LaRouche Assessment: We Are at a Breaking Point
November 21st, 2012 • 9:12 AM
In discussions with colleagues on Tuesday afternoon, Lyndon LaRouche had some critical observations about the present crucial moment in world history.
1. The idiot Netanyahu in Israel has set in motion a process that he did not anticipate and cannot control. With the invasion and brutal slaughters in Gaza, Israel's leaders have set off a reaction which they cannot stop. They have unleashed a rage among Muslims and Arabs — including the neo-Salafists — that will go off in unpredicatable directions. This screws up the Saudi and British operations to target the neo-Salafists against Assad. Given the crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza committed by Israel, who should these Jihadists hate the most? Against whom will they now direct their rage? This is an uncontrollable factor introduced into the already volatile Middle East equation.
2. Anyone who is thinking about the fight for Glass- Steagall from the standpoint of the Congressional schedule is out of his or her mind. The immediate reality is that we are already at a branching point where there are only two possible directions: Either you stick with Obama and face an imminent hyperinflationary blowout and overall economic collapse, or you implement Glass-Steagall immediately. Only Glass-Steagall can prevent the hyperinflationary explosion. This issue is on the table right at this moment. There are many people out there, including in Congress, who support Glass-Steagall without even fully understanding why. The overwhelming majority have zero understanding of how the real economy works. Nevertheless, among many Members of Congress, there is a clear sense that we are on the verge of another banking blowout, and that another bailout is absolutely impossible. In that sense, they do understand the immediate threat of a hyperinflationary explosion at any moment. That is the basis on which they will comprehend the need for Glass-Steagall — without delay. January and the swearing in of the new Congress may very well be far too late. The Glass- Steagall moment has arrived.
3. Obama has got to go, and the Benghazi scandal can bring him down now. Petraeus is no longer vulnerable to Obama's blackmail, as he demonstrated by his change of testimony last Friday. Obama cannot dodge the impeachment over his and Rice's Benghazi lies. The fact that the leading Swedish newspaper, Aftonbladet, equated Obama's Tuesday kill sessions with the Nazi euthenasia policy is a breakthrough. It is indicative that the walls are closing in on Obama. The danger in this situation is that Obama may choose to start a war to prevent his ouster over Benghazi-gate and his many other crimes.
4. The only way to deal with the aftermath of Superstorm Sandy is with a massive and immediate reconstruction effort. This is complementary to NAWAPA. There should be, as one leading Member of Congress has suggested, a major expansion of the Army Reserve. Young people can be brought into Army Reserve status, trained, and activated under Army Corps of Engineers direction to rebuild the areas of the East Coast devastated by Sandy. The same approach can be taken to launching the NAWAPA program. Give young people a mission as well as a future potential career orientation. The military budget is still somewhat of a sacred cow, so the funds can be produced for a massive Army Corps of Engineers-led recovery program.
Susan Rice Blames her lack of Intelligence
November 24th, 2012 • 10:37 AM
In her first public comments since her infamous Sunday, Sept. 16 lying binge on national TV about the Benghazi attack, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice spoke with reporters in New York on Nov. 21. Displaying the same Nero-like arrogance as her boss and mentor Barack Obama, Rice said that the White House had deployed her to speak; she once again misrepresented the Benghazi attack as being "a significant piece" of the pattern of protests at many U.S. diplomatic facilities then ongoing; and she ended by pointing the finger at the intelligence community for being solely responsible for the content of the lies she had mouthed on TV.
Lyndon LaRouche responded that President Obama is walking a real political tightrope in his effort to ram through a Rice nomination as Secretary of State, which could well backfire, as the whole Benghazi affair explodes as a new Watergate around his Presidency.
"As a senior U.S. diplomat," Rice told the press, "I agreed to a White House request to appear on the Sunday shows to talk about the full range of national security issues of the day, which at that time were primarily and particularly the protests that were enveloping and threatening many diplomatic facilities—American diplomatic facilities—around the world and Iran's nuclear program. The attack on Benghazi—on our facilities in Benghazi—was obviously a significant piece of this..."
