Category Archives: Democrats

Senate Turns Down Extension of Unemployment Benefits

17 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Democrats, economy, Politics, Republicans

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Republicrats in the Senate gave a big middle finger to the long-term unemployed yesterday, as 12 Democrats joined all the Republicans in voting down the extension of unemployment benefits, citing their hypocritical concerns about increasing the deficit as the reason:

“I’ve said all along that we have to be able to pay for what we’re spending,” said Sen. Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat who voted against the bill. “$77 billion or more of this is not paid for and that translates into deficit spending and adding to the debt, and the American people are right: We’ve got to stop doing that.”

Funny, Sen. Nelson didn’t have any problem with deficit spending when he voted for $165 billion to fund operations in Iraq and Afghanistan for 2008 and 2009.

Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA) also voted again the extension over her concerns that unemployment benefits are so generous that they encourage people to not look for a job:

“We have 99 weeks of unemployment insurance,” Feinstein said. “The question comes, how long do you continue before people just don’t want to go back to work at all?”

Right DiFi, the unemployed are getting fat and happy living on benefits that are about one-third of their previous wages. This coming from the ninth richest member of Congress whose assets in 2005 were estimated at $40 million. And oh by the way, whose husband, Richard Blum, just happens to own two defense contractors that benefitted greatly from Sen. Feinstein’s time as chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee.

Feinstein was echoing what Congressman John Linder (R-GA) said last week:

“Georgia Republican Rep. John Linder suggested Thursday that extended unemployment benefits keep people from looking for work…”[N]early two years of unemployment benefits are too much of an allure for some,” said Linder.”

OK, Rep. Linder, let’s apply your logic to the Pentagon. Since you also voted for the $165 billion in funding for Iraq and Afghanistan, isn’t that “too much of an allure” for the continuation of both wars? Let’s cut off their funding and end their addiction.

Last but not least, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) turned up the stoopid yesterday with his proposal that the unemployed undergo drug tests in order to receive benefits. Right, Orrin. The 46% of the unemployed who have been out of work for more than 6 months, the highest number since the Labor Department started keeping that statistic in 1948, would rather sit around the house, get high and watch the tube than go to work. Idiot.

I propose that members of Congress undergo drug testing. Or maybe more appropriately, brain scans.

Frank and Dodd Set to Serve Their Corporate Masters

10 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama administration, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

With the conference committee set to start meeting today to come up with a final version of financial reform legislation, the finance industry whores on the committee (aka Barney Frank and Chris Dodd) are doing their best to backpedal on Blanche Lincoln’s provision to force the big banks to spin off their derivatives operations.

“Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd [$3.1 million from Finance Industry PACs], a skeptic on the Lincoln plan, called it a “strong provision” and said she “was on the right track.” He did not, however, agree with his Democratic colleagues Wednesday who said Lincoln’s election win would make it harder to eliminate the provision.

And Frank [$2.3 million], who is chairing the conference committee, gave no indication Wednesday of where he intended to steer the House-Senate conference on the issue.”

No big surprise here either:

“The plan faces opposition from the administration, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve.”

Change you can believe in.

Senate Votes on Financial Regulation Amendments

12 Wednesday May 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Democrats, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, McCain, Politics, Progressives, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Any time anything passes in the Senate by a vote of 96–0 I’m suspicious. Those numbers are usually reserved for meaningless proclamations declaring ‘National Be Kind to Puppies and Kitties Day.’ But such a vote took place yesterday on Sen. Bernie Sanders’ amendment to audit the Federal Reserve.

Sanders’ original amendment would have required the Fed to submit to regular audits, but the watered-down version passed yesterday is for a one-time audit with a specific scope and time frame. This only adds to my suspicion that the newer version is more than likely toothless:

“A Fed spokeswoman declined to comment on the Senate action, but Fed leaders, who previously have objected to broader efforts to review monetary policy, have not opposed the most recent version of Sanders’s proposal.”

A more accurate gauge of where the Senate stands on REAL financial reform can be found in other amendments taken up yesterday, like the one proposed by David Vitter which called for the stronger provisions contained in Sanders’ original proposal. It was voted down 62 to 37 with only 6 Democrats voting “Yea”—Cantwell, Dorgan, Feingold, Lincoln, Webb, and Wyden.

