was sparsely attended)?
I want to know where you stand on an inclusive ENDA bill? I won't deny that I was furious last year when you and the HRC came out in support of a non inclusive bill. Isn't my life difficult enough without my supposed "allies" throwing me under the bus at the slightest sign of resistence?
I strongly support a fully inclusive ENDA bill (for those not fully up on this acronym, it means a bill banning discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation or gender identity.) You are mistaken in asserting that we acted last year “at the slightest sign of resistance”. The Democratic Congressional leadership had every intention of passing a bill in 2007 and only when it became clear there was no way to get the votes to pass it in that Congress did we alter our strategy. And part of our problem was that the lobbying from the transgender community was based on the assumption that a few Congressional leaders could compel other Members to vote for it. So that virtually no grassroots lobbying was done with the bulk of the Members. We also realized that ignorance – literal ignorance – was part of our problem. We have done several things to overcome this which make me much more optimistic about an inclusive bill this year. First, over the objection of many in the transgender community we had a hearing specifically on this subject. It was very helpful in getting Members of the Education and Labor Committee to understand this problem. Second, I am pleased that we now have a broad coalition including transgender men and women engaged in systematic grassroots lobbying. Finally, we have 21 more Democrats in the House, which will translate of a net gain of about 15 votes for transgender inclusion. Not every Democrat supported us on this matter, but nearly every Republican opposed us. So the higher the percentage of Democrats the better we do.
I'm still a fan but this makes me much mre comfortable cheering for you.
My question is about the bill introduced into the House to allow for outrageously high interest rates on payday loans.
As someone who lives in a poor community in the Central Valley of California, and has seen people go through the ugly cycle of trying to meet the demands of payday loan contracts just to eat throughout the month, is there anything I (and everyone else) can do to help stop this from passing and causing more suffering?
Thank you! :)
Annaleigh Watts
Delano, California
the answer also. Thankfully I live in a state where those places are against the law but the signs begin at the border for those places and they accept people from my state.
Thank you for this opportunity Mr. Chairman
How can we convince republicans that they have lost the elections, and they have to live with it and move on
I am a strong supporter of the rights of Unions, so I am a little hesitant about answering this because it means I would be working out of classification – this is more about therapy than about politics. But there is one political response: the dominant faction in the Congress today among Republicans, especially in the House, incredibly believes that they lost in part because George Bush went too far to the left. The one thing that will give the reasonable forces within the Republican Party the leverage they need to change things is a Republican defeat in the 2010 Congressional elections. That is, only when they are confronted with the need to survive is reality likely to win out.
That is a stunning statement coming from someone who interacts with these people on a day to day basis. I don't question it, in fact most of us have know it all along, but to have it confirmed so nakedly is kind of shocking.
we all know that they're nuts and cannot get anyone to vote for them unless they have some kind of fear card to play, lol
Hi, Barney: your former Medfield constituent, David Stephenson, from Stephenson Strategies (& Stephenson Blogs on Homeland Security 2.0)
Writing a a book called "Democratizing Data," (the new US CIO was to be my co-author until he had to drop out because of his new post) & in my research came across approach really hope you'll impose as part of any future TARP spending or other packages that I think could avoid a recurrence of this mess.
The Dutch Taxonomy Project allows companies to file a single data file with the gov., instead of multiple reports.It can simultaneously reduce companies' reporting costs by 25%, so they like it, while it can also allow multiple agencies to all look @ a given bank's records simultaneously, improving the quality of regulation, so it's a win-win.
Could even -- & I think should -- use to force them to do REAL-TIME reports whenever the money is spent, not wait for quarterly ones.. Here's an interview I did on it:
I wondered if we're tracking the stimulus money online why banks and other companies can't use technology to report in a more timely manner how their bailouts are going....
Using the XBRL system that the Dutch Taxonomy Project's based on, there's no reason why the reporting couldn't be INSTANT -- & it could and should be released not just to the Banking Committee & Treasury, but publicly as well. All totally feasible.