"When discussing the attacks against our facilities in Benghazi, I relied solely and squarely on the information provided to me by the intelligence community. I made clear that the information was preliminary and that our investigations would give us the definitive answers. Everyone, particularly the intelligence community, has worked in good faith to provide the best assessment based on the information available."
Rice went on to try to butter up Sen. John McCain, who has been highly critical of her role, in preparation for what she hopes will be Senate confirmation hearings for Secretary of State. "I do think that some of the statements he's made about me have been unfounded, but I look forward to having the opportunity at the appropriate time to discuss all of this with him. I have great respect for Senator McCain and his service to our country. I always have, and I always will."
Do You Want World War III? Learn the Lesson of 1890
November 22nd, 2012 • 6:06 PM
Wednesday's request for Patriot missiles and NATO troops to be deployed to Turkey's border with Syria did not really come from the whacko government of Turkey as advertised, but from Tony Blair and what he represents in the United States, especially Barack Obama.
"It's obviously a bluff aimed at Russia," Lyndon LaRouche said Thursday. "And that has to be what's said. It's obviously a threat to Russia. It's a threat of a war with Russia. It's a threat of a thermonuclear war with Russia. And anybody who wants to do this, is going to be responsible, morally, for thermonuclear war. And that's the way to say it. Some people are being panicked into behaving like idiots.
"It's obvious they're trying to armtwist Germany," he continued. "But the point is: I don't think Germany can be armtwisted into willingly going into a thermonuclear war. I don't think that any sane German wants to go into thermonuclear war. And therefore, they would not push such a piece of nonsense as this.
"It doesn't really come from Turkey,— it's a mistake to see it that way. The present Prime Minister of Turkey, with his peculiar religious inclinations, is a bit of a screwball. And this screwball is being played by the Saudis, by the British-Saudi channel.
"Anything else is irrelevant. The relevance is, are they going to try to force Russia into a thermonuclear war, or not?"
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Lukashevich characterized the call for the missiles as "alarming," but concluded, "Let's wait for a reaction from our NATO partners," i.e. along similar lines as LaRouche, who added, "They're all trying to say that if one nation in NATO goes for it, then the others all have to go for it. That's the whole thing. This is bullshit! It's a local war, and the European nations should keep their nose out of it!"
At the same time that he demanded German troops and Patriot missiles, just as his top military brass returned from a visit to Saudi Arabia, Erdogan exploded against the Iraqi government, accusing them of sectarianism and fomenting civil war. "I thought that was Tony Blair that did that," LaRouche responded.
"The point is: You're either going to thermonuclear war, or you're not. The point is that nobody in Europe seems to have remembered what happened when Bismarck was fired from the German Chancellory: you got World War I, II, and now III. Now you've got it developing especially around Syria and Turkey. Do you want World War III? But this time, buddy, it's going to be thermonuclear; do you like that?
"Recognize what happened when Bismarck was removed. All the Hell in Europe that really broke loose since then, was the result of the removal of Bismarck from his position. And people who don't know that lesson should not be allowed to make decisions on strategy."
Over Two-thirds of U.S. Remains in Drought, Severely Hitting Winter Wheat Belt
November 24th, 2012 • 9:52 AM
The weekly satellite-based Drought Monitor picture of the United States, released yesterday, showed that 60% of the Lower 48 states area was in some form of drought as of Nov. 21, and the amount of land classified as in extreme or exceptional drought—the two worst categories—was over 19% of the total Lower 48 area.
Much of the continental Farm Belt is in this parched region, from northern Mexico, through the U.S. High Plains states. Among the many hard-hit sectors, by food-crop type, is the Winter Wheat belt.
Of the 18 states which account for nearly 90% of U.S. Winter wheat, many top producing counties are in this drought region, in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, Montana, and South Dakota. The wheat has been planted, and overall, 86% of the crop has emerged, according to the Nov. 18 U.S. Department of Agriculture survey. But dryness is a threat for the crop's preparedness for over-wintering (vernalizing).