Another amendment, proposed by Sen. McCain, called for a time frame for winding down and eventually ending the government’s conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That failed by a vote of 56 to 43 with only 2 Democrats–Bayh and Feingold–voting “Yea.” An alternative to the McCain amendment, proposed by Chris Dodd, called for “the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study on ending the conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.” That passed by a margin of 63–36. Russ Feingold (I detect a pattern here) was the lone Democrat voting “Nay.”

Credit where credit is due, Sen. Shelby is right on the money (so to speak):

“Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were at the heart of the financial crisis,” Shelby said Tuesday. “How we can have basic regulatory reform, financial reform, if we’re not going to include Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?”

Also set for a vote this week is Sen. Lincoln’s amendment which would place strong restrictions on derivative trading. Needless to say, Wall Street is going all out to kill this:

“…the five [largest] banks together have mustered more than 130 registered lobbyists, including 40 former Senate staff members and one retired senator, Trent Lott. The list includes former staff members for the Senate majority and minority leaders, the chairmen and ranking members of the banking and finance committees, and more than 15 other senators. In the first quarter, the banks spent $6.1 million on lobbying.”

Why are the banksters fighting so hard to stop it? Follow the money:

“The change could cost the industry a lot of money. Banks reported $22.6 billion in derivatives revenue in 2009..”

As The Health Care Reform Turns

18 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, health care, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

In today’s episode of  “As The Health Care Reform Turns”:

“House Democrats are inching toward the majority they need to pass health care legislation, giving them added confidence as they work out the last details of the bill and gird for a showdown as soon as this weekend.”

“Details” like what’s in the bill and how much it costs:

“House Democratic leaders on Wednesday night said the long-awaited Congressional Budget Office score of the reconciliation bill will not come out until Thursday, forcing an acknowledgment that a Saturday healthcare vote is likely off the table…But leaders are still hoping for a score on Thursday, and are still preparing for a possible vote before the end of the weekend.

…Rep. Robert Andrews (D-N.J.)…said that the delay is the result of numerous technical issues involved, and stressed that, despite any rumors to the contrary, the delays are not the result of policy problems.”

Translation: The delays are the result of policy problems. Just a hunch—Pelosi has seen the CBO numbers and they ain’t good. Hence the need to raise the tax on benefits:

“AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is headed into a meeting with President Obama this afternoon after the White House and Congressional leaders have begun to discuss a higher-than-expected excise tax on some health care plans, in order to maintain their claim that health care legislation will reduce the deficit, a source involved in health care talks said.”

Policy problems like President Obama’s support for the so-called “Louisiana Purchase”:

“That provision, which I think should remain in, said that if a state has been affected by a natural catastrophe, that has created a special health care emergency in that state, they should get help,” Obama told Fox News’s Bret Baier…”

And since PhRMA has agreed to spend $6 million on pro-reform advertising, it’s safe to assume that the not-so-secret deal between the White House and the drug industry will be in the elusive bill as well.

So, where does HCR stand today? Pretty much in the same place its been:

“Democratic leaders say they have not nailed down the 216 votes they need for passage, but they are pressing ahead in the belief that they can get them.”

Dodd’s Toothless Consumer Protection “Watchdog”

17 Wednesday Mar 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, Democrats, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

Sen. Chris Dodd’s so-called “sweeping overhaul of the U.S. financial system” creates a Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which is supposed to be “a new, independent consumer watchdog.” You just know there’s a “but” coming here, right? Right:

“…the legislation would impose significant limits on the autonomy of the new watchdog. It would establish a Financial Stability Oversight Council [with veto power over the bureau] of nine members, all but one of whom would be existing financial regulators such as the Treasury Secretary and Comptroller of the Currency, which oversees national banks.”

In just one example, let’s take a look at what those “existing regulators” and the now-Treasury Secretary were doing in the case of Lehman Brothers, as revealed in the report by the examiner of Lehman’s bankruptcy. While management at Lehman was engaging in Enron-stlye accounting, where were the federal regulators? Looking on:

“One crucial move was to shift assets off its books at the end of each quarter in exchange for cash through a clever accounting maneuver…to make its leverage [debt] levels look lower than they were. Then they would bring the assets back onto its balance sheet days after issuing its earnings report.

And where was the government while all this “materially misleading” accounting was going on? In the vernacular of teenage instant messaging, let’s just say they had a vantage point as good as POS (parent over shoulder).”

