Would most liberals agree these three financial reforms are needed?

I am currently writing an op-ed for my newspaper, and I want to talk about financial reforms liberals would implement. (We get a lot of LTTEs from teabaggers who think liberals would do nothing but nationalize the financial system and raise taxes.) I thought of three financial reforms we'd implement, which are:

1) create a new law to eliminate the ability of a bank to sell insurance or securities--think "Glass-Steagall on steroids."
2) clamp down on credit derivatives, with special attention paid to naked CDS and CDOs.
3) regulate who can receive an esoteric mortgage--option ARM, balloon, interest-only...

There was a fourth, but I worked 12 hours today and I'm going to bed.

I just don't see how regulating three card monte would make it less a shell game.

I'm here thinking of naked CDS (insurance against the collapse of a derivative you don't own) and collateralized debt obligations, which are the heart of the recent Goldman Sachs scandal. (You remember: Goldman helped rig up a series of CDOs based on subprime residential mortgage-backed securities that were selected specifically for the likelihood the underlying mortgages would default.)

OTOH, properly managed MBS and ABS are useful; this is the vehicle used to sell mortgages. So long as you take the mortgages or other debt, tranche it ONCE and let it succeed or fail on its own merits rather than retranching the MBS if they become toxic, they'd be fine. It's when you turn one $100,000 mortgage into a million-dollar liability that the problem arises, and you can do that by retranching over and over.

Glass-Steagall simply meant that investment banks that sell mortgage-backed securities cannot consolidate with commercial banks, banks that often originate mortgages. Allowing both to consolidate creates a fundamental conflict of interest such that a bank may feel tempted to loosen lending standards for the sake of pushing more mortgage-backed securities.

If it were reinstituted, a lot of big conglomerates like Wells-Fargo or Bank of America would be forced to spin-off commercial divisions within their companies. A lot of them would be smashed.

the consequences of which were easily foreseeable at the time.