What Are They Afraid Of?
June 25, 2012 • 12:27PM

by Bill Roberts

There is a real freakout going on within the Obama administration over their inability to suppress support for the reinstatement of Glass Steagall, a policy which Lyndon LaRouche has championed since 2007 and which the Obama administration vehemently opposes on behalf of the City of London and Wall Street.

The original FDR era policy that separated commercial banking from investment banking has a large number of supporters among Democrats in the U.S. Congress. Since its introduction by Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) in April 2011, H.R. 1489 has gained the support of 67 co-sponsors, including several members of the Michigan Congressional delegation. For several years, Lyndon LaRouche and the LaRouche National Slate of Candidates have led a national fight, building up the base of support for reinstating Glass Steagall among labor unions, farmers, Democratic Party groups and state and local elected officials.

In the recent weeks since JP Morgan announced $2 billion in losses from euro-based financial derivatives, there have been a barrage of calls for the reinstatement of the Glass Steagall Act. Among those joining the call were Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's former Labor Secretary and Elizabeth Warren, Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in Massachusetts, who also slammed the Volcker Rule of the Dodd-Frank “financial reform” bill as insufficient for removing the danger of risky financial speculation. The Obama administration, on the other hand, has gone on an all-out mobilization to kill the renewed drive for Glass Steagall. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who was responsible for the 1980s Federal Reserve program that drove interest rates up over 20 percent, and ruined the physical economy, has launched a call-up campaign to stop Glass Steagall. He has been deployed by the Obama administration to tell economists and congressmen not to listen to LaRouche, that Glass Steagall isn't necessary and that the Volcker Rules are better because they don't punish Wall Street. In his mind, it is better that you the taxpayer pick up the $2 trillion tab of Wall Street's gambling debts. Talk about a swindle! In parallel with this trend, several articles were published last week in Michigan newspapers that exposed a certain degree of panic about the overall impact of my campaign. One article included the assertion by my primary opponent that supposedly I am not a Democrat. This attack on me by pro-Obama Democrats, for my demand that President Barack Obama be impeached, is a more local expression of the panic over the implosion of the Obama administration. What could be more democratic than Glass Steagall, the cornerstone of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal? What could be more un-democratic than committing trillions of dollars in taxpayer money to bailing out too-big-to-fail banks? Glass Steagall would protect depositors and commercial banking operations while making high risk speculators eat their losses. They gambled, they lost, too bad. There is no longer any time for a President whose allegiance to an international banking cartel makes him incapable of defending the American people. If Democrats want to avoid the unacceptable Mitt Romney for President, Obama's removal should be carried out swiftly, Nixon-style, and Democrats can choose a qualified replacement candidate.

* Please follow the Commenting Guidlines.