What’s worse is that “there is no evidence that Lehman kept two sets of books or tried to hide what it was doing from regulators.” Among the spectators:

“The NY Fed, the regulatory agency led by then FRBNY President Geithner [which] stood by while Lehman deceived the public through a scheme that FRBNY officials likened to a “three card monte routine.”

The FRBNY knew that Lehman was engaged in smoke and mirrors designed to overstate its liquidity and, therefore, was unwilling to lend as much money to Lehman. The FRBNY did not, however, inform the SEC, the public, or the OTS (which regulated an S&L that Lehman owned) of what should have been viewed by all as ongoing misrepresentations.”

So much for the “watchdog” capabilities of existing regulators and the Treasury Secretary. What about the other named mentioned, the Comptroller of the Currency. That would be John Dugan, a name not many are familiar with, but who was called in an article in The Nation last December, “one of the earliest architects of the too big to fail economy”:

“Too big to fail banks were a ticking time bomb, but they might not have ravaged the global economy in 2008 without major shortcomings in consumer protection over the previous five years. As head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Dugan played a leading role in gutting the consumer protection system, allowing big banks to take outrageous risks on the predatory mortgages that led to millions of foreclosures.

“For years, the OCC has had the power and the responsibility to protect both banks and consumers, and it has consistently thrown the consumer under the bus,” says Harvard University Law School professor Elizabeth Warren, chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program.”

Consumer Financial Protection? Sounds more like Wall Street Financial Protection to me.

An Earmark Ban That’s Not Really an Earmark Ban

11 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, lobbyists, Politics, special interests

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Reading this headline in the New York Times—“Leaders in House Block Earmarks to Corporations”— might give the impression that some serious reform is underway on Capitol Hill, right? Wrong. As usual with our esteemed members of Congress,  it’s all about appearance. The appearance of doing something while actually doing nothing. And again, as usual, there are loopholes big enough for Patton’s Third Army to march through.

For instance, the ban on earmarks only applies to for-profit companies, allegedly. Which means that:

“Under the new restrictions, not-for-profit institutions like schools and colleges, state and local governments, research groups, social service centers and others are still free to receive earmarks. The new restrictions, for example, would still allow the type of award to local governmental agencies that became infamous in 2005 with Alaska’s “Bridge to Nowhere.”

Loophole No. 2:

“In addition, billions added to the defense bills for existing national security programs under contract with major defense companies such as Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman probably would not be affected.

For example, when House appropriators add more funds for Boeing’s C-17 cargo aircraft, they do not disclose them as earmarks. Instead, they are considered programs essential to national security even though none of the funds are requested by the Pentagon. These funds benefit lawmaker districts where the weapons systems are built.”

So what’s the point? It’s all about “image,” “appearances” and “optics.”

“House Democrats, in a bid to rehabilitate the image of a committee long mired in ethical mishaps, announced the Appropriations panel would not approve earmarks for for-profit corporations…”

“…For Pelosi, it clearly seemed to be a bid to simultaneously rehabilitate her party’s image and that of the Appropriations Committee, several of whose members were cleared in a wide-ranging ethics probe last month.”

“…Practically, many understand this rule means very little. Defense insiders say the proposal, especially without the help of the Senate, is an empty stab at reform…But optically, the move was important for Democrats.”

“…Democrats still think it’s a step in the right direction for the body as a whole, even if just for the sake of appearances. Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a second-term member, said he doesn’t earmark for private entities and still is able to help defense contractors in Connecticut with federal projects.”

“I think it helps some of the optics with some of the members who I think are for earmark reform,” said [Rep. Joseph] Crowley [D-NY].”

Better headline: “Congress’ Eternal Quest, How Can We Fool ‘Em Today”

Another Kabuki Dance on Consumer Financial Protection Agency

07 Sunday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Financial Crisis, financial regulation, lobbyists, Obama, Politics, special interests, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

If there’s anything transparent in this administration of “openness and transparency” it’s the way the well-rehearsed and often-repeated three-act Kabuki theater plays out their alleged attempts at any major reform on any particular issue. It’s as easy to see through as a pane of glass and as easy to see coming as a freight train. Here’s how it goes, again and again:

Act I.  The president professes to want (but doesn’t actually want) real reform on a given issue. The House passes a bill containing real reform. The Senate at first seems to embrace it, but then claims ‘woe is us, we can’t pass it without Republican votes.’

