Category Archives: financial regulation

You Say You Want a Revolution…

31 Sunday Jan 2016

Posted by in Bernie Sanders, Campaign Financing, Corporations, Democrats, Election 2016, financial regulation, health care, Hillary Clinton, Obama administration, Politics, Supreme Court, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

…well you know, we don’t need one.
Let me get his out of the way first. I could not possibly care less about who gets the Republican nomination for president. Doesn’t matter one iota to me, I ain’t voting for any of them. No way, no how. I do, however, care who gets the Democratic nomination. Very much. Much has been gained during the Obama administration, naysayers on the left notwithstanding, and much stands to be lost should Democrats nominate the wrong person. The wrong person is Bernie Sanders.

I suppose that by the time one is pushing 60 years of life on this thing we call Earth, one should find very little at which to be surprised. One would be wrong. I find myself surprised at the intelligent, pragmatic, and otherwise generally clear-thinking and practical people who have been and continue to be taken in by the so-called Bernie Sanders revolution.

This isn’t original (read it somewhere but can’t remember where, another consequence of those nearly 60 years) but I wholeheartedly agree with it. The 2016 election isn’t about changing the guard, it’s about guarding the change. We changed the guard in 2008. After 8 years of the utter disaster that was Bush/Cheney, the American people were ready for a new direction–a completely different direction–we got that with the historic election of Barack Obama. Now we need a president who can guard the change. Who can first and foremost protect what has been accomplished and, where possible, make some incremental improvements. That isn’t nearly as exciting and sexy as “revolution” but I’ll take it 7 days a week and twice on Sunday.

I suppose the appeal of the revolution is that it sounds so good and so simple. Medicare For All, Break Up the Banks, Overturn Citizens United. Yeah buddy, let’s do it. But drill down a little bit and it isn’t quite that good or that simple. Yes, the cost of health care is still a problem, the power of Wall Street is as well, and the influence of money on political campaigns needs to be addressed. But all these are complex and intricate issues which have reached the point they are now over years and even decades. They won’t be fixed with simple slogans and 8 page plans that don’t take into account the ramifications that would ensue should they be enacted.

Medicare For All. Does anybody actually believe that the health care needs of a family of four can be covered for $460 a year and paid for by nothing but a measly 2% increase in income taxes? Doesn’t pass my smell test. The state of Vermont found that out with their attempt to implement single-payer. When pencil met paper the result was closer to a 20 percent tax hike and a doubling of state expenditures.

Abolish private health insurance? What about the millions of Americans who make their living working for them? The private insurers aren’t just the few fat cat CEOs who sit at the top receiving exorbitant compensation. There are millions of Americans who work for not only those companies directly but whose jobs are dependant on their existence. Claims, billing, etc. What happens to them if private health insurance goes away? Does the Sanders plan lay out what happens to them should the “revolution” hit health care, and what would be the effects on the economy as a whole should private health insurance be outlawed? Nope.

The way forward is not to scrap the ACA after only 5 years, but to build on it. Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, none of these were perfect originally, neither is the ACA. But it’s damn sure better than what we had before, and in its infancy and with all its shortcomings has helped millions of Americans. To scrap it for a hastily concocted and not well thought out alternative would be foolish.

Break Up The Big Banks. Okay, then what?

“For example, to break up the big banks sounds good and well but what happens to the customers of those banks that rely on them for their savings accounts? What about small businesses that rely on those banks for loans? What about homeowners who pay a mortgage through the bank? Are all these accounts then shifted toward community banks? If so, which ones? What if this new bank is far away from someone’s home or business?”

And again, what is the effect on the economy of the break up and the loss of jobs sure to follow? As with the private insurers, these institutions are a significant portion of our economy and encompass more than just the guys at the top who get all the headlines. Lots of jobs for people not named Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein depend on Chase, Bank of America, Citi, et al. What happens to those people?

No, we don’t need to take that risk. Dodd-Frank, despite all its imperfections, is doing its job. Could it be stronger? Absolutely. But gradually and incrementally, as boring as that is, is the only way to proceed, both practically and politically.

