Congresswoman Maloney and the JEC Show Hints of Muscle

Congresswoman Maloney and the JEC Show Hints of Muscle

Congresswoman Maloney and the JEC Show Hints of Muscle

Yesterday’s hearing at the Joint Economic Committee, convened by Congresswoman Maloney, gave me some hope that Congress might be thinking about taking some leadership in systematically restructuring our financial system. I highly recommend that everyone watch the video.

Sam Brownback, Republican Congressman Burgess, Democratic Congressman Cummings, Democratic Congresswoman Maloney–unlikely bedfellows, to say the least–all appeared to accept the arguments of Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, and Thomas Hoenig, that the current PPIP and TARP projects are not just foolish but dangerous, and that we need a radical restructuring of the response to the crisis.

The panel starts with discussions of economic failure, but ends with the problems of political failure. As Congressman Burgess said in the opening remarks, "Trillions of taxpayer dollars are at risk, but congressional approval is not needed for the plan to proceed …on its face this is a violation of the democratic process."

Copy Link
Facebook
X (Twitter)
Bluesky
Pocket
Email

Yesterday’s hearing at the Joint Economic Committee, convened by Congresswoman Maloney, gave me some hope that Congress might be thinking about taking some leadership in systematically restructuring our financial system. I highly recommend that everyone watch the video.

Sam Brownback, Republican Congressman Burgess, Democratic Congressman Cummings, Democratic Congresswoman Maloney–unlikely bedfellows, to say the least–all appeared to accept the arguments of Joseph Stiglitz, Simon Johnson, and Thomas Hoenig, that the current PPIP and TARP projects are not just foolish but dangerous, and that we need a radical restructuring of the response to the crisis.

The panel starts with discussions of economic failure, but ends with the problems of political failure. As Congressman Burgess said in the opening remarks, "Trillions of taxpayer dollars are at risk, but congressional approval is not needed for the plan to proceed …on its face this is a violation of the democratic process."

Stiglitz described how "the big banks … tried to shape the view that there is no alternative than throwing [them] massive amounts of money." But he–and Johnson–also talked about how the revolving door between wall street and government is a real problem because of mindset, not just greed. If someone has "grown up" in the culture of big banks, he said, "they see things in this very peculiar way … we’ve seen some outstanding examples of that" in this crisis. "We’ve seen all our regulators get captured," said Johnson.

The hearing is intelligent, thoughtful, and shows some signs of life in our most representative branch, suggesting that Congress–chaotic, strange, over-gerrymandered, but still set up to be responsive to popular sentiment–might actually take some leadership in reform.

Congresswoman Maloney, in particular, asked repeated questions not just about what should be done, but how–you could watch her thinking about how Congress could take leadership.

Notably, every single member of the panel advocated regulations that would lead to encouraging small and medium sized banks, a more diverse and truly competitive system. As Johnson said, we have to break up the banks–both for our economic future, and to constrain the chances for regulatory capture in the future.

A hearing is not action, and the actions to date have been trivial. But with pressure, we could see Congress taking responsibility for economic policy; as Elizabeth Warren said the other day, we need people involved for our policy to improve.

An urgent message from the Editors

As the editors of The Nation, it’s not usually our role to fundraise. Today, however, we’re putting out a special appeal to our readers, because there are only hours left in 2025 and we’re still $20,000 away from our goal of $75,000. We need you to help close this gap. 

Your gift to The Nation directly supports the rigorous, confrontational, and truly independent journalism that our country desperately needs in these dark times.

2025 was a terrible year for press freedom in the United States. Trump launched personal attack after personal attack against journalists, newspapers, and broadcasters across the country, including multiple billion-dollar lawsuits. The White House even created a government website to name and shame outlets that report on the administration with anti-Trump bias—an exercise in pure intimidation.

The Nation will never give in to these threats and will never be silenced. In fact, we’re ramping up for a year of even more urgent and powerful dissent. 

With the 2026 elections on the horizon, and knowing Trump’s history of false claims of fraud when he loses, we’re going to be working overtime with writers like Elie Mystal, John Nichols, Joan Walsh, Jeet Heer, Kali Holloway, Katha Pollitt, and Chris Lehmann to cut through the right’s spin, lies, and cover-ups as the year develops.

If you donate before midnight, your gift will be matched dollar for dollar by a generous donor. We hope you’ll make our work possible with a donation. Please, don’t wait any longer.

In solidarity,

The Nation Editors

Ad Policy
x