This week's report shows that 77.5% of Kansas, the leading U.S. wheat state, and world center, remains in extreme or exceptional drought.
The percent of the emergency Winter wheat, rated as in poor or very poor condition, as of Nov. 18, by the USDA Crop Progress report on Nov. 19 is:
Officials of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration foresee little rain forecast for the Midwest in coming days. However, no matter how extreme, what makes the weather the enemy, is 1) the lack of water provision systems in place, especially the long-planned NAWAPA program in North America; 2) the current actions and inactions of the Obama/London Administration, against intervening with emergency measures to protect agriculture and the food supply; and 3) the absence of any food reserves, per the World Trade Organization-era globalization.
U.S. Livestock Producers Coalition Blasts Obama Mandate for Ethanol, Warns U.S. Has "1/3 Less of the Corn We Need"
November 24th, 2012 • 9:57 AM
The national coalition of livestock, poultry, and dairy organizations, which have sounded the alarm about short corn supplies and the need to lift the Federal mandate for corn-ethanol, blasted the refusal to do so by the Obama Administration. A week ago today, the Environmental Protection Agency announced they would not grant a waiver for the biofuels mandate, called the RFS, Renewable Fuels Standard.
The same day, the livestock producers coalition issued a statement saying, "We are extremely frustrated and discouraged that EPA chose to ignore the clear economic argument from tens of thousands of family farmers and livestock and poultry producers that the food-to-fuel policy is causing and will cause severe harm to regions in which those farmers and producers operate."
In coverage of this statment, by the National Pork Producers Council, a chief member of the coalition, the NPPC made the following points about the dire livestock and feed situation in the United States, in its Nov. 16 press release (see www.nppc.org):
In fact, dozens of poultry, pork, beef and dairy operations have filed for bankruptcy, been sold or simply gone out of business over the past several months because of rising feed grain prices.
"How many more jobs and family farms have to be lost before we change this misguided policy and create a level playing field on the free market for the end users of corn?" the coalition asked. It is now abundantly clear that this law is broken, and we will explore remedies to fix it.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Nov. 9 crop report puts this year's corn harvest at just 10.7 billion bushels, down 13% from last year and down 28% from USDA's May projection. The ethanol industry will use more than 40% of the corn supply next year.
Further, the carry-over stocks for 2012-13 are now forecast at 647 million bushels, less than 5% of expected corn usage and the lowest amount ever. This is a 35% decrease from last year's carry-over amount. This means there likely would be no corn reserves for next year should the country experience another poor crop.
"We now have about one-third less of the corn that we need to adequately supply animal feed, ethanol, exports and sufficient carry-over levels," the coalition noted. But the government continues to mandate that a significant amount of the corn supply be blended next year into gasoline.
When Congress expanded the RFS in 2007, certain safety valves were added to the law. One provision allows the EPA administrator to reduce the required volume of renewable fuel in any year based on severe harm to the economy or environment of a state, a region or the United States.
In addition to the livestock, poultry and dairy organizations, a bipartisan group of 34 U.S. senators and 156 House members and nine governors petitioned EPA to grant a waiver of the federal requirement for the production of corn ethanol because the mandate, coupled with a drought that has reduced yields and pushed up prices of feed grains, has caused the severe economic harm for which Congress added safety valves.
"Unfortunately, EPA chose to ignore all of them by issuing a decision that is going to cost more American jobs, put family farmers and ranchers out of business, create an animal feed crisis and cause food costs to soar in the coming months," the coalition concluded.
The Genocidal Mind of the Empire
[PDF version of this article: http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/2012/2012_40-49/2012-46/pdf/16-19_3946.pdf]
Could there possibly be human beings who have such a perverted view of the nature of mankind, as to want to radically reduce the number of people alive? Who see people as a "cancer" on the Earth which should be excised, rather than the source of creative growth for the universe as a whole? Not only is the answer yes, but it is the people who think like that—the imperial financial oligarchy—who are the controlling power on our Earth today.
