tv [untitled] CSPAN June 18, 2009 8:30am-9:00am EDT
they have no spine. i agree with bill maher, i agree with everything the president is trying to do now. democrats have explain to the people what the bill had wrong with that. everybody is afraid to do the wrong thing. i think more guts have to be displayed, and we need a progressive party in this country. we do not have one. i do not see that mr. obama is living up to a lot of stuff that he said on the campaign trail, and i find that disappointing. as far as health care goes, profits need to be eliminated. you need to have a not-for- profit health-care system amongst the choices that you give the american people. host: paulette, we're going to jump in because we are out of time. last comment on the phone, richmond, indiana, republican line.
caller: some of these callers calling in do not really understand that the problem we have in our economy is not really the american people, it is our politicians. the democrats created fannie mae and freddie mac in mandated them to give loans to people who could not afford that. there are destroying our economy, the democrats are. there are destroying energy. obama is selling nuclear reactors to dubai for electricity, but he will not let us build a nuclear reactor here. he is selling suv's to china. the democrats are grabbing for power. they want to socialize. they are destroying everything this country stands for. the reserve bank is a private international bank. they should not be controlling our money. it is just unbelievable what is happening. obama has done more damage in six months than the rest of the presidents combined.
host: thank you, ron. that is run from richmond, indiana. we take you back to capitol hill to congressman luis gutierrez. he certainly has lots to say about the president pot -- the colors certainly have a lot to say about the president's plan. what do you have to say? guest: i think we cannot allow the kind of calamity and collapse, near collapse come out of our financial system ever again. we need to put checks and balances in place. that is why we have committee hearings. we will review the president's proposal. they will hear from secretary of the treasury geithner. we will begin to ask him questions today about just how he sees this all working. but very very import or and fundamental is that, look, there is going to be a shift, and the
financial institutions in this country, those over which we do have oversight -- fdic, federal deposit insurance corp. -- and those that we don't, are going to have to companies scrutiny and underneath new rules and regulation. i have been here for 17 years. every year the republicans say less regulation, less regulation. that is what is good for the economy. let's stimulate our capitalist system. do not worry, it will work itself out. now there are millions of americans trying to figure out, do i work until i'm 70, 75? do i never retire? americans are losing so much of what they have worked for, and we cannot allow that to happen again. we just cannot keep bailing people out. fundamentally, when you look at this proposal, it is a response to -- you know, they keep saying there are financial
institutions that are too big to bail. the systemic risk to proposed -- the systemic risk they pose was too big. in other words, if you are going to operate within our system, should we have checks and balances to make sure that you are there and culpable for the actions that you take? host: you have proposed some changes to the way the fdic program works. can you explain what you want to do? guest: i think part of the discussion should be the federal deposit insurance corporation. here's what happened. we have fdic, says hundred 55 fdic-insured bank. well, guess what -- we have, fdic, 655 fdic insurance bank.
we believe you should pay into a fund in case the banks fail and guarantee -- we believe that if you engage in risky types of investment, then you should pay more into the fund because what we have found is that the community banks, local banks, the vast majority of banks, are not involved in this kind of too-big-to-bail proposition number 1. it seems to me like you kind of go and get insurance for your car. the insurance company kind of says, well, you kind of drive drunk and speed and you go through red lights and you are careless. we are going to charge you more insurance. on the other hand, you are a good driver, 30 years, never in an accident, never speed, impeccable record. you should pay less.
i think he should be risk managed. so the risk you're you are, the more you pay. i think that is a better way -- i think the riskier you are, the more you pay. i think if we can take that model to other areas -- because, look, we should not allow people in our financial markets to simply run amok. we need to make sure that, for example, a hedge fund managers -- shouldn't we know when they go out and acquire a short stalk? just how much they own and what they're up to? i think there should be some more transparency. i certainly would not want to own a company that much of hedge fund managers decide they are going to attack. all of a sudden there are all these rumors about my company and i cannot silence them because i do not know where it is coming from.
