Bernie Sanders begins: "At a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from the Federal Reserve, how much they received, and the exact terms of this assistance. He refused."
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), 03/11/09. (photo: WDCpix)
A Real Jaw Dropper at the Federal Reserve
03 December 10
t a Senate Budget Committee hearing in 2009, I asked Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke to tell the American people the names of the financial institutions that received an unprecedented backdoor bailout from the Federal Reserve, how much they received, and the exact terms of this assistance. He refused. A year and a half later, as a result of an amendment that I was able to include in the Wall Street reform bill, we have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at the Fed, and the American people now have this information.
It is unfortunate that it took this long, and it is a shame that the biggest banks in America and Mr. Bernanke fought to keep this secret from the American public every step of the way. But, the details on this bailout are now on the Federal Reserve's website, and this is a major victory for the American taxpayer and for transparency in government.
Importantly, my amendment also required the Government Accountability Office to conduct a top-to-bottom audit of all of the emergency lending the Fed provided during the financial crisis to be completed on July 21, 2011, which will take a hard look at all of the potential conflicts of interest that took place with respect to this bailout. So, in many respects, details that the Fed was forced to divulge on Wednesday about the $3.3 trillion in emergency loans that until now were totally kept from public scrutiny, marked the beginning, not the end, of lifting the veil of secrecy at the Fed.
After years of stonewalling by the Fed, the American people are finally learning the incredible and jaw-dropping details of the Fed's multi-trillion-dollar bailout of Wall Street and corporate America. As a result of this disclosure, other members of Congress and I will be taking a very extensive look at all aspects of how the Federal Reserve functions and how we can make our financial institutions more responsive to the needs of ordinary Americans and small businesses.
What have we learned so far from the disclosure of more than 21,000 transactions? We have learned that the $700 billion Wall Street bailout signed into law by President George W. Bush turned out to be pocket change compared to the trillions and trillions of dollars in near-zero interest loans and other financial arrangements the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution in this country. Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed.
We also learned that the Fed's multi-trillion bailout was not limited to Wall Street and big banks, but that some of the largest corporations in this country also received a very substantial bailout. Among those are General Electric, McDonald's, Caterpillar, Harley Davidson, Toyota and Verizon.
Perhaps most surprising is the huge sum that went to bail out foreign private banks and corporations including two European megabanks - Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse - which were the largest beneficiaries of the Fed's purchase of mortgage-backed securities.
Deutsche Bank, a German lender, sold the Fed more than $290 billion worth of mortgage securities. Credit Suisse, a Swiss bank, sold the Fed more than $287 billion in mortgage bonds.
Has the Federal Reserve of the United States become the central bank of the world?
The Fed said that this bailout was necessary to prevent the world economy from going over a cliff. But three years after the start of the recession, millions of Americans remain unemployed and have lost their homes, life savings and ability to send their kids to college. Meanwhile, big banks and corporations have returned to making huge profits and paying their executives record-breaking compensation packages as if the financial crisis they started never happened.
What this disclosure tells us, among many other things, is that despite this huge taxpayer bailout, the Fed did not make the appropriate demands on these institutions necessary to rebuild our economy and protect the needs of ordinary Americans.
For example, at a time when big banks have nearly a trillion dollars in excess reserves parked at the Fed, the Fed did not require these institutions to increase lending to small- and medium-sized businesses as a condition of the bailout.
At a time when large corporations are more profitable than ever, the Fed did not demand that corporations that received this backdoor bailout create jobs and expand the economy once they returned to profitability.
I intend to investigate whether these secret Fed loans, in some cases, turned out to be direct corporate welfare to big banks that used these loans not to reinvest in the economy but rather to lend back to the federal government at a higher rate of interest by purchasing Treasury Securities. Instead of using this money to reinvest in the productive economy, I suspect a large portion of these near-zero interest loans were used to buy Treasury Securities at a higher interest rate providing free money to some of the largest financial institutions in this country. That is something that we have got to closely examine.
At a time when Wall Street executives are now making more money than before the financial crisis, how many big banks that paid back TARP funds in 2009 to avoid limits on executive compensation received no-strings-attached loans from the Federal Reserve?
At a time when millions of Americans are paying outrageously high credit card interest rates, why didn't the Fed require credit card issuers to lower interest rates as a condition of the bailout?
The four largest banks in this country (Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citigroup) issue half of all mortgages in this country. We now know that these banks received hundreds of billions from the Fed. How many Americans could have remained in their homes, if the Fed required these bailed-out banks to reduce mortgage payments as a condition of receiving these secret loans?
We have begun to lift the veil of secrecy at one of most important agencies in our government. What we are seeing is the incredible power of a small number of people who have incredible conflicts of interest getting incredible help from the taxpayers of this country while ignoring the needs of the people.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |











Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Make that 99 senators and 435 representatives .
They would all be shot or politically assassinated like what they did to Elliot Spitzer. Spitzer had written an Op-Ed for the NYT, just a week before the whole prosititute incident, about the mortgage fraud. Did anybody notice no one else was arrested in the prostitution scam? Bernie, like Paul Wellstone, should stay out of small planes.