I'm not sure that XBRL, a "Business Reporting Language," is capable of delivering enough information to let the people make an informed judgment. For one thing, the stimulus money goes, in large part, to states and localities, so I would question whether XBRL would provide an adequate representation. Second, even in the business arena, would the XBRL ontology be capable of representing, say, accounting control fraud? I doubt it.
baby jesus loves Barney Frank and his lexicon
Will we have anything like the Pecora hearings over what caused the massive bank failures, with subpoena powers, and the possibility that charges will be filed?
I've never seen him treat a Republican politician in that manner before...And if he sends Jesse Watters ambush camera crew out to sandbag you, please feel free to use my guide...
The Complete Guide on How to Deal with Bill O'Reilly's Ambush Producers
First let me thank you for providing a shimmer of light during the dark days of he who shall not be mentioned.
You are a fearless chop buster, and you never take any guff from the bullies in the mainstream corporate media. You have true grit!!
Personally I feel we are on the precipice of a great and noble future for humanity if, we collectively learn our mistakes thus far in the "modern" world.
We have to usher in a new 'ism' of sustainability and rational common sense, if we as a species are going to be able to look back 100 years from now.
Let me ask...
How do you figure we will be able to unite all of our wasted threads of energy, commerce, government, under the banner of sustainability?
(Granted the Republicans are operating on fumes, and they literally have no ground to run on, much less stand-- How do you also think we could go about these things with out allowing them anything solid to stand on?)
Thank you for everything... keep on keeping on.
Congressman Frank, thanks for being here. I don't know if you've read Simon Johnson's piece for The Atlantic yet, but it articulated many concerns I and others have. Economic recovery might not be possible if all the current Wall Street oligarchs remain in power and the system is one of private profit and public risk. Non-bailout companies are a different matter, but for the insolvent banks, why go more the successful Swedish route of temporary nationalization, receivership, breaking them up, and so on? Even when measures are implemented to protect the taxpayer, it seems there's always an exemption and no real check on bailout CEOs trying to exploit the situation, most recently with the toxic assets plan and accounting changes. I don't envy Geithner, but it seems he and Larry Summers are far too wedded to protecting specific people and institutions versus the financial system, the economy as a whole, and average citizens. Wealth and power could wind up being even more concentrated with the same people who created this mess in the first place and have shown repeatedly that they cannot be trusted to do the right thing on their own – and all without a recovery. It seems both unpatriotic and like a hostage situation. I'd feel better if Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and Simon Johnson were being heeded much more.
What safeguards are there for the average citizen? Where, if at all, are the oligarchs being confronted and not getting their way, all for the sake of a more effective recovery? Thanks.
This is an important point Batocchio makes here - that the credit crisis is perforce a crisis of trust as well.
How can the American public, let alone the international financial community, be expected to put their trust in US banks if the same pirates are allowed to occupy the quarterdeck and man the helm?
(OK, I may have gotten carried away with the pirate analogy.) ;-)
William Black, as a senior regulator during the S&L crisis, pointed out many things in his interview with Bill Moyer that Congress could do to change the direction our economy is headed. Why hasn't Congress insisted on a independent special prosecutor to investigate what went wrong? Why are the people that caused the crisis still running the show and receiving huge bonuses for ruining their companies and wasting taxpayer money?
Black's concerns do need to be elevated (Willem Buiter in the FT has the same concerns about fraud as Black, as I read him, though phrased more delicately -- "more primal forms of state capture".
Living in a tiny country hugely depending on our exports means that when america hurts, we hurt.
I'd love to see some banksters fry for the decades of deceit that lead to this. Make some real change in how Wall Street is lead.
of us who want to know why the same people who ruined things are the ones making off with the money.
I am a big fan of yours and I love the way you aren't afraid to mix it up with the talking heads. My question is, is anything going to get done about these lopsided trade agreements that are hurting jobs in this country so bad? Out of six people in my immediate family, 4 of us have lost our jobs within the last year due to jobs going overseas. In the end it costs the Government more money because they are losing the taxes on those incomes and it creates more people without healthcare. Something needs to be done about this.