Overturn Citizens United. This is a recording, it ain’t that simple. The Supreme Court can’t just take it upon themselves to overturn a standing decision. A case must be brought, in almost every situation, after having gone through years in lower courts. This whole “money is speech” and “corporations are people” mess got started with the Buckley v Valeo decision. In 1976. The rotten fruit of that decision became Citizens United. In 2010. For those keeping score, that’s 34 years. Changing the system will take time and a Supreme Court amenable to hearing and reviewing cases brought before it. We don’t have that now, revolution notwithstanding.

Just to be really blunt, Sanders can’t win in November. I know his supporters like to claim that he polls better against Republican candidates than does Hillary Clinton. Two things about that. One, January polls are about as predictive of November election results as Tarot cards and tea leaves. Two, should Sanders be nominated, and once Republicans settle on a nominee and turn all their blazing guns on Sanders, he will be destroyed by months of negative and yet more negative ads. He will go down and take a lot of people and a lot of progress with him in the process.

We can’t afford to let that happen. Change is hard, change takes time, and nobody waves a magic wand. The way forward is to build on the solid foundation laid by what will be the 8 years of President Obama. Given the two choice facing Democratic primary voters (sorry Martin, but it’s true) Hillary Clinton is the right person for that job.

Advertisement

It’s Not About JOBS, It’s About FRAUD

24 Saturday Mar 2012

Posted by in Congress, financial regulation, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

If there’s one thing you can take to the bank, so to speak, in these times of political polarization in Washington it’s this-any bill that passes the House and Senate with margins like 390-23 and 73-26 isn’t, in the words of John Nance Garner, worth a warm bucket of spit. The recent passage of the so-called JOBS Act is no exception. The FRAUD Act would have been a more appropriate title. Facilitating Rampant And Unchecked Deceit.

(Just as an aside, giving bad legislation names with catchy acronyms like JOBS Act is a little trick the crooks in Congress have also learned. See PATRIOT Act.)

Under the pretense of being about making it easier for small businesses and startup companies to access capital, the JOBS Act is just another round of Wall Street deregulation that was such a rousing success leading up to the collapse of 2008. It weakens investor protection, eases SEC oversight and transparency rules, and guts much of Sarbanes-Oxley, which was passed in 2002 to prevent future Enrons from happening. Happy days are here again!

Here’s what Sen. Bernie Sanders had to say about it:

“At best, this bill could make it easier for con artists to defraud seniors out of their entire life savings by convincing them to invest in worthless companies. At worst, this bill has the potential to create the next Enron or Arthur Andersen scandal or an even worse financial crisis.”

Bloomberg has more. Lynn Turner, former SEC accountant:

“It won’t create jobs, but it will simplify fraud. This would be better known as the bucket-shop and penny-stock fraud reauthorization act of 2012,” he said, referring to practices banned under securities law.”

Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America:

“You don’t increase jobs growth by rolling back regulatory protections, and it’s frankly bewildering that the Democrats have been so willing to buy into the traditional Republican argument.”

Representative John P. Sarbanes of Maryland, one of 23 Democratic opponents in the House, warned colleagues in a letter that the bill could lead to an “Enron-Type fraud,” invoking the accounting scandal that led Congress to enact the law named for his father, former Senator Paul Sarbanes.

Bill Black:

“The JOBS Act is something only a financial scavenger could love. It will create a fraud-friendly and fraud-enhancing environment. It will add to the unprecedented level of financial fraud by our most elite CEOS that has devastated the U.S. and European economies and cost over 20 million people their jobs.”

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI) proposed an amendment which would have limited corporations from making an end-run around SEC regulations, but the cowards in the Senate wouldn’t even go on the record against that, killing it with a voice vote.

Oh by the way, that amendment was opposed by the Chamber of Commerce and the American Bankers Association.