BTW, there are many great comments below but the one thing missing is the old golden rule, "Them that's got the gold, rules!"
Quoting
Yes. Thank you! Keep working for us please; perhaps find some other honorable statespeople. I pray for your safety.
It is fascinating to me that many citizens are discussing this truth, but Congress seems to not know this. Well, of course they do, but the real question is why aren't they admitting this fact?
For a good education in this masquerade just read "The Creature from Jekyll Island" by G. Edward Griffin- (1994). The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve (1st ed., 2d ed. 1995, 3d ed. 1998 American Media, 4th ed. 2002, now in 6th ed.). Appleton, WI: American Opinion Publishing. ISBN 0912986166. OCLC 31354943.
Of course you know about it already, but have you read it?
Again, thanks for your courage- it must be lonely in those halls of judgment.
The U.S. Government receives all of the system's annual profits, after a statutory dividend of 6% on member banks' capital investment is paid, and an account surplus is maintained. The Federal Reserve transferred a record amount of $45 billion to the U.S. Treasury in 2009.
Kind thoughts,
Reyn
see section two below
The Federal Reserve is, quite simply, the central bank of the United States, and while it is structured differently from most central banks, and has some elements of a private corporation, it is not -- and since it was established in 1913 it has never been; nor will it ever be. While the idea that it is private is a nice fantasy for some people, (usually market purists who want to pretend that the markets are both independent and genuinely capable of surviving with neither regulation nor intervention) it is in fact a part of the Federal Government, and always has been.
Kind thoughts,
Reyn
See www.themoneymasters.com
If you check the white pages of your telephone directory you will find the Federal Reserve listed in the business white pages, not under any listing under United States Government. The fact POTUS appoints the chairman is simply part of the shell game to hide the fact it is the owners of the central banks of the world that are calling the shots, including who we "elect" as POTUS. The Federal reserve is neither federal nor is there any "reserve." Do you work for the federal Reserve or for one of the many organizations that are part of the paper money banking scam? Sorry to "reyn" on your nonsense parade.
The NY Fed is the controlling Fed bank, owned by the owners of Goldman Sachs, Citi, Hong Kong Shanghai, and others.(notice each frb has a .org website, not .gov)
The Fed does return a portion to the treasury but only after expenses. They have many private jets, quite the art collection, and through private operations makes trillions in loans and purchases.
While it's great that this has been revealed, I certainly don't want anymore apparatchiks like Sanders.
There should be a law against giving an institution government money and allowing that same institution from then lending it back to the government for a higher rate of return, or using it as reserves.
It is definitely an indicator of corporativism and should be stopped.
Sometimes I think we have been drugged or something since we the people should really be breaking some doors down. (Figuratively speaking.)
Thank you Mr. Sanders.
And why is the government "obligated" to borrow money from private banking institutions?
And why do the American people sit back and accept all of this BS from their government?
i was a republican who changed parties when i realized we were being usurped by the limbaugh/beck machine backed by mega-billions and captive media outlets. i now fear for the future of the Republic as the president does not seem to thoroughly understand or appreciate the downwards spiral we are finding ourselves in. Nor does he seem to have a plan to combat the direction we are headed.
thank you, bernie. thank you for standing up for the truth. i wish others in congress would stand with you instead of worrying about their next election cycle.
So, I am grateful to Sen. Sanders for illuminating the the "bail-out."
I've also heard that Sen. Sanders is among the few US legislators not to become apoplectic at the sound of the word "socialism," and may occasionally associate himself with it.
Since he is a rare "truth-teller" with a good grasp of economics, maybe it's time for American citizens to connect the dots.
Socialism is a credible economic theory with beneficial practical consequences for citizens. Nordic nations, continental European countries and parliamentary democracies like the UK, Canada and Australia are all "socialist" by US standards (universal health care, etc.). They are also more equitable, healthy. democratic and safer than the US, which is at or near the bottom of most OECD measures of quality of life(most recently in child poverty, health and education).
Maybe Americans could dare to experiment with something other than 18th-century homilies to individual greed. Adam Smith worked well in preindustrial times. Postindustrial? Not so much.
The majority of those in the Senate and House couldn't define socialism if given wikipedia, a search engine and a new Webster's dictionary.
I wish there were more like you in the Senate and in the country. Thanks for protecting what is left of the country and of our democracy from the encroaching corporatocracy of the past few decades.
Barbara Krimgold
PS Please give Obama some backbone.
We all heard a lot about "change you can believe in," but seldom was any specific proposal discussed (and those that were, such as Guantanamo closing or DADT being rescinded, have since been set aside).
On the other hand, the president did promise to escalate the war in Afghanistan, which he has - apparently to no good effect; and, in a casual moment, he summed up his economic thinking in the phrase, "I'm a free-market kind of guy."
That seems about right. He has sought (and failed) to modify corporate behavior, but he has never tried to reform it in any but cosmetic ways (e.g., taking the "single-payer option" off the table before negotiations about health insurance began).
So what do we have? Corporate capitalism with a human face!
We were all so excited about Obama-- ready to take the streets in support if needed. Really. But we've been badly let down.