And thanks for joining us, it means a lot.
My only question would be whether Congressman Frank has assigned staff to research everything Phil Gramm ever touched in order to repeal every law PG authored/slipped in under the radar/endorsed/thought about?
(and, as a Texian, I want to apologize to all of you for our choice of elected officials.)
Thank you for coming.
Thank you so much for attending this Q&A!
I have a question regarding the manipulation of the price of silver.
Ted Butler, probably the world's most renowned authority on silver, has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the federal government allows the CFTC to manipulate the silver commodity market at will.
Can you please comment on this?
Thank you.
Chairman Frank, looking down the roster of your committee it looks like a pretty unruly group. I mean you're legendary in Washington for working well and constructively even with die-hard conservatives like Spencer Bachus from Alabama. But he seems a lot saner than some of the real hard core obstructionists and extremists, I mean Virginia Foxx? Patrick McHenry? Michele Bachmann?? Are these serious legislators trying to solve our country's problems or are these partisan troublemakers looking to score political points?
First, let’s not make a bad situation worse than it is – Patrick McHenry and Michele Bachman do sit on the Financial Services Committee, but Virginia Foxx is not one of those guarding this particular chicken coop. As to the very conservative Members who do serve on the Committee, excessive partisanship is part of the motivation, but even more prominent is their passionate commitment to a very extreme form of conservatism. This hard lined ideological rigidity according to which the market is never in need of intervention and regulation is in all cases to be opposed is what keeps them from participating in a constructive way in our work. When you hear Members of the Committee condemn the socialist tendencies of the President and the failure of the President and his appointees to show any understanding of the capitalist system, and you realize that they are talking about George Bush, you get sense of how removed they are from reality.
May I please have one million dollars?
Thank you
Tom Kolt
Oceanside, CA
This make me think of Austin Powers when Dr Evil said he wanted .....
One Million Dollars.
And everyone laughed.
Representative Frank would you support legislation that legalizes and taxes marijuana?
I think exactly a year ago this month, Chairman Frank did propose a legalization of marijuana bill. I know Ron Paul is on the House Financial Services Committee. Maybe they can work on it together; there's probably not much else they would agree on.
thanks for the 411 Howie... i did not know that
and, for that, thank you Rep. Frank
Prohibition NEVER works...
Please beat that drum until they get it..
(wanting it illegal so people can prosper with the black market.. and prison industrial complex is just as cannibalistic as the bank scams, and headhunter lore..)
God yes. If there's one stupid law that needs to be gotten rid of, it's prohibition.
It's funny how such an 'evil evil drug' can suddenly be redeemed and possibly legalized whn some smell profits to be made.
Personally, I think decriminalization is the way to go. Legalizing it gets the government involved, and they'll just fuck it up. "Our system" in Canada works pretty darn good now, just the way it is.
I don't care about some snot-faced sociopaths' profits. It's just an extraordinarily harmful and unjust law.
Again, another Democrat ignores the question about legalizing weed. What in the fuck are you people afraid of?
I don't know how many of these live interviews you've taken part in, but questions about topics like weed usually get answered when they aren't so vague.
Like Howie pointed out to the person who asked the question, Mr. Frank proposed a bill to legalize last year (and I was here, live, and Howie posted that while Frank was working his way down the thread). Had the question specified anything in the last bill, maybe there would have been an answer.
I thought Mr. Frank did a good job. He gave some fairly in-depth answers to some questions about some fairly high priority issues.
Now in about a half an hour it's going to be 4:20 somewhere in the world. Relax.
Does Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have your full support, and do you favor overturning the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act for a new Glass-Stegall act seperating commercial banks from investment banks?
I voted against Gramm-Leach –Bliley when it passed. And I thought the Clinton administration was wrong in this regard. I am committed as Chairman of the Financial Services Committee for pushing for a new and comprehensive set of regulations that will impose restrictions on the activity that led to the current crisis. Given the changes that have occurred in the financial system in these past ten years I think it is too late to simply reimpose Glass Steagal. Instead, we need to pass legislation that will provide appropriate safeguards and restrictions that reflect the current economic reality. This means limitations on the ability of any entity to become so highly leveraged that it threatens stability; it means reforming executive compensation to remove incentives to excessive risk taking; it means prohibiting 100% securitization of loans; it means significantly strengthening existing prudential regulation; and finally, it means a significant increase in protecting investors/consumers from financial hanky panky (to use the technical term). Finally, I believe Secretary Geithner has done a good job given that he has been in office less than three months dealing with an enormous set of problems. And it should be noted that he is not a rogue Secretary but has been acting as the agent of President Obama with the Presidents full knowledge and support.
Does the revolving door between the banking industry and treasury concern you?
I interned for Barney Frank in 1998, and it was a totally awesome experience. He's a super smart guy, and a lot of fun to be around. His office staff was also top notch. I remember them bringing me and another intern out to an Orioles game one night just for the heck of it. I wish I could turn back the clock 11 years and do it over again!
we can't have Baltimore win 2 in a row. :-)
Chairman Frank, you've long been a leader on health care. Do you support the work Chairman Baucus and Kennedy are doing to implement President Obama's health care plan? What do you want to make sure ends up in any health care legislation passed by the Senate?
As a political science major, it pains me to see the blatant partisanship and political games played by our nation's news sources. It was particularly refreshing to see your recent wonderful dismantling of Lou Dobbs, but I am concerned about the quality of our nation's news.
To some, this may seem to be a trivial matter, but I view it as vital, because we, as the people, can only be well-informed if we have multiple honest, objective news sources who are more concerned with fact-checking than sound-byting.
So my question for you is this: How likely is it that in the near future, regulations could be passed that would essentially bust up the monopolies that the major media corporations have at this moment? Is it possible that language meant to bust up the banks that are too-big-to-fail (what an arrogant phrase, in my opinion!) might also be construed to apply to the media monopolies?
.. it's a mess. There are basically (as I perceive it from up in Canada) two varieties of news media in the US.
The first is wildly right-wing partisan, and has no regard whatsoever for confirm-able facts from the real world. It ain't news, it's spews.
The second variety is self-consciously bi-partisan, bending over backwards to present 'both sides' of an issue. This is equally unconcerned with the difference between confirmable fact and made up nonsense. When are they going to realize that giving equal time to flat earth theorists is NOT a recipe for discovering the truth. There is supposed to be a bias towards facts and against lies.
Democracy can't function without a well-informed public who can distinguish shit from shine-ola.
And that's why I'm so concerned about it!
Apply this to the banks as well. If they are to big to fail they are too big.
Congressman Frank:
Thank you for taking time to be here. Shouldn't tax writes offs be indirectly proportional to income?
Regards,
Jim
Chairman Frank, you have my admiration for what you are willing to do each day in the House. I'm not sure I could ever handle dealing with some of the goof-balls you have to deal with in your position.
Also thank you for your informative indepth answers you are giving us here today. I believe I can speak for everyone when I say we appreciate it very much.
Mr Frank,
First - its entirely too awesome that you would take a few moments of your time to pop in here and hang with us Godless evil libruls.
It warms to cockles, really.
Perhaps you can help me, I'm a little lost these days - I always thought the American Dream was that life for subsequent generations was a little better than the ones before.
Well, hm.
I'm 37, my retirement fund has decreased by 90% in the last year. But hey, there's always Social Security right? The college fund for my kids? Yeah, that too has shriveled. The only way my husband and I will be able to meet their college needs (both kids are highly capable) is sending them abroad... because they're British thanks to my husband having the good sense to be born in Scotland and in the UK advanced education is far more affordable.
