Dear Bernie: I Like You, But These Red Flags Are Too Frequent to Ignore

podesta-emails 2,427 words email

V15 P17 P22 V11 V16

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- In case you haven’t seen > http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/dear-bernie-red-flags-frequent_b_9289954.html <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/dear-bernie-red-flags-frequent_b_9289954.html> > > Dear Bernie: I Like You, But These Red Flags Are Too Frequent to Ignore > > > ASSOCIATED PRESS > > You have been a lifelong champion of human equality. You have kept economic inequality, an issue I care <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-womack/30-years-of-real-class-warfare_b_932279.html> very deeply about, at the forefront of an election cycle that might otherwise have been dominated by the antics of a reality TV clown. > > On foreign policy, the issue that is generally considered your greatest weakness, I believe that you have consistently shown yourself to be responsible, inquisitive and level-headed. And you and Secretary Clinton have run campaigns which, a few stumbles aside, stand in such stark contrast to the GOP field that it is difficult to fathom how anyone could possibly consider any of them over either of you. > > Senator Sanders, I like you. I admire you. Most of the time, I wish that we had 99 more senators just like you. > > And I would, wouldn't I? I'm on the younger end of the likely voter spectrum. I'm male. I'm white. I'm liberal as hell. I'm the kind of voter that you should have a lock on. > > But Senator, we have a problem, and it's a big one. When it comes to the specifics surrounding the core issue of your campaign, you have too often come across as either disingenuous or strangely removed from current reality. > > The red flags have become too frequent to ignore. > > You recently claimed <https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/688127777204080641> that under your leadership, "the Treasury Department will create a too-big-to fail list of banks and insurance companies." > > Of course it will. The Treasury Department has been legally required <https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/about/Pages/default.aspx> to do that since the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010. The institutions are, on top of that, already subjected to stress tests, and when they fail <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/14/business/la-fi-banks-stress-test-20120314>, there are fairly serious consequences <http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jan/14/business/la-fi-mo-metlife-ge-capital-bank-deposits-20130114>. The Department's annual report is available right here <https://www.treasury.gov/initiatives/fsoc/studies-reports/Documents/2015%20FSOC%20Annual%20Report.pdf>. You can find a list of these institutions on Wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_systemically_important_banks#D-SIBs_in_USA>, for crying out loud. The Financial Stability Board also maintains a global list, which you can find right here <http://www.fsb.org/wp-content/uploads/2015-update-of-list-of-global-systemically-important-banks-G-SIBs.pdf>, should you find that helpful. > > Similarly, you have made a fair amount of noise calling for an independent audit of the Federal Reserve. That's already done, every single year. You can find last year's report right here <http://oig.federalreserve.gov/reports/board-financial-statements-2014-2013-mar2015.pdf>. > > What the plan that you and Sen. Paul have put forth does is, a) pander to low-information voters, and b) make the Federal Reserve's every decision subject to congressional pressure. What you are proposing, Senator Sanders, would set the Fed's independence <http://www.cbsnews.com/news/why-the-federal-reserve-needs-to-be-independent/> back four decades and allow Paul Ryan to pressure it at every turn. > > Even when I agree with your proposed policies, I am too often alarmed by your extreme departures from reality. > > You have proposed, for example, to pay for universal free public college with a tax on Wall Street speculation <https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/694643230520901632>. Hillary Clinton <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-high-speed-trading_us_56158d9de4b021e856d375e8?aatt9=> had previously proposed such a tax, sans the promise that it would cover such a large expense. It's called a Tobin tax. The idea dates back to 1972 <http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2013/09/economist-explains-1>, and is meant to stabilize markets. > > "Even when I agree with your proposed policies, I am too often alarmed by your extreme departures from reality." > When it comes to raising revenue, however, it's arguably little more than snake oil <http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b9b40fee-9236-11e2-851f-00144feabdc0.html>. Sweden once tried it <http://www.bbc.com/news/business-15552412>after the promise of 1.5 billion kronor in new revenue. It fell 97 percent short of that projection. As investors moved to other markets, revenue from capital gains taxes fell. The relatively meager 50 million the tax did bring in was offset entirely <https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfinec/v33y1993i2p227-240.html> by those losses. Recent experiments in Italy and France <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2389166> have been similarly disappointing. > > Of course, it should bring in some money -- a good deal, perhaps. Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, South Africa and South Korea currently raise tens of billions (combined, annually,) with the tax. And a group of ten European nations is now hoping that a similar tax might generate <http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/dec/08/decision-financial-transactions-tax-june-eu> as much as $15 billion annually, between them. (Good luck with that, say Italy and France.) > > But in 2012, students in the U.S. spent $62.6 billion <http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/heres-exactly-how-much-the-government-would-have-to-spend-to-make-public-college-tuition-free/282803/> on tuition at public colleges. In order for your scheme to work, a Tobin tax here would need to raise roughly that plus the cost of students who would return to school or take a public institution over a private one if it were free. It would also have to defray the price paid by seniors, who will end up eating some of the cost <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/8876977/Tobin-Tax-is-a-tax-on-pensioners-that-will-cost-1m-jobs-says-Chancellor-George-Osborne.html>... All without being offset by other lost revenue. > > Senator, you're not going to pay for universal free public college with a Tobin tax. > > But none of this holds a candle to the bizarre narrative you have consistently pushed around Glass-Steagall, your primary point of distinction from Secretary Clinton on finance. You have repeatedly insinuated, implied and said flat-out <https://berniesanders.com/yes-glass-steagall-matters-here-are-5-reasons-why/> that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which you tend to call a repeal of Glass-Steagall, caused the financial crisis. > > Senator Sanders, that simply isn't true. That is a lie invented for a slimy attack ad during the 2008 campaign. There is an overwhelming consensus--not from Wall Street, but from watchdogs and academics -- that the repeal of Glass-Steagall did not cause the financial crisis. Fact checker <http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/> after fact checker <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/11/bernie-sanderss-claim-that-glass-steagall-banned-commercial-bank-loans-to-shadow-banks/> after fact checker <http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/19/bill-clinton/bill-clinton-glass-steagall-had-nothing-do-financi/> after fact checker <http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis> has found the claim to be, at best, an enormous stretch. They were doing so, from all parts of the political spectrum, years before you launched a presidential campaign. > > The law had little if anything to do with the practices leading up to the crisis. It aimed, as you well know, to separate commercial from investment banking. You can support that policy or oppose it, with honest, pro-regulatory arguments on either side. I might even agree with you. But you cannot with a straight face blame the financial crisis on its absence. > > Princeton's Alan S Blinder wrote <http://www.ijcb.org/journal/ijcb10q4a13.pdf> way back in 2010: > > I often pose the following question to critics who claim that repealing Glass-Steagall was a major cause of the financial crisis: What disasters would have been averted if Glass-Steagall was still on the books? > > I've yet to hear a good answer. While mortgage underwriting standards were disgraceful, they were promulgated by banks and mortgage finance companies and did not rely on any new GLB powers. The dodgy MBS were put together and marketed mainly by free-standing investment banks, not by newly created banking-securities conglomerates. All five of the giant investment banks (Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, and Bear Stearns) got themselves into severe trouble without help from banking subsidiaries, and their problems certainly did not stem from conventional investment banking activities--the historic target of Glass-Steagall. Similarly, Wachovia and Washington Mutual died (and Bank of America and Citigroup nearly did) of banking diseases, not from entanglements with or losses imposed on them by related investment banks. In short, I don't see how this crisis would have been any milder if GLB had never passed. > > When asked to identify a law that actually contributed to the financial crisis, experts are more likely to point to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 <http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2008/05/foreclosure-phil>. TIME Magazine explained <http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1869041_1869040_1869098,00.html> back in 2008: > > If you had to pick a single government move that did more than any other to muck things up, it was probably this bill, passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by lame-duck President Bill Clinton in December 2000. It effectively banned regulators from sticking their noses into over-the-counter derivatives like credit default swaps. There's no guarantee that regulators would have sniffed out the dangers in time. But banning them from even looking sent a pretty clear anything-goes message to OTC derivatives markets. > > Senator Sanders, you voted <http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/17/politics/bernie-sanders-wall-street-deregulation-debate/> in favor of that law. > > I'm not saying this to pin the blame on any one law, Senator. Certainly not to pin it on you. That would be absurd. I am merely pointing out that Glass-Steagall is an especially ridiculous boogeyman. > > In fact, there is good reason to believe that Glass-Steagall would have made the crisis worse. The kind of combined institutions the law aimed to prevent weathered the financial crisis far better than the kind of independent investment firms it aimed to mandate. > > The U.S. overall fared the global disaster relatively well <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/business/us-economy-is-doing-well-compared-with-other-nations.html?_r=0>, which itself blows a huge hole in any story seeking to blame it on a single US law. But it is Canada's remarkable endurance <http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/the-financial-crash/article14257785/> that really sinks the Glass-Steagall claim. Canada's relative success has often been attributed in part to Schedule I and II of its Bank Act, which serve as a sort of anti-Glass-Steagall. This gave <https://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Nexus/nexus09_anand.pdf> Canadian institutions "a steady, secure stream of capital," while "holdovers from Glass Steagall" in the US collapsed or were forced to combine. > > As Factcheck.org <http://www.factcheck.org/2008/10/who-caused-the-economic-crisis/> concluded in 2008: > > The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act had little if anything to do with the current crisis. In fact, economists on both sides of the political spectrum have suggested that the act has probably made the crisis less severe than it might otherwise have been... > > Deregulated banks were not the major culprits in the current debacle. Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and J.P. Morgan Chase have weathered the financial crisis in reasonably good shape, while Bear Stearns collapsed and Lehman Brothers has entered bankruptcy, to name but two of the investment banks which had remained independent despite the repeal of Glass-Steagall. > > Observers as diverse as former Clinton Treasury official and current Berkeley economist Brad DeLong and George Mason University's Tyler Cowen, a libertarian, have praised Gramm-Leach-Bliley has having softened the crisis. The deregulation allowed Bank of America and J.P. Morgan Chase to acquire Merrill Lynch and Bear Stearns. And Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have now converted themselves into unified banks to better ride out the storm. > > Brookings Institution Fellow Phillip Wallach rather charitably described <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/11/bernie-sanderss-claim-that-glass-steagall-banned-commercial-bank-loans-to-shadow-banks/> your efforts to tie Glass-Steagall to the financial crisis as, "Stretching very hard to try to fit a square peg in a round hole," and, "not at all convincing as a matter of accurate historical description." > > Sometimes, Senator, you really live up to your initials. > > I realize that you're giving people easy answers to complicated problems because they respond to that better than wonky lectures about shadow banking. I am fully aware that three quarters of all readers checked out of this piece somewhere around the Tobin tax. > > "Sometimes, Senator, you really live up to your initials." > The problem is that you're talking to people who sense that something is wrong, are angry about it and want to know where to place the blame. You are giving them a cabal of boogeyman bankers, corporations and allegedly bought politicians to bear the brunt of that resentment. You're doing this through a fair degree of dishonesty, and the response of your supporters and campaign to any kind of reality check has thus far been to impugn the motives of impartial observers. > > Bernie -- do you mind if I call you Bernie? That's bullshit, Bernie. > > Senator, you are forming a mob of angry, misinformed people and then turning it on the likely Democratic nominee <http://cookpolitical.com/story/9258>. That, Senator, is a dangerous and destructive game. Does your campaign honestly wonder <http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/the-bernie-bros> why it has become synonymous with nasty online invective? If you mention the Bernie Bros online, fifty people fitting the profile pop up with abusive comments informing you that they don't exist. On the eve of the Nevada caucus, one of your supporters attempted to place <http://www.reviewjournal.com/politics/caucuses-2016/attempt-place-review-journal-obituary-hillary-clinton-prompts-report-secret> an obituary for Secretary Clinton in the Las Vegas Sun-Journal. Don't you think this all might have a little something to do with your "me against the corrupt establishment" bluster? > > It is a bitter irony, then, that Paul Krugman <http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/16/opinion/democrats-republicans-and-wall-street-tycoons.html?_r=2>, Barney Frank <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-high-speed-trading_us_56158d9de4b021e856d375e8?aatt9=>, Gary Gensler <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-high-speed-trading_us_56158d9de4b021e856d375e8?aatt9=>, Jared Bernstein <http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-09/can-hillary-clinton-win-dem-race-for-toughest-wall-street-cop-/> and Felicia Wong <https://www.facebook.com/Roosevelt.Institute/photos/a.449759618637.236761.158327013637/10153635896433638/?type=1&theater> and Mike Konczal <http://www.vox.com/2015/10/8/9482521/hillary-clinton-financial-reform> of the Roosevelt Institute all agree that Clinton's plans to rein in Wall Street have more teeth than yours. > > Meanwhile, anyone hoping to back up your claims will almost certainly be directed to your surrogate Robert Reich--whose website <http://robertreich.org/> currently sports thirty-nine "above fold" links to purchase books targeted at leftist consumers. Your campaign is built on questioning the motives of the people who aren't trying to sell your supporters anything, Senator, while simultaneously directing them toward someone who is. > > "Senator, you are forming a mob of angry, misinformed people and then turning it on the likely Democratic nominee." > A group of progressive economists recently wrote <https://lettertosanders.wordpress.com/2016/02/17/open-letter-to-senator-sanders-and-professor-gerald-friedman-from-past-cea-chairs/> that outlandish claims of economic expansion under your proposed plans, "undermine the credibility of the progressive economic agenda and make it that much more difficult to challenge the unrealistic claims made by Republican candidates." > > Did you look at the signatures on that letter, Senator? Did you notice that half <http://eml.berkeley.edu/~cromer/> of them <http://facultybio.haas.berkeley.edu/faculty-list/tyson-laura/> work at the same University as Robert Reich <https://gspp.berkeley.edu/directories/faculty/robert-reich>? > > To be clear: I am not questioning Reich's sincerity. I am, however, pointing out how ridiculous it is, given the circumstances, for your campaign to behave as if the only honest, informed economists in the world are the ones acting as your surrogates. > > Senator, I'm not an economist. But I know when someone is spouting nonsense because they think it's what I want to hear. If you want to know how that story ends, just take a look at the current Republican field. > > CONVERSATIONS