Thank you for your courage and honesty. That is probably not an easy thing to be in modern day Washington, D.C..
Morgan Stanley $2,000 billion
Citigroup $1,800 billion
Bear Stearns $1,000 billion
Merrill Lynch $1,500 billion
This adds up to $6,900 billion or $6.9 trillion
I cannot understand where Bernie got $3.3 trillion.
The numbers from the five banks listed above - in addition to many, many other banks that do the same thing - are the "short term" overnight loans that the Fed normally provides. They have zero to do with TARP or other loans that were provided, but "bernie" knows that he can get away with throwing some "big numbers" around to impress anyone whohe can get to listen to him and they won't question him. Is this the same transparency that he seeks so feverishly? Set an example and "walk the talk". He is only representing the State of Vermont because his home state of Rhode Island kicked him out on his hiney long ago. He has learned the art of "yell loud enough and you drown out any voice of dissension so people have to listen to you".
Regardless of anyone else you and I both know you are lying. If you are being genuine at all here - go read the actual figures that have been released, you haven't of course, and you never will - because all you are doing is attempting to distract people from yet another Rightest atrocity in America.
Regards,
Reyn
The figures are listed in the article - and comment - above. Name calling and belittling others will not change the numbers or where they came from.
Have a lovely day! :)
Say what you will about Bernie, but he is the guy responsible for daylighting the Fed's outrageous bailouts.
You are also wrong about Bernie.
"Among those are Goldman Sachs, which received nearly $600 billion; Morgan Stanley, which received nearly $2 trillion; Citigroup, which received $1.8 trillion; Bear Stearns, which received nearly $1 trillion, and Merrill Lynch, which received some $1.5 trillion in short term loans from the Fed."
As for Bernie, I do appreciate the fact that he brought this information to light - it should public. However, he always seems to be selective in what and how he presents information in his speeches and essays. Then again,he IS a politician! Enjoy!
However, the "Federal" Reserve Bank is not at all an agency of the Federal government. It is a private entity held by private owners, under Federal regulation when the largely corporately-owned politicos have the guts to regulate it. It replaced J. P. Morgan as a supposedly "last resort" to bail out the US economy when unregulated, excessive speculators' greed tanked it.
I wish you would propose the only Constitutional recourse, seize the Fed as a truly Federal entity, pay off it's owners (cheap, really) and put the responsibility for the national currency back in the hands of the US Treasury where it belongs. Any other course spells ultimate disaster for the US and world economies.
Oh God...I'm torn between laughing and crying. This could be the truth. How sad.
If the fed had just bought mortgages from ordinary jabonies like me - people would still be in their homes. The big banks took the money and foreclosed out the little guy.
Isn't America a wonderful place
I KNOW THAT BRILLIANT BUSINESS SCHOOL PROFESSORS EARN A LOT OF MONEY CONSULTING-- BUT WHY WOULD HE BE ABLE TO DO SO WHILE EMPLOYED AS A CHIEF ECONOMIC OFFICER FOR THE FED. GOV.
IT WORRIES ME THAT OBAMA APPOINTED A PERSON LIKE THAT WHO HAD BEEN SO CONTROVERSIAL AS THE PRESIDENT OF HARVARD (WHERE HE ALSO MADE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR- FROM OUTSIDE CONSULTING APPOINTMENTS)
I KNOW HE IS NO LONGER W/ THE GOV. AND IS BACK AT HARVARD-- BUT WASN'T THERE AN EQUALLY BRILLIANT ECONOMIST WHO OBAMA COULD HAVE HIRED WHO IS NOT A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE? HOW OBJECTIVE COULD HE HAVE BEEN ABOUT THE PRACTICES OF THE BIGGIES (BANKS AND CORPS.)?
To answer your questions Susanna, you are right to be worried. Not only did Obama hire Summers, who was one of the most instrumental forces in killing the Glass-Steagal Act, which has for 70 years protected us against the very collapse we are experiencing, but he also hired Tim Giethner who managed the bailout of AIG and Goldman Sachs while he was head of the NY Fed. Indeed, why would our savior invite the wolves into the pen with the sheep?
Your second question is yes, of course Obama could have hired an even more brilliant economist than Summers. He could have brought in Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman, or Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stigletz. But he consciously chose a wolf, to go along with his wolf Secretary of Treasury and his wolf Fed Chairman, Ben Bernanke. What should we make of this?
There are no jobs, Wall Street and the Federal Reserve are not regulated. People are still losing homes, jobs, and retirement.
So now you know--what is going to be done about it??????
The man has no principles. Here is what I wrote in response to Organizing for America´s sending around a video of justification--
This outrageous give in to the Right Wing intransigents was the last straw for me. My vote is DUMP OBAMA IN 2012. You have since early in the administration proven to be far from a man of principles that was projected during the campaign. Bush era criminals have not been prosecuted for war crimes and crimes against humanity and you escalate that stupid War in Afghanistan. You pursue the Imperial Ambition with almost as much vigor as your predecesor. You caved in on Health Care...you betrayed us millions who thought you might work for real change.
THERE IS NO FIGHT IN YOU, BE GONE.
Dale Johnson
RSS feed for comments to this post.