As a supplement to LaRouche's article above ("The Calamity of the Second Obama Administration"), we document some of the more blunt and vicious ravings of the British oligarchy, and its lackeys, up through today, especially in the largely British-spawned Green movement. This is the enemy we must defeat.
Parson Thomas Malthus (1766-1834) was a hired pen for the College of the East India Company, a core institution of the British Empire, which had been consolidated in 1763, and his views on the need to suppress population—of the lower classes, of course—were tailored to that Empire's needs. We quote from his "Essay on the Principle of Population":
"We are bound in justice and honour formally to disdain the right of the poor to support.
"To this end, I should propose a regulation to be made, declaring that no child born from any marriage taking place after the expiration of a year from the date of the law, and no illegitimate child born two years from the same date, should ever be entitled to parish assistance."The infant is, comparatively speaking, of little value to society, as others will immediately supply its place."All children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the death of grown persons. Therefore we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use."Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlement in all marshy and unwholesome situations. But above all we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and restrain those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they are doing a service to mankind by protecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders."
Lord Bertrand Russell
Lord Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) was a member of a prominent British aristocratic family, who became a leading source of intellectual evil during a large part of the 20th Century, shaping the diseases of Fabianism, mathematics, and greenie-ism. While known as a pacifist, Russell actually called for pre-emptive nuclear war against the Soviet Union in 1946. His viciously anti-human views are most sharply expressed in his 1923 Prospects for Industrial Civilization, and 1951 book Impact of Science on Society.
From the former:
"The white population of the world will soon cease to increase. The Asiatic races will be longer, and the negroes still longer, before their birth rate falls sufficiently to make their numbers stable without help of war and pestilence...."
From the latter:
"At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued throughout each of the world wars...."What, then, can we do? Apart from certain deep-seated prejudices, the answer would be obvious. The nations which at present increase rapidly should be encouraged to adopt the methods by which, in the West, the increase of population has been checked. Educational propaganda, with government help, could achieve this result in a generation. There are, however, two powerful forces opposed to such a policy: one is religion, the other is nationalism. I think it is the duty of all who are capable of facing facts to realize, and to proclaim, that opposition to the spread of birth control, if successful, must inflict upon mankind the most appalling depth of misery and degradation, and that within another fifty years or so."I do not pretend that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer. War, as I remarked a moment ago, has hitherto been disappointing in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could be spread throughout the world once in every generation survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. There would be nothing in this to offend the consciences of the devout or to restrain the ambitions of nationalists. The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of that? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's...."There are three ways of securing a society that shall be stable as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that of general misery except for a powerful minority.... Of these three, only birth control avoids extreme cruelty and unhappiness for the majority of human beings. Meanwhile, so long as there is not a single world government there will be competition for power among the different nations. And as increase of population brings the threat of famine, national power will become more and more obviously the only way of avoiding starvation. There will therefore be blocs in which the hungry nations band together against those that are well fed. That is the explanation of the victory of communism in China."These considerations prove that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a world government."
Since World War II, the leading spokesman for the anti-human policies of the British financial establishment has been Queen Elizabeth's Royal Consort, Prince Philip (b. 1921), who co-founded the Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) in 1961, and has spurred the expansion and penetration of private and government institutions globally with the pernicious Malthusian ideology. Just a few examples will suffice.
"Vanishing Breeds Worry Prince Philip, But Not as Much as Overpopulation," interview in People magazine, Dec. 21, 1981.
Q: What do you consider the leading threat to the environment?A: Human population growth is probably the single most serious long-term threat to survival. We're in for a major disaster if it isn't curbed—not just for the natural world, but for the human world. The more people there are, the more resources they'll consume, the more pollution they'll create, the more fighting they will do. We have no option. If it isn't controlled voluntarily, it will be controlled involuntarily by an increase in disease, starvation and war.
Address on receiving honorary degree from the University of Western Ontario, Canada, July 1, 1983.
The industrial revolution sparked the scientific revolution and brought in its wake better public hygiene, better medical care and yet more efficient agriculture. The consequence was a population explosion which still continues today.The sad fact is that, instead of the same number of people being very much better off, more than twice as many people are just as badly off as they were before. Unfortunately all this well-intentioned development has resulted in an ecological disaster of immense proportions.