Deficit Peacocks, Debt Ceilings, and Indefinite Detention

22 Wednesday Dec 2010

Posted by in budget, Congress, Constitution, economy, financial regulation, health care, Obama, Obama administration, Politics, Taxes, Unemployment, war on terror

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

In a January 20 article at the Center for American Progress, Michael Linden differentiated between those who are serious about addressing our fiscal problems–the deficit hawks–from those who posture and preen about it—the deficit peacocks. Here’s how he defines a peacock:

“Deficit peacocks like to preen and call attention to themselves, but are not sincerely interested in taking the difficult but necessary steps toward a balanced budget. Peacocks prefer scoring political points to solving problems.”

This is one of Linden’s ways to spot a peacock:

“…people who now claim to be concerned about our fiscal future even though they recently supported massive budget-busting legislation…When someone supports a deficit commission one day and votes to use another $100 billion of red ink on tax cuts for the rich the next, it is perhaps an indication that his or her commitment to real deficit reduction leaves something to be desired.”

Cases in point:

“Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) on Monday said they will introduce a bill early next year based on the report from President Obama’s deficit commission.

Warner and Chambliss have been meeting with a group of 18 senators on finding a way to balance the budget, and said they have concluded the debt commission’s proposal is the best basis for bipartisan talks.”

The rest of the “Gang of Eighteen”:

“Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Mike Johanns (R-Neb.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Kay Hagan (D-N.C.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mark Udall (D-Colo.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), Jean Shaheen (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Mark Begich (D-Alaska).”

Fifteen of the eighteen, including both Chambliss and Warner voted for the tax cut extension last week. Only Wyden, Hagan, and Mark Udall have any credibility here. The rest are peacocks.

The vehicle Chambliss and others plan to use to get their desired spending cuts are negotiations over raising the debt ceiling limit (aka the next hostage situation), another can kicked down the road yesterday with passage of a Continuing Resolution to fund the government through March 4.

“Chambliss said on the call that an impending vote in Congress to raise the government’s debt ceiling…will be an important turning point. “It gives us a deadline to look to from the standpoint of getting some meaningful decisions mad …If we can use that as leverage that’s an ideal scenario,” Chambliss said.”

Ezra Klein has more on what this could mean for the future of health care reform and financial regulation reform:

“The good news is that law will keep the government’s lights on until early March. The bad news is that the law does it by extending 2010’s funding resolution — and that resolution didn’t include provisions for implementing the bills that were passed as the year went on.

…this is bad news for the health-care bill and the financial-regulation bill. There’s been a tendency to assume that the universe of options for passed legislation was binary: Either they went forward, or they get repealed. But with an angrily divided government, we may find ourselves in that little-known middle category: The Republicans can’t repeal them and the Democrats can’t fully fund them, and so rather than simply going forward, they limp forward.”

Klein doesn’t address it, but another question would be what does this does to unemployment benefits? Could the 13 month extension become 3? I guess we’ll find out in March.

Finally, this is what’s so confounding and confusing about the Obama administration. They take one step forward, with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and then take two steps backward with this:

“The White House is preparing an Executive Order on indefinite detention that will provide periodic reviews of evidence against dozens of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay, according to several administration officials.

The draft order, a version of which was first considered nearly 18 months ago, is expected to be signed by President Obama early in the New Year. The order allows for the possibility that detainees from countries like Yemen might be released if circumstances there change.

But the order establishes indefinite detention as a long-term Obama administration policy and makes clear that the White House alone will manage a review process for those it chooses to hold without charge or trial.

Nearly two years after Obama’s pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo, more inmates there are formally facing the prospect of lifelong detention and fewer are facing charges than the day Obama was elected.”

*Sigh*

Foreclosure Fraud Just the Tip of the Iceberg

12 Tuesday Oct 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Foreclosures, Justice Department, Obama administration, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

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

Dylan Ratigan, Ohio Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner, and Karl Denninger of The Market Ticker unravel foreclosure fraud:

To reiterate, the fraud in foreclosures that we’re seeing now is just the tip of the iceberg. The purpose is to try and cover up, and cover for, the fraud in the mortgage process all the way back to the origination of the mortgages, which were then packaged into securities and fraudulently sold to investors as AAA quality, a rating gained by paying off the ratings agencies. As our parents always told us, one lie requires another one to cover up the first one, which requires another lie to cover up the second one, and so on, and so on, and…….

