Ever since it was first proposed, the financial services industry has launched a withering assault on the Volcker rule, a regulation meant to rein in the ability of banks to gamble with their customers’ deposits. The banks were able to water the rule down before it was passed into law — thanks in no small part to Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) — and have now submitted a heap of comments to the regulators charged with implementing the rule, in hopes of watering it down even further.

But not all members of the financial industry are against the Volcker rule. In fact, former Citigroup CEO John Reed submitted a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission saying that the rule does not go far enough in preventing the banks from engaging in risky trading with deposits:

When a firm is focused on market gain, it will employ every available device to achieve those gains – including taking advantages of clients and putting the firm at risk. And. when it is large enough to be a threat to systemic stability, it is able to avoid the constraints of market discipline which apply to smaller actors In short, little will stand in the way of it becoming a threat to systemic stability.

The Volcker Rule is a critical response to this problem. and the proposed rule takes an important step forward in pulling into place the prohibition on proprietary trading and positions in private funds. However, I am concerned it docs not offer bright enough lines or provide strong enough penalties for violation.

Reed called for “specific and vigorous penalties” for traders who break the Volcker rule, as well as a provision requiring banks’ senior officers to sign forms attesting to their firms compliance with the rule.

Reed is no saint when it comes to regulatory matters, as he was instrumental in bringing down the barrier between investment banking and commercial banking in the 1990s, which laid the groundwork for today’s mega-banks and the financial crisis of 2008. However, he has since acknowledged that his position then was a mistake, and has pushed for strong financial reform, including breaking up the biggest banks. (HT: Huffington Post)

Last year, when Democrats and Republicans were negotiating a short-term extension of the payroll tax holiday, multiple Republicans pushed the false idea that extending the payroll tax cut would undermine Social Security by robbing its trust fund of vital revenue. Those claims were repeatedly debunked by media outlets, members of Congress, and even the Social Security Trust Fund’s chief actuary.

Republicans, however, either missed that debunking or have willfully ignored it. With Congress nearing a deal to extend the cut through 2012, GOP leaders like Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who as the House Budget Committee chairman has positioned himself as the party’s top budget and finance authority, is again pushing the false notion that the payroll tax cut will hurt Social Security, as The Hill reported today:

Ryan warned that the the move could erode the Social Security Trust Fund, which is funded by the payroll tax.

“Members on our side of the aisle are divided on this question. I personally have a problem with what happens with the Social Security trust fund. So people are divided on this; the Democrats agreed to it, I’d say I don’t really know what the number of Republicans are that agree to it, so they basically decided to bring it to the floor and let Congress work its will, and let people vote however they want to,” Ryan said during an interview with WLS Radio in Chicago.

As Jared Bernstein, the former chief economist to Vice President Biden, wrote in December, the payroll tax holiday was specifically crafted to protect Social Security by requiring the nation’s general fund to replace any lost revenues in the trust fund. The general fund, in fact, has made monthly transfers to replace the lost revenue since the holiday began, and Social Security hasn’t been touched. The proposed extension Congress is now debating contains the same protections.

And while Ryan now claims to have “a problem” with diverting funds out of the Social Security Trust Fund and worries about “what happens” if such a plan is followed, he didn’t have the same concerns last year, when he proposed a privatization plan that would divert $1.2 trillion — a whopping 1,200 times the size of the payroll tax cut extension — out of the Social Security Trust Fund, and would only restore that money over the next quarter of a century through deep benefit cuts.

Oil is once again trading above $100 per barrel, bringing with it estimates that U.S. gas will cost more than $4 per gallon by May, if not sooner. The Obama administration is already bracing for higher gas prices and the political cost that they could exact.

But it isn’t increasing demand for oil that is driving the recent price increase. In fact, demand is the lowest it’s been since April, 1997, according to the Oil Price Information Service (OPIS). Instead, OPIS points to speculators as the party responsible for driving up prices:

Strangely, the current run-up in prices comes despite sinking demand in the U.S. “Petrol demand is as low as it’s been since April 1997,” says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst for the Oil Price Information Service. “People are properly puzzled by the fact that we’re using less gas than we have in years, yet we’re paying more.”

Kloza believes much of the increase is due to speculative money that’s flowed into gasoline futures contracts since the beginning of the year, mostly from hedge funds and large money managers. “We’ve seen about $11 billion of speculative money come in on the long side of gas futures,” he says. “Each of the last three weeks we’ve seen a record net long position being taken.”

A multitude of experts, from academics to government agencies, have pinned the 2008 gas price spike on oil speculators. Of course, a big increase in gas prices could doom the slow but steady economic recovery.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus, became law three years ago this week, signed by President Obama less than a month into his presidency. At the time, financial and housing crises had plunged the American economy into a deep recession — in January 2009, the economy lost more than 800,000 jobs, more than in any single month in 60 years.

With its investments into infrastructure projects, tax cuts, and aid to states, the stimulus was designed to curb the effects of the recession and turn the economy back around. Though Republicans have criticized the effort and subsequent attempts to stimulate the economy as “failed policies,” early analysis has shown that the stimulus saved and created millions of jobs and pulled the American economy away from the precipice of collapse.

In a new analysis, Center for American Progress Director for Tax and Budget Policy Michael Linden examined the American economy in three parts — before the recession, during the recession, and after the stimulus passed — to find out if the stimulus did, indeed, work. As the video below shows, there is no doubt that the stimulus turned the economy around and put it on the path to recovery: