Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The corruption behind the crash of 2008

Opinion

President George W. Bush and the 2008 bank bailout

President George W. Bush and his economic advisors bailed out the banks rather than serving the people, writes Kachman.

The Washington Post/Getty Images

Eric Kachman is volunteer on Wolf-PAC ’s communications team.

The crashes of 1929 and 2008 share similar origins: a lack of appropriate oversight and regulation. Irresponsible banking practices, bad investments and rampant stock market speculation preceded the 1929 crash. The resulting panic collapsed the economy, with unemployment peaking at more than a quarter of the population. Similarly, the crash of 2008 came about due to real estate speculation, and apparently foolish lending and borrowing, spiking foreclosures between 2008 and 2010.

Banks forced millions from their homes, and jobs became scarce in the resulting downturn. With Covid-19, a similar economic situation holds today, especially for those just entering the job market.

Such economic crises have been devastating. In their wake, we have tried drafting legislation to prevent recurrence. However, even after 2008, proposed protections have been blocked or rendered ineffective by the banking industry’s immense influence in Washington, D.C. To ensure a stable and healthy economy, we must enact campaign finance reforms to reduce the power of the banking lobby.


Separating investment banks from commercial banks

Common sense laws and institutions created during the Depression prevented a recurrence for generations. Those achievements included passage of the Glass-Steagall Act and creation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Glass-Steagall separated commercial from investment banks, recognizing that commercial retail banks function very differently from investment banks. They’re both essential, but cannot safely exist as a single entity.

Commercial banking is the workhorse of our economy, providing essential everyday services: storing, lending, managing and transferring money. By contrast, investment banks are the racehorses of the financial world. They seek out innovation, and take risks — they play the stock market. They can be engines of economic growth. When the economy is poor, or when they make bad decisions, they risk going under. This is fair: high risk, high reward.

However, investment banks should not subject us all to that risk. Glass-Steagall created a barrier between these two equally important banking functions. Without this firewall, the money we entrust to a bank can be used to gamble on the stock market. If the economy and stock market tank, people can’t withdraw their money — it no longer exists.

Unlearning lessons

So what happened? How did we unlearn the lessons of the Depression? The answer is the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, created by and for the banking industry in 1999. Though styled as a banking “modernization” act, GLBA only reflected the increasing influence of massive campaign donations.

President Bill Clinton publicly vowed to spend no more than the legal limit on campaigning in 1996, but he subverted the law in part by raising money for the Democratic National Committee, making that organization part of his campaign. Breaking promises was nothing new, and still seems the rule. Campaign contributors buy access and influence decision making. Clinton received huge donations from the banking industry, particularly from Goldman Sachs. As a reward, Clinton made Robert Rubin — a major proponent of GLBA who had worked 26 years at Goldman Sachs — Treasury secretary.

GLBA meant deregulation. Resulting mergers and acquisitions again melded commercial and investment banking. They created “too big to fail,” in a sense rendering FDIC protections moot. After all, the FDIC insures depositors against bank failure. The FDIC protects you and me; GLBA protects gluttonous bankers.

The bailout

The bank bailout of 2008 was sold as a cure for the Great Recession, reviving the economy by freeing up credit. In reality, few banks eased credit. As noted by Mike McIntire in The New York Times, the bailout program was “ a no-strings-attached windfall that could be used to pay down debt, acquire other businesses, or invest for the future.”

Banks should serve society but, regardless of what politicians might say, they make us serve the banks. Both parties are complicit. Clinton gave us GLBA; George W. Bush gave us the bank bailout of 2008; Barack Obama’s attempts at reform largely fell flat. For example, to assist financially stressed homeowners, the Obama administration started programs such as the Home Affordable Modification Program. However, banks participating in HAMP rejected 72 percent of the applications, denying help to 4 million citizens.