In my opinion, that’s why the Senate tried to sneak through the legislation that President Obama vetoed—it would have given the big banks protection from liability in this entire mess. As an aside–again just my opinion– but the only reason the president vetoed the bill was because of the attention it received and the light that was shone on its alleged “unintended consequences” (and if you’ll buy that….) My cynical nature when it comes to politicians tells me that “sending the bill back for modifications” translates into, ‘We’ll try again when the heat’s off.’

It’s also why, according to David Axelrod, the hope in the White House is that “this moves rapidly and that this gets unwound very, very quickly.” And why the White House opposes a national moratorium on foreclosures. A moratorium would give investigators and especially some 40 states’ attorneys general time to delve back into fraud and deceit at every level of the process

As Mr. Denninger explained, the only remedy is to force the big banks to buy back the toxic securities that they sold to investors under false pretenses. They can’t do that, which means Chase, BofA, et al, are insolvent. Actually, they’re insolvent now but for the phony profits from peddling this garbage to unsuspecting investors.

There is a provision in the financial reform legislation for resolution authority, that is breaking up large financial institutions that pose a “systemic risk” to the entire economy. Will Congress use it or will they do what they have done in the past and bail out their Wall Street cronies and contributors—again. If Republicans take control of Congress will they hold true to their campaign rhetoric of “no more bailouts” or will they dance to the tune of their big donors on Wall Street?

We may soon find out.

Why Tim Geithner Opposes Elizabeth Warren as Head of the CFPB

20 Tuesday Jul 2010

Posted by in bailout, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama administration, Politics, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Elizabeth Warren should be a no-brainer as President Obama’s choice to head the newly-created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). She is a long-time advocate for the rights of consumers, the person most responsible for the Bureau’s inclusion in the recently-passed financial reform legislation, and its most notable and vocal supporter. She has this crazy notion that a consumer protection agency should actually…you know…protect consumers against the abusive practices of the big banks.

As chair of the TARP oversight committee Warren regularly clashed with what those banks consider to be in their best interests, as well as those in the administration who make a habit of carrying the banker’s water, namely Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner. Which is why it wasn’t surprising when Huffington Post reported last week that Geithner opposed Warren’s nomination.

Then came this, a piece by John Talbott (also in the Huffington Post) on Sunday. The reason for the treasury secretary’s opposition:

“The [financial reform] bill has been written to put a great deal of power as to how strongly it is implemented in the hands of its regulators, some of which remain to be chosen. The bank lobby will work incredibly hard to see that Warren, the person most responsible for initiating and fighting for the idea of a consumer financial protection group, is denied the opportunity to head it.

But this is not the only reason that Geithner is opposed to Warren’s nomination. I believe Geithner sees the appointment of Elizabeth Warren as a threat to the very scheme he has utilized to date to hide bank losses, thus keeping the banks solvent and out of bankruptcy court and their existing management teams employed and well-paid.”

The “scheme” to which Talbott refers began with Geithner’s predecessor as Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, and is being continued by Geithner and his partner in crime in the Obama administration, Larry Summers. In short it goes like this:

The $700 billion in TARP money was originally supposed to go to get bad loans, the so-called toxic assets, of the bank’s books. Immediately after TARP was passed, Paulson did a 180 and decided to use it as a direct cash infusion into the big banks rather than buying bad loans. (Nothing to do with him being a former Goldman CEO, I’m sure).

That left the banks with trillions of dollars of toxic assets still on the books, where they remain today. Geithner’s plan is for the banks to:

“…earn their way out of their solvency problems over time so the banks are continuing to slowly write off their problem loans but at a rate that will take years, if not decades, to clean up the problem.

And this is where defeat of the nomination of Elizabeth Warren becomes critical for Geithner. For Geithner’s strategy to work, the banks have to find increasing sources of profitability in their business segments to balance out their annual loan loss recognition from their existing bad loans in an environment in which they continue to recognize new losses in prime residential mortgages, commercial real estate lending, sovereign debt investments, bridge loans to private equity groups, leverage buyout lending and credit card defaults.

