(VIDEO) Goldman Vet Sparks Conflict On Hill
By American News Project | Related entries in NewsThis is Lagan from ANP…
Senator Reid says he will “move forward” on nomination of Gary Gensler despite hold by Senator Sanders.
Barack Obama’s plan to name yet another Goldman Sachs alum to his economic team is proving too much for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT). Sanders put a hold on the nomination of Gary Gensler to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, effectively stopping the nomination process in its tracks. Sanders says Gensler, who spent 17 years at Goldman Sachs and then joined the Treasury Department under Bill Clinton, played too big a role in deregulating derivatives in the 90s’ to be trusted to reregulate the market now.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), however, has told ANP that he plans “move forward” with Gensler’s nomination despite Sanders’ hold. To Christopher Hayes, Washington editor of The Nation Magazine, the Majority Leader’s defense of Gensler and Goldman is a disturbing indication that it may be business as usual on the Hill when it comes to meaningful regulation on Wall Street.
This entry was posted on Thursday, April 2nd, 2009 and is filed under News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.










April 2nd, 2009 at 5:29 pm
I wouldn’t count on business as usual – this guy has a reputation as an absolute shark. He’ll be responsible for overseeing an area that he has intimate knowledge of – he’s very well qualified for the post. From “Wiki”
The stated mission of the CFTC is to protect market users and the public from fraud, manipulation, and abusive practices related to the sale of commodity and financial futures and options, and to foster open, competitive, and financially sound futures and option markets.
Let’s just hope he’s a fox that can be trusted to protect the hens in the hen house.
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Whoa whoa whoa–something that happened during the Clinton administration helped cause the current economic mess. Butbutbut…he was a Democrat. That’s simply not possible, right? And now we have Justin claiming that Bush wasn’t a fiscal conservative. The world has turned upside down.
Could it possibly, *possibly* be that a genuinely fiscally conservative approach might bet better than what we’ve dealt with the past 16 years?