we need more transparency, and in our economy and financial institution. host: we are going to take some more calls for congressman gutierrez. orlando, florida, republican line. fe, your up first. caller: i would like to ask the representative why we have not had audits, and how in the world can you even think about giving tim geithner, the mastermind of why we are in this crisis, and the federal reserve bank that is an independent banker, more authority and more power? and the president has not even demanded audits. the same people that brought us to this place, which i believe the money is in foreign banks -- i did not believe it has been lost, i believe it is a scam.
host: faye, let me interrupt you for a second. you first called for audits. what are you looking to be audited? caller: well, i think every bank. at the end of 2007, all of these banks presented themselves with profits that paid tremendous bonuses, and then within six months these banks were broke. president bush said we are going to give $700 billion where none of it is accountable. host: let's get an answer. she is calling for more audits of the banks. the fdic just went through a process. do you think it has been exhaustive and expensive enough? guest: i think the fdic has been through an exhaustive process of looking at our financial institutions.
but then again, it is those who oppose that systemic risk, too big to fail, which i think the treasury are looking at in the past. look, the lady from florida makes a good point. we do have to review what is secretary geithner's new powers are going to be. and i do not want to personalize it, but investing these powers into his office of secretary -- think about it, are former secretary of the treasury was mr. paulson. mr. paulson headed up one of the largest investment banking firms on wall street. mr. paulson, while he headed up one of the largest investment banking firms on wall street, when to the six series and exchange commission and said we need less regulation of -- went to the securities and exchange commission and said we need less
regulation. throw away the capital requirements. policy both contribute to the crisis that we confront today. we really do have two separate and have a very clear separation between those who work on wall street and those who are there to watch the wall street people. host: this question comes to you by a twitter. it asks, "why can't we know it in detail each bank involved in the bank balance and the amount should be -- and the amount they were given, and secondly, should they be audited?" guest: number one, we do know how much the financial institutions have received from the tarp money. that is readily available to us. number 2, i think we have evaluated the role of the different institutions and we are going to continue to do more of that. remember, our goal here is to make sure that we do not suffer
the same kinds of situation or consequences without a plan. so we want an exit plan so that the federal government and the taxpayers do not have to be -- do not have to put in the money to restore stability to our financial markets again. host: may i clarify -- is the public able to access not only how much the banks were given, but how much it was used -- but how it was used? guest: how it was used is still an open question. but i am sure we can get you that information based on who we see with park money -- with tarp money. caller: good morning. representative, earlier this year when republicans released their budget plan, it was 16 pages with no numbers. yesterday the republicans released their health care plan, four pages with no numbers.
do you have any idea how many pages the regulatory bill is? guest: my friends on the other side of the aisle basically say let's not do anything, it is really not a problem. it is all freddie mae -- fannie mae and freddie mac, they all problem -- they'll cause the problem. if we just put in 800 number out there and allow the consumer to call in at any time something bad happens, we could call all the bad banks and call the hundred numbers. the fact is, we need a system overhaul of our system. i want to particularly be focused on the cops on the beat, because if you are going to have these new regulatory changes and give new power, a one to make sure that we have sufficient policeman there to police -- how is it that bernie madoff gets behind the sec -- gets by the
sec after people like complaint after complaint? i think that is part of the reason they want to create a council with all the regulatory commissions, headed by the secretary of the treasury, so that everybody can watch what everybody else is doing and ultimately -- but we're going to have to put more people in to watch. if you have more incidents of crime in your neighborhood, you might want to be able to have more police on the beat and put the police where the crime is at. i think we are not really watching, nor do we have sufficient personnel to watch our financial industries. host: the next question is from houston, pat, on our republican line. caller: good morning. i think while many americans are very concerned about the financial crisis, i think more of them, or many of them, are
more afraid of the politicians in washington than they are of wall street. i watched the questioning of kenneth lewis yesterday, and i was appalled at the treatment that he got at the hands of that committee. i think that this administration has singled out business and certain individuals for a broad reading, and i am afraid that this new bill that has come forward is going to identify certain institutions, and they will be favored. and i think that it was wrong. i do not think the oversight worked over freddie mac and fannie mae. i mean, these people were a so- called government entity, yet they could lobby and make political contributions. i do not understand the point of that. so we need to slow down. everything is being pushed
through. we hear joe biden the other day saying that it was anybody's guess as to the stimulus bill, what would happen. there were people who said this is going to have no benefit. i think this is a big push -- to me, it is the biggest power grab ever, and i would not trust an oversight body without really going slowly as to how this is set up. guest: i think she makes a fair point. we should go about this slowly. we want to make sure that we address these issues, and address them well. there is no reason to rush. right now our economic institutions, there is some stability in them, so there is time to look in june and july. i mean, i want to get it done so that we can sign a document in this congress because i believe it is important.