The banks have made no secret as to where they will find this increase in cash flow. They intend to soak their small retail customers, their consumer and small business borrowers, their credit card holders and their small depositors with increased costs and fees and are continuing many of the bad mortgage practices that led to the crisis

[…]

It is exactly these types of unwarranted fees on small consumers and poorly designed products that Elizabeth Warren will fight against as head of the new consumer finance protection group. And it is why Geithner sees her as so threatening. Unless the banks are allowed to raise fees and charges on their smaller consumer customers, Geithner’s and Summers’ scheme for dealing with the banking crisis by hiding problem loans permanently on the banks’ balance sheets will be exposed for what it is, an attempt at preserving the jobs of current bank executives at the cost of dragging out this recovery needlessly for years in the future.”

After much thought and careful consideration (which took about 1.5 seconds) I have a suggestion for how President Obama can resolve this conflict. Warren’s in, Geithner’s out. Problem solved.

Obstructionist Republicans and Gullible Democrats

30 Wednesday Jun 2010

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Scott Brown is a quick learner. In his short time in the Senate he’s become a master at the game of ‘How To String Along The Gullible Democrat’ aka Lucy and the Football.

Here’s how it goes: Obstructionist Republican says, “I would vote for this particular piece of legislation except for X.” Gullible Democrat believes Obstructionist Republican (although for the life of me I can’t figure out why) and changes or takes out X. Obstructionist Republican then says, “That’s all well and good, but I also don’t like Y. If you take that out too, I may vote for said legislation.” Gullible Democrat removes Y, and the process repeat itself over and over until said legislation is either dead or too weak to do anything remotely resembling its original intention.

The latest example is the so-called financial reform bill. Brown wanted a loophole in the Volcker Rule to exempt banks in Massachusetts from being subject to limits on risky investments. With the help of Barney Frank and (surprise!)  the Treasury Department, the loophole was inserted into the legislation. (BTW, also at the insistence of Senator Brown, another loophole was added to the Volcker Rule which may delay its implementation until 2022.)

Brown’s objection to the bill then shifted to a $19 billion fee to be collected from large financial institutions, calling it a “tax.” I’m sure Brown’s opposition has absolutely nothing to do with the $450,000 he received from executives at financial institutions in the six days before the election in Massachusetts. Strictly coincidence..

Guess what? The bank fee is out now, too

“Top Democratic House and Senate negotiators who worked out a deal on a sweeping overhaul of financial regulations regrouped Tuesday to eliminate a $19 billion fee on banks that had threatened to derail the legislation.”

Brown wasn’t alone. He had two other Lucies standing with him:

“Besides Brown, Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, both of whom also voted for the Senate bill last month, said they, too, had qualms about the bank assessment that negotiators inserted into the bill last week.”

I guess the only alternative to the Democrats being gullible and naive is that they are complicit and corrupt. That they don’t really want actual reform and are just using the guise of compromising with the Republicans to play their favorite game—giving the appearance of doing something while in reality doing nothing which might upset the goose that lays the golden eggs of campaign contributions.

Gullible and naive or complicit and corrupt? Either way it doesn’t bode well for the future of the Republic.

Would the GOP Deliberately Sabotage the Economy? Is There Any Doubt?

24 Thursday Jun 2010

Posted by in Congress, Conservatives, economy, financial reform, financial regulation, Politics, Republicans

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

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

Commenting on a Huffington Post piece about how Republicans, and Ben Nelson (excuse my redundancy), appear poised to kill the tax-extenders bill in the Senate, Steve Benen at Washington Monthly writes:

“In the real world, this means millions of jobless Americans will lose their already-modest benefits, and hundreds of thousands of workers will be laid off over the next year, including teachers, police officers, and firefighters. All of this will happen because Republicans are more concerned about the deficit — a deficit they created under Bush/Cheney — than the economy.

It’s unpleasant to think about, and I really hope it’s not true, but it may be time for a discussion about whether GOP lawmakers are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their midterm election strategy.”