Address to Joint Meeting of the All-Party Group on Population and Development and the All-Party Conservation Committee, London, March 11, 1987.
"...The simple fact is that the human population of the world is consuming natural renewable resources faster than it can regenerate, and the process of exploitation is causing even further damage. If this is already happening with a population of 4 billion, I ask you to imagine what things will be like when the population reaches 6 and then 10 billion.... All this has been made possible by the industrial revolution and the scientific explosion and it is spread around the world by the new economic religion of development.
Prince Philip was quoted by the Deutsche Presse Agentur, August 1988:
"In the event I am reborn, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation."
Britain's Green Movement
Paul R. Ehrlich: One book which spurred the 1960s paradigm shift to anti-human green ideology was The Population Bomb, written by lepidopterologist Ehrlich and his wife, and published in 1968. Ehrlich, who is still active in depopulation groups such as the British royalty-sponsored Population Matters (formerly the Optimum Population Trust), showed his view of mankind in that book as follows:
"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."
In the wake of the publication of the British Royal Society's April 2012 "People and the Planet" report, which called in general terms for limiting population, Ehrlich said the following to the London Guardian:
"How many [people] you support depends on lifestyles. We came up with 1.5 to 2 billion because you can have big active cities and wilderness. If you want a battery chicken world where everyone has minimum space and food and everyone is kept just about alive you might be able to support in the long term about 4 or 5 billion people. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage" (emphasis added).
Dennis Meadows: Known for his co-authorship of the notorious Limits to Growth book of the British depopulation movement's Club of Rome, Meadows continues to be active in demanding a reduction in population. Exemplary is his interview with Spiegel Online on Dec. 9, 2009, where he was commenting on the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit. Asked for his proposal, he said: "We have to learn to live a fulfilled life with the CO2 emissions of Afghanistan." (Note that Afghanistan's per-capita energy consumption is approximately 35 kWh, compared to 12,000 plus for the U.S.A. Thirty-six percent of the Afghan population has access to electricity. Its death rate is almost double that of the United States.)
"Is this possible with 9 billion people on this planet?" asks the interviewer.
"No, even 7 billion people is too much for this planet.... If everybody is allowed to have the full potential of mobility, nourishment and self-development, it's 1 or 2 billion" (emphasis added).
Population Matters: This British-based group, heavily staffed with knighted Britons, won notoriety under its original name, Optimum Population Trust (OPT), which recommended drastic worldwide cuts in population, including in Great Britain, based on the fraudulent "carbon footprint" measurement. OPT was founded in 1991, and specializes in putting out "sustainability" figures based on suppressing advanced technologies and promoting population control, including through abortion.
One prominent member is the Baronet Jonathon Porritt, who functioned as a senior green advisor to former British Prime Ministers Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. In early 2009, Porritt called for cutting the population of Great Britain from the current 61 million subjects to no more than 30 million. That was the level of Britain's population during Victorian England.
This outfit, which features sponsors such as naturalists Sir David Attenborough and Dame Jane Goodall, embraces a global population goal of no more than 4 billion people—3 billion fewer than today, and 5-6 billion fewer than current trends portend.
OPT issued a press release March 16, 2009, titled "Earth Heading for 5 Billion Overpopulation?" which said: "Based on ecological footprint and biological capacity data which have become available over the last decade, OPT estimates the world's sustainable population currently at 5 billion and the U.K.'s at 18 million (the U.K.'s actual current population is 61 million).
"However," the release continued, "these figures are predicated on present levels and patterns of consumption. Greener lifestyles in the U.K. could push up its sustainable population; by contrast, if the world as a whole grows richer and consumes more, this will reduce the planet's carrying capacity. If present trends continue, by 2050, when the UN projects world population will be 9.1 billion, there will be an estimated 5 billion more people than the Earth can support." I.e., only 4 billion need apply.
