Elizabeth WarrenElizabeth WarrenSenate votes to eliminate Obama-era retirement rule Overnight Finance: Dems seek probe of acting SEC chief | Defense hawks say they won't back short-term funding | Senate seen as start point for Trump infrastructure plan | Dems want more money for IRS Senate Dems call for investigation of acting SEC chairman MORE, to her great credit, is calling for restoring the Glass-Steagall Act, protecting John and Jane Doe from banks that are too big to fail. Ron Paul, to his equally great credit, opposed ending the Glass-Steagall Act, and for this Paul deserves a standing ovation.

The issue is simple: When John and Jane or grandma and grandpa put their money in banks, those banks exist to protect them. There should be one kind of bank for them to put their money in. When the super-wealthy of the 1 percent put their money in banks to speculate, they should become even more wealthy if their speculation succeeds, but lose their money if their speculation fails, and these banks go bankrupt without one dime of taxpayer bailout.

The latest fiasco surrounding JPMorgan proves yet again that banks should never become too big to fail, as they are today. In this sense we should break up the banks, have one kind of bank for John and Jane Doe, and a different kind of bank that gets ALL of the rewards, but takes ALL of the risk, of speculations to profit the wealthy.

On this matter Elizabeth Warren and Ron Paul have much in common, and they are both right.

If Warren and Paul did a joint "break up the banks" press conference, it sure would generate a tidal wave of support and just might change the world of banking.