Act II. The legislation is watered-down in search of bi-partisan support that the administration and the Senate leadership knows they aren’t going to get in spite of the watering-down.

Act III. What started out as “reform” becomes so weakened as to be of no real affect. Thus, the original goal of the president and his former colleagues and current accomplices in the Senate is achieved–give the appearance of doing something while actually doing nothing.

The latest example is on the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. In July of last year:

“The Obama administration…proposed legislation for a financial oversight agency designed to protect consumers and investors from unscrupulous deals…The White House sent Congress a 152-page draft bill to create the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, which it says would offer greater consumer protections for such financial products as mortgages, credit cards and loans by establishing simpler and more transparent rules and regulations.

“Consumer protection will have an independent seat at the table in our financial regulatory system,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said.”

At the time, Senate Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd “called the administration’s bill a “bold and aggressive plan” to defend against a future financial crisis.”

In December the House passed a sweeping financial reform bill which contained an independent consumer protection agency.

Fast forward to Thursday of last week:

“Creating a powerful and independent consumer agency, which is strongly opposed by the financial industry and Republicans, has been the major roadblock in drafting a bill that could pass in the Senate…Dodd has been searching for months for a bipartisan compromise, a move made more urgent after a Republican, Scott Brown, won the special Massachusetts Senate election in January, giving the GOP enough votes to block any Democratic legislation. After negotiations with Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) reached an impasse, Dodd began working with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

The “compromise” reached by Dodd and Corker would take away the independence of the agency and instead making it an arm of the Federal Reserve. This despite the fact that Dodd himself said 4 months ago that Fed’s record on consumer protection was an “abysmal failure,” and more recently, “criticized the Fed’s previous inaction as a main reason for creating such an entity, noting that the central bank took 14 years before enacting rules in 2008 to protect consumers from unscrupulous mortgage lending.”

And where does the Obama administration come down? It appears to be the usual fence-straddling:

“Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner and Valerie Jarrett, a senior White House advisor, met Wednesday with representatives from consumer, labor and other organizations that support a strong, stand-alone consumer agency and told them that “strengthening consumer protections remains a central objective of our financial reform efforts,” according to an administration official.

Although Geithner and Jarrett said they would not accept a bill unless it included a consumer agency with “real independence,” they did not specifically rule out housing it in the Fed or another agency.”

But appearances can be deceiving. With a little reading between the lines one can see what the administration really wants. Geithner is the former president of the New York Fed, Valerie Jarrett is a former member of the board of directors of the Chicago Fed. It seems to be too much of a coincidence that these were the two administration representatives to the negotiations. I would surmise that the president wants the agency in the Fed.

Why? It follows the script–giving the appearance of doing something–creating a consumer protection agency, while actually doing nothing–putting the agency inside the Fed, whose track record on enforcing any kind of regulation is, to use Sen. Dodd’s word, abysmal.

Mission accomplished. The peasants are appeased and the corporate masters are not angered. The campaign contributions continue to flow, and business as usual continues.

Rahm Goes to the Capitol to Get Pelosi’s Mind Right

27 Saturday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, health care, Obama, Politics, Progressives

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Don’t do it, Nancy. Don’t do it:

“Rahm Emanuel ventured to the Capitol Friday evening to hash out health care strategy with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a White House aide confirmed.

Senior Hill aides speculated to HuffPost that Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, would bring the message that the House must move first, with a pledge from Senate Democrats that they would follow.”

The meeting comes as Democrats are searching for a way to get to the health care finish line, though neither chamber wants to move first. Senate leaders want the House to pass the Senate bill first, after which the Senate would use reconciliation to fix the legislation to the liking of the Senate. House leaders contend that the votes aren’t there for the Senate bill if the upper chamber doesn’t move. The House, after two centuries of watching the Senate lag behind, doesn’t trust that it’ll act.

Dear Speaker Pelosi,

You’re being conned. The Senate wants the Senate bill without the modifications. President Obama wants the Senate bill without the modifications. He only proposed them as bait, next come the switch. And trust me, President Obama is the master of the bait and switch. Just ask those who voted for him in November of ‘08. Ask me, I fell for it. If you go first and pass the Senate bill the promised reconciliation fixes will NEVER happen. Don’t say you weren’t warned.