The OPT is so integrated into the British-dominated UN structure that the the United Nations Population Fund gave its de facto blessing to OPT's mass murder scheme on Nov. 18, 2009, when it featured its director, Roger Martin, as a presenter of the UN's own "State of World Population 2009" report.
Attenborough, one of OPT's leading promoters, received the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts prize on March 10, 2011, from Prince Philip, the RSA president.
With Philip at his side, Attenborough stated: "We now realize that the disasters that continue increasingly to afflict the natural world have one element that connects them all—the unprecedented increase in the number of human beings on this planet," as Malthus warned. But no one proposes the necessary measures to curb human population, which makes every problem worse. "Why this strange silence? ... There seems to be some bizarre taboo around the subject.... There are over 100 countries whose combinations of numbers and affluence have already pushed them past the sutainable level.... It is tragic that the only current population policies in developed countries are, perversely, attempting to increase their birth rate, in order to look after the growing number of old people. The notion of ever more old people needing ever more young people, who will in turn grow old and need even more young people, and so on, ad infinitum, is an obvious ecological Ponzi scheme."
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research: This Berlin, Germany-based organization is headed by a Commander of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, who has pushed through a denuclearization, deindustrialization program in Germany over the past two years. (He was knighted in 2004.) Schellnhuber, at the March 2009 Copenhagen Climate Conference, asserted that his computer models had thoroughly shown that, if his plan for denying nuclear and carbon based energy supplies for humanity were not implemented, the carrying capacity of Earth would be only 1 billion people.
Schellnhuber's "solution," a global green dictatorship, echos the brutal logic that his much admired mentor Bertrand Russell expressed in his infamous October 1946 Bulletin of Atomic Scientists article, in which Russell called for nuclear war against the Soviet Union, if it did not accept his plan for world government. Only weeks after his warning, Schellnhuber met with HRH Prince Charles at his Potsdam Institute in April 2009, and, in late May, opened the Nobel Laureate Symposium on Global Sustainability, hosted by Prince Charles, at his St. James Palace.
Congress is in Session; Call their offices
and meet your Congressmen
to Co sponsor HR 1489!
I am writing to you to request that you add your name as a co-sponsor to HR 1489, the bill to re instate the Glass Steagall law. HR 1489 was introduced this spring by Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and has Republican and Democratic co-sponsors. Glass Steagall was law for 66 years until its repeal in 1999. Since then, the country has gone into an ever increasing financial spiral, which collapsed in 2007 and 2008, and a new spiral now ruining the nation. The bailouts to Wall Street have totaled $27 trillion or more according to reports from Neal Barofsky, former Inspector General of TARP, and have been used to prop up countless hundreds of trillions in derivatives and other Monopoly money paper. Re-imposition of Glass Steagall will end this monetarist madness once and for all, and return the nation to a credit system. Under our traditional credit system, the government can issue credit to states to rehire unemployed, but urgently needed municipal workers, such as firemen, policemen, teachers, sanitation and others.
We can immediately follow this, as was done to end the Great Depression in the 1930s, by emitting federal credit into the private sector and the states to launch urgently needed projects to reconstitute our national rail/power/water grid, creating millions of jobs in the process. I urge you to become a co sponsor of HR 1489. Please communicate your intentions on this to me as soon as possible. I enclose the Dear Colleague letter from Congresswoman Kaptur for your study.
Cosponsor H.R. 1489,
“The Return to Prudent Banking Act”
I am writing to request your support for H.R. 1489, “The Return to Prudent Banking Act.” I recently reintroduced this legislation to strengthen our financial system by reinstating Glass-Steagall.
In response to the failure of thousands of banks across the country, Congress enacted the Banking Act of 1933, commonly known as Glass-Steagall, during the height of the Great Depression. This statute safeguarded the American economy for decades by legally separating commercial and investment banking. Such a common sense system provided greater security to banking deposits in commercial banks. Additionally, investment banks were only able to leverage their own funds, limiting the systemic risks of the American citizenry. For decades, Glass-Steagall was a cornerstone of the U.S. financial system, until the Gramm Leach Bliley Act unwisely completely ended this important financial regulation in 1999.
