Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

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
By Eric KachmanDec 14, 2021
Eric Kachman
See More Writings by author

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.


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026