I'm not seeing how the life we lead at 37 being better than what my parents and grandparents had. Whats more depressing is that I don't see things being better for my kids. Best I can offer is "sorry honey, we really knackered things for you... g'luck!"
In my wildest dreams, there's a picking up and shaking out over the Atlantic of Wall Street - followed promptly by Washington DC.
We elected a Democratic majority because we want to see Democratic ideas, laws and programs initiated in the United States. We decided that the republicans weren't the way to go... and thankfully enough of the older Republican base had the decency to die off in the last 3 years and we were able to assert ourselves as the new middle-aged majority. Here's a secret: we aren't looking for Republican Lite.
When do we get to see the Republican talking points shut down? When will we see some piss and vinegar from the Left side of Reagan? I'm at a complete loss... they're kicking our asses. We won, and yet we apologize at every step for that victory. At every turn we're making concessions to republicans who demand them, and then... don't vote for the bills anyway. Perhaps you can explain the logic in the ass-licking to the minority party? I can't seem to remember it being the other way around before....
I'd also like to know the reason for this bogus "bipartisanship."
Especially when there's plenty of evidence, already in the public domain, that creates a prima facie case for criminal prosecution.
I understand it is the military law to enforce Don't Ask, Don't Tell. And I understand that the policy cannot be wiped away so easily. Keeping the financial crisis in mind, can you tell us why the program to enforce the law has not been sliced to say, $50,000 per year instead of the tens of millions we have spend in the past few years?
Mike Rogers
Here's a brief quote about this:
"The tests are designed to determine the depth of banks' capital holes if conditions deteriorate further. After the tests are completed, the banks will have six months to either raise private capital to compensate, or accept government funds.
But officials are worried about how the market will react to the stress test results if there is not a clear recovery path for a bank that is deemed to have a large capital need.
The last thing Treasury wants to do is set off a panic, the source said. "
Can you explain further what this is all about??
Thank you.
for all the times you called out the liars and thieves and haters. your frankness is an oasis of truth. the pun is purely incidental.
And when he called out Patrick McHenry over Pelosi's need for a plane it was AWESOME. If you're not sure who Patrick is, he gets the shit kicked out of him on another topic by Barney here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jcdai100SOM
Pat is such a queen
I haven't seen the Bill Black (Moyers) or Simon Johnson (Atlantic) material on fraud and trust addressed yet, and I'm hoping that's because I haven't refreshed my browser.
I like the pun and I'm betting Mr. Frank might like it too.
make sure you refresh your browser or search 'BarneyFrank' because he's answering questions directly to the reader and you may miss an answer.
How do you feel about the increasingly alarmist and radical right wing media and what can be done to counter it?Many feel the Fairness Doctrine is not the right approach.What are your thoughts?
I thought I'd be the only one asking it :-)
thank you for your service!
The Chairman has another appointment and we're going to have to let him run or his scheduler will never take another phone call from us. Congressman Frank, thank you so much for the great answers to so many questions today. It's been a privilege. You're always welcome here. And by the way, another one of your committee members, Alan Grayson, is a great friend of this blog's and someone whose back we are always looking out for. I wish there were more like the two of you in Congress.
And hopefully we will see you again soon!
In coming weeks, I will be continue to speak out our nation's most pressing issues. Please see my recent floor speech on the financial crisis, part of which is posted on my Congressional web site: www.house.gov/frank.
Thank you all for your good questions and for a chance to discuss these important issues.
Barney Frank
the truth needs more people in congress like you.
It's a pleasure to read your responses without them being cropped by th MSM.
Hows it going Barney, give em hell. :)
Chairman Frank, thank you so much for chatting here today. I applaud your service and your pioneering spirit.
Can you tell us what it is like, without naming names of course, to deal on a daily basis with closeted colleagues? Many of us have had work environments where we are out and others are not; it's always awkward when you KNOW a colleague is gay, he does too, and lots of colleagues also know, but it's simply not spoken about. How does that work on Capitol Hill, when you simply know a colleague is gay and should come out, and you have to work with that person regularly?