What’s to discuss? It’s true. Of course Republicans are trying to deliberately sabotage the economy to help their mid-term election strategy, as well as their 2012 presidential election strategy. Republicans in Congress don’t care about deficits (see Dick Cheney) or the debt, except when they’re out of power. When they were in control of everything in D.C. from 2001-2007 what happened? Were there even any cursory attempts to rein in the deficit and pay down the debt?

Quite the contrary. With 2 wars and tax cuts and Medicare Part D, all on the credit card, the debt exploded.

You bet your ass the GOP wants the economy in the tank, as far in as possible. If unemployment is double what it is now and we go into a double-dip recession, or in their wettest dreams a depression, the champagne corks will be popping and ‘Happy Days Are Here Again’ will be blaring from the speakers in Michael Steele’s office. Do you think they care about the pain and suffering it would cause the American people? They care about one thing and one thing only—power. That’s it. If the “small people” have to bear the brunt of that quest, so be it.

Of course once they get it, their faux concern about the deficit and excessive spending will go out the door as they come in. Just like it did before.

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.

With Gregg on Finance Reform Committee Prospects Aren’t Good

08 Tuesday Jun 2010

Posted by in economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, lobbyists, Politics, special interests, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Financial reform is once again on the agenda as the House—Senate conference committee attempts to reconcile the differences between the 2 bills beginning on Thursday. This article from McClatchy doesn’t give me reason to be optimistic about the outcome:

“A group of lawmakers who are about to write an historic overhaul of the nation’s financial regulatory system has been stacked carefully with veteran compromisers — and one wild card.”

“Veteran compromisers.” To me, that translates into someone who doesn’t stand for anything. A typical politician with a moistened finger of one hand in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, while the other hand reaches for the largest campaign contribution.

“That’s Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., a flinty Yankee individualist who briefly was set to be President Barack Obama’s commerce secretary before he changed his mind. Gregg’s expected to be the leading proponent of GOP and financial sector views, and therefore a key player in shaping the final legislation.”

An “individualist” who is “expected to be the leading proponent of GOP and financial sector views?” Can you say oxymoron? More like a party-line hack who is in the pocket of the financial sector to the tune of $710,000 from financial industry PACs, and who has a 78% approval rating by the US Chamber of Commerce for his pro-business voting record.

“Gregg, who’s retiring from the Senate after this year, thinks some features of the legislation that initially passed the Senate and the House of Representatives amount to dangerous liberalism. He’s unenthusiastic about expanding government oversight of banks and other financial institutions, and creating a powerful new agency to protect consumers’ financial interests.”

In other words, Gregg is for the status quo. No new regulation necessary, leave it in the hands of private business. That’s worked so well in the Gulf of Mexico, why not do the same for Wall Street. “Dangerous liberalism?” Can it be any more dangerous than the hands-off, let the market fix itself attitude that nearly led to Great Depression, Part II?

“This bill doesn’t break down conservative-liberal. This bill breaks down populist-rational,” he said. He cited a desire in both parties to punish Wall Street and show voters that Congress can get tough with the financial sector, but he fears that could go too far.

Wrong, Senator. It breaks down along what’s in the best interest of the people vs. what’s in the best interest of the big bankers, and it’s pretty clear what side you come down on there. Go too far? These greedy SOBs nearly caused the collapse of our economy and  put millions of people out of work. Is there such a thing as going too far?

“Financial interests, which also fear the bill will overreach, hope Gregg can bridge differences. “He will help to serve as an honest broker to achieve consensus among the conferees,” said Scott Talbott, the chief lobbyist for the Financial Services Roundtable, the trade group for big financial firms.

“Honest broker.” Right. As honest as $710,000 will allow. And as usual, Democrats are sending the fox an engraved invitation to the henhouse:

“Democrats say that not only will Gregg be invited in, he also could become a crucial voice as deliberations progress.”

Which tells me one of two things. Either Democrats have a serious case of amnesia and don’t remember that no matter what Republicans say, they are there to block what they can and weaken the rest until it amounts to nothing, or Democrats on the committee don’t want real reform and Gregg is their useful idiot.

I think the latter is more likely.

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..”