The root of the problem

Just bringing back Glass-Steagall isn’t the solution. Of course we must separate commercial and investment banks, but that’s not enough. When a mixed commercial/investment bank fails, it wipes out depositors’ savings; when such a bank is too big to fail, that means it impacts a huge portion of the population. When Congress bails out such a failed bank, we pay for it through our taxes. The moral hazard provided by the FDIC or, worse, assurance of a massive bailout, means that the reckless behavior of banks is no longer the bank’s issue, but ours. They privatize the profits and socialize the risk, and we foot the bill. So besides bringing back banking regulation, we must also attack the root of the problem. Only common sense controls on campaign financing can curb the undue influence of the banking industry in Congress.

Are you a customer of JP Morgan Chase? They gave $5,800,208 during the 2020 election cycle. Are you a customer of Capital One? Their financial PAC gave $623,000. Citadel Asset Management donated 13 million dollars. These are not charitable donations. These millions buy political favor, of both Republican and Democratic candidates. Such big money largely controls electoral races at every level — local, state, and federal — protecting their interests at the expense of the public.

A real solution

Neither the Great Depression nor the Great Recession were at all unique. Such crises will happen again as corrupt politicians attack regulations and protect bankers. However, we can address the issue by amending the U.S. Constitution to control campaign financing, removing the corrupting influence of money from our elections. We could thus elect representatives who truly represent us, protecting citizens from rapacious banking. You can help make this change by joining Wolf-PAC, a volunteer organization dedicated to bringing about such an amendment.


Read More

Political Corruption Is Often Not a Voting Issue in America

electoral fraud/voter apathy/totalitarism

Getty Images - digitally generated image

Political Corruption Is Often Not a Voting Issue in America

Almost every week, there seems to be another story about the pay-to-play ethos that is dominant in Donald Trump’s Washington, DC. On July 30, the Wall Street Journal added a new one to the list.

The Journal described the president’s fervent interest in fundraising and how he checks almost nightly with his top fundraiser, Meredith O’Rourke, to find out “which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much.” The story highlighted the way she channels his interest into making her pitch.

Keep ReadingShow less
As Temperatures Rise and Federal Funding Falls, Drowning Risks Grow
a group of kids in a pool
Photo by Kevin Paes on Unsplash

As Temperatures Rise and Federal Funding Falls, Drowning Risks Grow

July 25 marked World Drowning Day. More than 4000 people die from unintentional drowning in the United States each year. This translates into an average of 11 drowning deaths per day. Children ages one to four are at greatest risk, making drowning the leading cause of death for that group and the second leading cause of death for children ages five to 14.

Two emerging trends could make those numbers worse: federal funding cuts that have weakened drowning prevention efforts and hotter summers that are driving more people to water to cool off. Together, these trends threaten to deepen long-standing disparities that already place Black, Indigenous, autistic, and low-income communities at greater risk.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol with a flag waving in front of it.

As Washington stalls, young bipartisan lawmakers in Alaska, Mississippi, and beyond are proving that cross-partisan collaboration still wins.

Douglas Rissing/Getty Images

The Politicians Who Can Fix America's Polarization Problem Will Win

Political predictions are notoriously unreliable, but here is one I am willing to stand behind: the elected officials who figure out how to govern across difference will dominate the next decade of American politics. With dysfunction and paralysis having become the status quo in Washington, elected officials who work together to get things done will turn heads, offering desperate voters a much-needed alternative to a broken system.

Consider what happened in Alaska last year. The state’s lawmaking structure does not encourage political independence. Alaska has the nation's highest veto-override threshold: three-quarters. So when a popular education bill promising smaller class sizes, a cellphone ban, and vocational training funding cleared the legislature, only to be vetoed twice by the governor, it looked dead in the water.

Keep ReadingShow less
A crowd of people at a military base with President Trump speaking in front of them.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during a visit to the Fort Bragg U.S. Army base on February 13, 2026 in Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

Nathan Howard/Getty Images

Reagan’s Strength vs. Trump’s Retreat: U.S. Alliances at Risk

How a country treats its allies and its adversaries says everything about what it believes strength means — a question that was already on my mind the night I sat in a movie theater watching "The Brink of War" when news broke.

The film reconstructs the 1986 Reykjavik summit, where President Ronald Reagan and General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev spent a tense weekend negotiating over the fate of the world's nuclear arsenals.

Keep ReadingShow less