fannie mae and freddie mac -- absolutely. look, there was not enough oversight. but let me just suggest, those who come today to say is freddie mac and fannie mae -- well, my friend jeb hensarling has been in congress for many years and never raised his voice about. they were in power, in the majority from 1994 to just a few months ago. let's not get sidetracked by thinking that fannie mae and freddie mac freddie roach problem here. what kind of systematic risk and institutions face that systematic risk, and make sure it doesn't happen again. but the kind of checks and balances in place that do not
allow people to rip off the american people. that is why we are going to have a consumer protection agency within this reform package, so that the people can know what kind of products they are getting. i am on the financial-services committee. i do not understand my credit card agreement. sometimes it is pretty hairy without a lawyer to even get a lawyer or a mortgage, to get a loan, and understand it every document. we want the american people to know what they're buying. host: charlestown, west virginia, rick, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to know your position on granting more power to the federal reserve. i have a personal story. i submitted a request to the federal reserve to get the original shareholders. as i suspected, it is a private entity. the shareholders understood the
amount they paid in 1913. it is a private bank in charge of other private banks. guest: i think we're going to review just what the new powers at the federal reserve are going to be. i do not think -- i mean, there are two ways of doing this. you are either going to give one person and a lot of power, hopefully with the manpower to oversee and to make sure that there is transparency in the process. that is that you can put a new chief of police in the financial institution, give the chief of police broad power, give them the proper policing to get there. so is that going to be the effect? i think that is part of the debate to begin today, at least for me, when secretary geithner comes before. but remember, there is also a
council in which the fdic, the securities and exchange commission, treasury,0 all come together and oversee all the other particular0 parts or subdivisions that are going to be watching our economic system in financial institutions. we will have to see how it works out, who was going to have the power to do what. host: last question for mr. gutierrez is from jacksonville, florida. betty, democrats live. caller: i would like to know how the banks can get away with charging a person almost $8,000 out of their pocket with cash up front, and when it comes to real modifying, -- but they cut off an arm with an fha loan. the other thing i wanted to let you know is, a lot of the
mortgage prices, when you call, they will say, well, what do you think your house is worth? you tell them what you would sell for, and they will tell you, well, i think we can get somebody to prison for that. and that is how your mortgages go up and people cannot afford them. guest: look, obviously within the framework that we are going to be discussing today with secretary geithner than the present a's proposal, there is a new consumer protection agency. we are going to take their responsibility away from the fed. the fed actually has the responsibility. they have these new larger responsibilities. we are going to take that away and segregate it because we really do think the consumer protection is very important. so that the lady who was coming -- who is calling in from florida, has a place, has a number, has people that can make sure it is explained to her. if there are any shenanigans
that go on, you have a regulatory agency at the federal level that can help you. one of the things that the president spoke about is that we are going to have products that people can understand. so there may be a mortgage, a kind of manila envelope mortgage, 30 years, one point, very simple to understand. so that people can use that as a gauge when comparing product out in the mortgage market. i think it is very important that we have consumer protection in this thing so people stop losing money. host: mr. gutierrez, thank you very much for being with us. we will see you at the committee hearing, with questions for mr. geithner today. we will continue taking your calls. eight is open phones, but if you would like to continue commenting on the president's financial regulation plan, you are most welcome to do so. at 9:00 eastern time, we will spend an hour with george will,
and nationally syndicated columnist from "the washington post." he also has a column in "newsweek" magazine. until then, your comments on open phones. let me show you some of the headlines about the financial oversight plan, and it will give you a sense of the initial reaction to it. these are not editorials or commentary, these are reporting stores. here is "the financial times this morning." "wall street says it can do business with federal reserve." "the new york times" today has two stories on its business page. "tough or timid?" again, and "the financial times," "u.s. seeks to marry
dynamism and safety." "not everyone is cheering said's new role." on the front page of "the washington post," "in triage month, the goal was to expand the fed power that triumphs over other goals." that began with phone calls. waterford, michigan. this is john. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. thank you for answering my call. host: thank you. caller: i want to comment on the fact that the federal government cannot protect us from insurance companies. my insurance company, who i had six houses with, i had a fire. they stole evidence out of my house, and it came out in my pretrial. a police officer from michigan lost his job over my fire. i have been to the fbi, i have been to john conyers.