Thanks again for your time, and please forgive the triviality of this question.
These right wing scum are anything but.
Drag em out.
LOVE YOU TEDDY
You guys and gals are doing a great job!
Speaking of Alan Grayson, how about setting up TWO hours with him!!
(An hour flies by so darn fast)!
We're working on scheduling that
Thank YOU for another great live chat. Appreciate your hosting. Good job!
I forgot about this chat and missed most of it.
Oh well.
Is it my imagination or did the origional thread regarding Congressman Frank's appearance on C&L state that the chat would begin at 6:00 Eastern?
I had it at 5:00 (I am in the central zone) marked in my Palm.
Oh well, I'm sure Rep. Frank is quite the busy man. Glad to have him here regardless.
And how wonderful he was here at C&L!
I screwed up over here in Korea too. Oh well.
Yes that was a nasty trick, Barney is so slippery. It was to be 6pm est and 3 pm pst.
[Not the fault of the congressman. Miscommunication between the bloggers who hosted the interview. Site Monitor]
It's ok with me, I really wouldn't know what to ask. The laws and regulations are so screwed up. When will Kucinich come for an oversight interview?
I think you are one of the few effective speakers against the right-wing smear machine. I always love watching you calmly and clearly smack down talking points.
Would you please train other Dems to be as effective as you? I can't count how many times I have watched a Dem on television and thought, THEY DON'T KNOW THE GOP TALKING POINTS! And of course, they then cannot counter them.
We need more YOU's out there!
Thank you for everything you do.
Respectfully.
Sorry! I could not blog from work. I hoe i catch up w/you on another thread.
What a great chat, congrats and thanks to John and Howie.
For the time. Your answers were very thorough. I know we flooded you with a lot of questions and it would have taken another two hours to answer them all.
Thanks C&L for setting this up. One of the best hours I have spent at the computer in a long time. You guys make it possible for us to do some wonderful things. Chatting with Barney Frank, how freakin' cool is that!
I'm guessing Barney Frank's gone now, but I wonder how many teabags he got?
I appreciate your time.
Just wanted to say, if I insulted you indirectly a few months ago with my...crude remarks about Ann Coulter....I do apologize.
I can be a bastard sometimes without even realizing it.
If Ann Coulter was transgendered, she wouldn't be anywhere near as arrogant as she is. Being fag bashed has a way of taking that out of you.
meaning to insult Coulter...and unfortunately it took me being banned from here for over a week, to realize that it was mean and hurtful to others on this site.
So...yeah...again...sorry about that.
No doubt if they were enough to get you banned, they would have probably irritated me. There's nothing for me to forgive though because 1) I wasn't here and 2) You seem to have learned that such comments can be very hurtful to the very real human beings that we are.
wasn't my proudest moment.
:)
of course not! LOL!
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/0...
to Howie Klein, John Amato and most especially Chairman Frank - thank you for this opportunity
Honest to God, the man is a walking response to "Citation Needed" - I hear Rightwing pundits pull stuff out of their arse that is either verifiably wrong, or technically right, but stripped of important context, and then you hear Barney Frank's response. It's like he read their script before they did - he comes back with the real facts, and when you check up on him, hey, he's *right*.
I have no idea how he pulls it off - My IQ scores are well past 'fairly bright', and *I* can't do it. I will notice the important thing that was missing, know where to look and check it, and come back five minutes later and say "He's wrong, and here's why", but I can't keep all those facts at my immediate disposal.
All I can figure is that Barney Frank is a cyborg with a direct neural interface to the Internet. It's the only logical explanation.
for the person to answer all the questions because we bombard them, but his answers were very good.
If only it was trainable. He knows what they are going to say and rebuts it. If all the dem speakers on the tubes were aware of the GOP talking points, they might have a chance to rebut them. Alas, too few do.
to C&L so I don't know if Rep. Frank is still with us but, the question I have is about the credit rating system we have here in the US (equifax, etc.) It seems to me that no real economic reform is possible until we change the credit rating cartel. A person's credit score is too powerful. Essentially, there would be no sub-prime loans without 'bad credit ratings'. Who is regulating these agencies? How is it that someone who makes every payment on time has a low credit score. These debt to available credit ratios kill people's credit scores unfairly. If you find yourself in a situation where you need to use your credit cards, and approach your limit, you are screwed. The card co. will raise your rate and cut your limit, making it impossible to win. I can't include all arguments here, but does anyone else see the need for fundamental change in the way we "rate" credit for individuals?? Can we at least start a dialogue in Congress on this subject?
Congressman Frank, I’m assuming your familiar with the Boston Globe? Regarding the FDIC, is it true they find themselves under funded, due in part too the fact they were allowed too neglect collecting insurance premiums from the banks for approximately 10 years?
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/...
And
Though you’ve expressed an certain amount of amazement over Paulson’s handout to AIG last Fall, prior to TARP legislation, would you say it’s important how well funded an insurance entity is based on their relative exposure?
And
Are you and Mr. Dodd pushing for $100-billion and $500-bilion respectively for FDIC funding? Do we pay interest on our money once it’s in our Treasury’s computers after being loaned by the Fed?
Thank you for your time and I admire your “Frankness” (Ok…Pun intended ) ;)
I though he was scheduled for 6pm EST.? :-/
Although not perfect, the two party system with its' checks and balances and polemics has worked somewhat better than most government structures over the years. It now appears that with the superior organizational efforts of the left, the right will be marginalized for the foreseeable future, perhaps permanently.
Question: Is one party rule good for the country in the long run?
Question: Are there any on the right that you CAN work with?
Thank you for your service.
Writing off people who disagree with you politically as being 'dismissed from reality' is a very Jeff-Gannonesque thing to say.. Do you feel that referring to your co-workers as crazy is a productive means of working politically, and do you feel that people have the right to disagree with your opinions?
as it relates too "referring" to individuals... You make a great point "mjULTRA"
Amended: I assume your using a "QWERTY" keyboard?
But my questions were serious. Even if not seen by Barney, perhaps they can be considered by the other readers of this blog.
QWERTY keyboard it is.
And for the record, i am grateful that he took the time to answer the few questions he did. I would like to have seen him answer all the questions, especially the one about the FDIC, but i understand why he went with the softball questions instead.. Cant win em all, but the mere fact that a major political representative made himself available for public interaction is a very refreshing notion... Props to everyone involved in making this happen.
If i asked congressional Representative Ron Paul, who is also on the House Services Financial Committee if he would be interested in participating in an hour long discussion, would Crooks And Liars be interested in facilitating that? It'd be interesting to hear him present his opposing viewpoints to the exact same questions that were asked of Frank.
(if interested, please message me. dead serious about this)
It is my opinion, that Representative Paul and his concerns regarding the FED, have great merit.
It's unfortunate that so many radical factions have attached their wagons too this humble man.
Maybe the best we can hope for, is if Representative Alan Grayson FL8 stops by, we can ask him why he endorsed or co-sponsored Mr. Paul's Bill(HR1207)?
The respect you've shown towards Mr. Frank initially, does not reflect well for a Ron Paul supporter, as a matter of fact, I would say it was rather caustic.
Keep up the efforts sir. We need you.
Thank you Sir.
.
damn, I missed it.
Where is that flatulent douche bag Glenn Becks's questions...??
Awwww?
Why did you guys erase it>???
Mr Frank you sir are a pathetic slob who has done more to cause this economic meltdown perhaps more than anyone else. Your pandering to Fannie and Freddie and your relentless push to reform them so that they were forced to have at least half of their loans going to people who never had a chance of paying the loan back is a leading cause of this mess. I call on your resignation, I think that you should be investigated and thrown into jail. The reckless parameters of your agenda has to be criminal. You are a despicable little cuss and the people of Mass. should fire you.
....buh-bye.
Login or Register to post comments.