Sincerely,
A victim of OBSS (Obama Bait and Switch Syndrome)

Democrats Cave on Torture Amendment: So What Else Is New?

26 Friday Feb 2010

Posted by in Constitution, Democrats, Dick Cheney, Justice Department, Obama, Politics, Republicans, terrorism, torture, Uncategorized, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

While all the attention in Washington yesterday was focused on the posturing and pontificating over health care reform, there was something else going on. Democratic Congressman Sylvestre Reyes, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, proposed an amendment to the 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act. The amendment is called the Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogation Prohibition Act of 2010 which, in essence, does nothing more than codify what already exists in Articles 1 and 16 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture. You know that treaty which under Article VI of the Constitution is supposed to be the “supreme Law of the Land,” but was signed and ratified pre-9/11 so is no longer applicable, apparently.

The amendment prohibits such acts as waterboarding, beatings, sleep deprivation, and mock executions among others. In other words, pretty much the chart toppers on the Cheney/Ashcroft/Rumsfeld/Yoo/Bybee hit parade. It applies to any “U.S. national, or any officer, employee, contractor, or subcontractor of the Federal government,” with punishment for violation being “fine or imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both,” unless death results. Then the imprisonment is “any term of years or for life.”

And right on cue, here came the torture defenders, led by Liz Cheney, playing the predictable “keeping us safe” card:

“Late last night, Democrats in the House of Representatives inserted a provision dubbed “The Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogation Act of 2010” into the intelligence authorization bill. This new language targets the US intelligence community with criminal penalties for using methods they have deemed necessary for keeping America safe. These methods have further been found by the Department of Justice to be both legal and in keeping with our international obligations.”

Sorry Liz, but just because they were found legal by the pretzel logic of Daddy’s Justice Department (and sadly, found to be merely “poor judgment” by the current Justice Department) doesn’t mean they are legal. It just means that laws and treaties have become an a la carte menu in post 9/11 America. We now pick and choose which ones to enforce and which ones to ignore. Again, sadly.

According to Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic, the amendment is also not popular at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (sigh):

“The White House isn’t happy; they’ve already threatened to veto the bill because it, in their mind, it infringes upon the rights of the executive branch by forcing the administration to disclose more about intelligence operations to more members of Congress.”

That sounds a lot like a previous administration to me. (Double sigh).

And speaking of right on cue, all House Republicans had to do was give the insinuation that they would accuse Democrats of being ‘soft on terror’ and ‘coddling terrorists’ and the gutless, spineless, Democratic leadership pulled the bill.

Senate Again Looks for Cover on Patriot Act Extension

24 Wednesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Politics, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

First they tried to hide it in the so-called “jobs bill.” Now the gutless wonders in the Senate are going to try and pass an extension of the Patriot Act by unanimous consent, meaning they don’t have to go on the record with a vote:

“Senate Democrats are pushing for a short-term extension of key provisions in the Patriot Act as part of a package of must-pass measures…Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is planning to ask for unanimous consent to pass an extension for a host of measures set to expire February 28, according to Senate sources.

The third provision allows the government to apply to a court for surveillance orders involving suspected “lone wolf” terrorists who do not necessarily have ties to a larger organization.”

The large package of bills includes a year-long extension of three provisions of the anti-terrorism law known a the Patriot Act, as well as extensions for expiring tax provisions, including unemployment insurance, COBRA, flood insurance, the law governing the highway trust fund, the federal flood insurance program and a measure governing satellite television signals.

…The first of the three expiring Patriot Act provisions provides the power to seek court orders for roving wiretaps on terrorism suspects who shift their modes of communication. A second allows the government to seek orders from a federal court for “any tangible thing” that is says is related to a terrorism investigation.

More on those expiring provisions:

The first…would allow a secret court to continue to permit “roving wiretaps” without the government identifying who is being targeted, or which specific phone lines or communication devices are to be monitored. What officials must do is assert that the target is an agent of a foreign power or a suspected terrorist.

Under the “lone wolf” statute, the U.S. may target for surveillance non-U.S. persons it believes are engaging in terrorism or are preparing to undertake terrorist activities, whether or not that person can be linked to a foreign power or organization.

Oh, by the way:

“In a September letter to [Senate Judiciary Committee chairman] Pat Leahy assistant attorney general Ronald Weich recommended reauthorization of all three provisions on behalf of the Obama administration.”