i have been to carl levin. i have been to john dingell's office. i have been to debbie stabenow. i have been to gary peters office, who works for the financial committee, and nothing has been done. host: i'm going to jump in because it is hard for us to do with individual problem the program. for comments on policy and what is in the news, let's go to louisville, ky. bob is calling on our independent line. caller: thank you very much. my name is bob and i have been involved in three businesses. the first one was heavily regulated by the federal government if you think the federal government is there to help you in any business that you involved in, you are not because they are sold -- you are nuts. there are so heavy handed, they
will micromanage our business until there is no business. the second one is the auto industry. i have been in finance sales management, the whole 9 yards, closing, everything to the third is the housing industry. i will tell you, when they talk about community reinvestment act, fannie and freddie and all this good stuff, i went to the real estate and saw the difference, the qualifications and requirements for loans. if you did not have a big financial score that exceeded 640 points, you did not qualify for a loan for a car. just automatically. in the housing industry, if you had a number of 530, you could buy a house. now, the problem, what i saw, with people being set up for failure. it was obviously the community reinvestment act, locking in a
voting block for a particular party. i watched barney frank' and bill clinton pass it. i got out of the business because i could no longer stand. i knew that these people were being set up for failure. there was no way that there -- there was no way that these people could make the payments. host: let's go to the next call, republican line. caller: just listening to congressman gutierrez there, his opening comments to me was the most disgusting, condescending tone i have ever seen a politician put down to the people watching. as if he is talking to a bunch of first graders are second graders. for somebody who has been in congress for 17 years, and to blame the republicans for everything that is wrong, is absolutely ludicrous. he was there when all this
started, when he was talking about this housing debacle that started. under democrat supervision, there are the ones responsible for the total collapse of this system, and they are in cahoots with this president now. i think he is on track with the complete destruction of this country. it is just a shame what they are doing, and for them to try to blame the republicans for everything -- one thing for sure, they'll have the exact same talking points, so they are going to get their point across the matter what because they keep saying it over and over and over. host: bill, thank you for your call. president bush actually accepted his third public speaking in its last night, on the front page of "the washington times." he was in erie, pennsylvania. repeatedly in his hourlong
speech, mr. bush said he would not directly criticize the new president. however, he took direct aim at obama's policies as he defended his own eight years in office. "government does not create wealth," is one of the quotes that they chose in the paper this morning. next call, an independent. caller: hello. i wish i had gotten on with one of those politicians, gangsters, disingenuous salesman, whenever you want to call them. they will never answer the question directly about the federal reserve bank. this country got along very well before 1913 when woodrow wilson signed into law the federal reserve. and before he left office, he said that he had sold out, that
he had made a mistake and sold out the american people by instituting a federal reserve. to give the federal reserve bank, a privately owned bank mostly of entities more power over us and the government is an act of treason. when people were asking -- you know, one of the politicians was asked to the federal reserve bank be audited, and they did not give an answer. if the fed ever gets audited, we will find out that there are a bunch of crooks in charge of our finances and our money. they are the cause of the wars, they are because of this depression, and if we get rid of the fed, 95% of our problems would disappear. it is called the campaign for liberty.com. go there, sign up, let's get rid of
IN COLLECTIONSCSPAN Television Archive Television Archive News Search Service
Uploaded by TV Archive on