With the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act over a decade ago, the U.S. economy was exposed to an intolerable level of risk, and the recent financial crisis was certainly exacerbated by the removal of these safeguards. I believe that we must limit the potential for future economic collapses by returning to a more prudent banking system in which banks must once again choose between investment activities or commercial lending. If you would like more information or would like to become a co-sponsor of H.R. 1489, please contact John Brodtke in my office at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Member of Congress
Member of Congress
HR 1489 Now has 84 co-sponsors. Call your Representative to urge him or her to sign HR 1489; 202-224-3121
Current List of Congressional Co-Sponsors to Marcy Kaptur's HR1489. (By date of signing)
- (init.) Marcy Kaptur (D - OH)
- James Moran (D-VA)
- Walter Jones (R-NC)
- John Conyers (D-MI), former Chair, current ranking member House Judiciary Committee, dean of Black Caucus
- Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL)
- Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), former Co-Chair Progressive Caucus
- Jim McDermott (D-WA)
- Louise McIntosh Slaughter (D-NY), ranking member House Committee on Rules
- Edolphus Towns (D-NY), former Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
- Maxine Waters (D-CA), former Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus
- Marcia Fudge (D-OH)
- Kurt Schrader (D-OR)
- Danny Davis (D-IL)
- Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD)
- John Garamendi (D-CA)
- Dennis Kucinich (D-OH)
- Peter Visclosky (D-IN)
- Jan Shakowsky (D-IL)
- Barbara Lee (D-Ca), former Chair Congressional Black Caucus, former Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus
- Mike Coffman (R-CO)
- George Miller (D-CA), former Chair, current ranking member Education and the Workforce Committee
- Hansen Clarke (D-MI)
- Fortney Pete Stark (D-Ca)
- Michael Capuano (D-MA), ranking member U.S. House financial services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
- Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), former Chairman of the United States House Committee on Ways and Means
- Rodney Alexander (R-LA)
- Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the Co-Chair of the Progressive Caucus
- Daniel Lipinski (D-IL)
- John F. Tierney (D-MA)
- Donna Christensen (D-VI)
- Al Green (D-TX)
- Bob Filner (D-CA)
- Tammy Baldwin(D-WI)
- Peter Welch (D-VT)
- John Olver (D-MA)
- Larry Kissel (D-NC)
- Yvette D. Clarke (D-NY)
- Chellie Pingree (D-ME)
- Michael H. Michaud (D-ME)
- Henry C. "Hank" Johnson(D-GA)
- Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
- Peter DeFazio (D-OR)
- Keith Ellison (D-MN)
- Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (Co-Chair for Steering)
- Wm. Lacy Clay (D-MO)
- Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), ranking member Committee on Homeland Security
- Loretta Sanchez (D-CA)
- John Lewis (D-GA)
- Tim Ryan (D-OH)
- Collin Peterson (D-MN), ranking member of the Agriculture Committee
- David Cicilline (D-RI)
- Betty Sutton (D-OH)
- Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX)
- Donald M. Payne (D-NJ) (* deceased)
- Frederica Wilson (D-FL)
- Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
- John A. Yarmuth (D-KY)
- Michael F. Doyle, (D-PA)
- Susan Davis (D-CA)
- Dale Kildee (D-MI)
- Edward J. Markey (D-MA)
- Karen Bass (D-CA)
- Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX)
- Gene Green (D-TX)
- Judy Chu (D-CA)
- James McGovern (D-MA)
- Paul Tonko (D-NY)
- Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
- Donna Edwards (D-MD)
- Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-AS)
- Silvestre Reyes (D-TX)
- Jackie Speier (D-CA)
- Bob Brady (D-PA)
- Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC)
- Maurice Hinchey (D-NY)
- Tim Holden (D-PA)
- Gregorio Sablan (D-MP)
- Earl Blumenauer (D-OR)
- Steven Rothman (D-NJ)
- Janice Hahn (D-CA)
- Elijah Cummings (D-MD)
- Luis Gutierrez (D-IL)
- Lloyd Doggett (D-TX)
- Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA)