Tag Archives: Chris Dodd

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.

Advertisement

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..”

A Crucial Week for Financial Reform

26 Monday Apr 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, financial reform, financial regulation, Obama, Politics, Republicans, too big to fail, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

In what’s shaping up as a crucial week in the quest for financial reform there are some encouraging signs, some not so encouraging, and a demonstration by the executives at “the great vampire squid” (aka Goldman Sachs) give us an example of why meaningful reform is necessary.

First, the reasons to be hopeful. There appear to be some cracks in the Republican wall of solidarity. Sen. Olympia Snowe endorsed Sen. Blanche Lincoln’s tough stance toward derivative trading passed last week by the Agriculture Committee. (Sen. Grassley, another possible defector, was the lone Republican on the committee who voted for Lincoln’s proposal). In a letter to Majority Leader Harry Reid, Snowe wrote:

“I believe that strong derivatives regulation goes to the heart of an effective financial reform bill and that Chairman Lincoln’s legislation is a strong step towards realizing this fundamental component to financial reform……I believe that we should err on the side of caution and finally bring full transparency to these markets once and for all and allow regulators to preemptively identify these damaged firms.

“Accordingly, I believe the Senate should start with a comprehensive, strong derivatives reform proposal and defend attempts to weaken it, not the other way around and the legislation produced by the Senate Agriculture Committee includes the strongest safeguards and most robust transparency provisions on our expansive derivatives market.

I urge the Majority Leader to incorporate these provisions into the regulatory reform bill.”

On Friday, Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, “agreed to replace his proposed restrictions on derivatives with those of the Senate Agriculture Committee, chaired by Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln.”

On This Week yesterday, Sen. Bob Corker said he intended to propose an amendment containing a “claw back” provision to the legislation “which would take away the personal earnings for the past five years of the corporate officers of failed institutions that fall under the government’s resolution authority.”

Another possible Republican defector might be the newly-elected senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown. Will someone who was elected as a sort of “man of the people” want to be painted as a defender of Wall Street? Especially when he faces re-election in 2 years? Maybe not.

Also on the positive side, “President Obama and House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank have personally urged Dodd not to cut a deal with Republicans…This is a welcome sign that Obama realizes that public opinion is moving in the direction of tougher banking reform, and that he learned from the health debate that bipartisan compromise on key reform issues is a snare and a delusion.”

Sen. Dodd has shown signs of weakening the legislation in order to compromise with Republicans leaders in the Senate, Mitch McConnell and Richard Shelby, who want to use the same tactics Republicans used on health care reform—stall and delay as long as possible. Hopefully, Dodd will be emboldened by support from President Obama and not dilute reform to try and pacify those whose intentions are to maintain the status quo.

Now to the crooks at Goldman. What were they doing as the housing market was collapsing and threatening to take the entire economy with it? Having a party:

“As the U.S. housing market began its epic fall nearly three years ago, top executives at Wall Street powerhouse Goldman Sachs cheered the large financial gains the firm stood to make on certain bets it had placed, according to newly released documents.

The documents show that the firm’s executives were celebrating earlier investments calculated to benefit if housing prices fell, a Senate investigative committee found. In an e-mail sent in the fall of 2007, for example, Goldman executive Donald Mullen predicted a windfall because credit-rating companies had downgraded mortgage-related investments, which caused losses for investors.

“Sounds like we will make some serious money,” Mullen wrote.”

To somewhat defend Goldman, what they were doing, “selling short,” (betting against certain investments) is something that happens on Wall Street every day. But, betting against instruments that they designed to fail, and which were sold to investors as AAA investments allowing Goldman to profit from on both ends, may not be illegal (although it should be) but it certainly shows that the execs at the “great vampire squid” have no interest in what’s best for the country. They have one party’s interests in mind—-their own.

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.

Health Care “Sleight of Hand”

16 Tuesday Mar 2010

Posted by in Congress, financial reform, health care, Politics, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

If members of Congress have any question as to why they rank somewhere below used car salesmen on the trustworthy scale, there are 2 shining examples relating to 2 pieces of proposed legislation in today’s news—one on health care reform and one on financial reform—which should make it crystal clear. First there’s this from the Washington Post:

“After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate’s health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.”

Wait a minute, I thought President Obama said it was time for an up or down vote on health care reform? Que pasa? I guess that only applies when the votes are there. Failing that, the need for an alternative procedure arises. Such as:

“Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers “deem” the health-care bill to be passed.”

Note to Speaker Pelosi: For future reference, any time the words “sleight of hand” are used in relation to an action by Congress, it doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that what you’re trying to do is on the up and up.

“The tactic — known as a “self-executing rule” or a “deem and pass” — has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.”

Wait another minute. Haven’t the Speaker and the Democratic leadership been extolling the virtues of this “reform” and how good it will be for us ( just trust them)?  Then why the need for “political protection?” I’m confused.

The other bit of news is Sen. Chris Dodd’s release of his so-called “sweeping financial regulatory reform” bill. This quote from Dodd at the end of a Huffington Post article says it all:

“Interestingly, Dodd seemed to want to minimize expectations for the proposed legislation’s impact by saying several times that it is not enough to prevent another crisis: “This legislation will not stop the next crisis from coming. No legislation can…”

Yes it can, Sen. Dodd. If you want it to. Ay, there’s the rub.

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.

Another Financial Crisis “More Than Predictable, It’s Inevitable”

04 Thursday Mar 2010

Posted by in bailout, Congress, economy, Financial Crisis, Goldman Sachs, Obama, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

Remember the economy and that little thing we had not too long ago called…what was it…oh yeah, the financial crisis. While Congress and the White House spend “the next few weeks” mired in the never-ending saga of health care reform, there are some potential problems which could affect us a lot sooner than 2014. If legislators have some spare time they might want to give it a glance:

“Even as many Americans still struggle to recover from the country’s worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, another crisis – one that will be even worse than the current one – is looming, according to a new report from a group of leading economists, financiers, and former federal regulators.

…Without more stringent reforms, “another crisis – a bigger crisis that weakens both our financial sector and our larger economy – is more than predictable, it is inevitable,” Johnson says in the report, commissioned by the nonpartisan Roosevelt Institute.”

In the report, the panel, which includes Rob Johnson of the United Nations Commission of Experts on Finance and bailout watchdog Elizabeth Warren, warns that financial regulatory reform measures proposed by the Obama administration and Congress must be beefed up to prevent banks from continuing to engage in high-risk investing that precipitated the near-collapse of the U.S. economy in 2008.

But in typical Congressional fashion, “beefing up” financial regulations and “stringent reforms” aren’t on the agenda:

“The proposal” [that would ban the banks receiving federally insured deposits from engaging in trading which benefits the banks and not their customers] “faces strong resistance in Congress, where lawmakers have shown little appetite for adding to the prolonged debate on overhauling financial regulations.”

The reason for Congress’ “little appetite” should come as no great surprise:

“Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley would probably be the Wall Street firms most affected by the ban, known informally as the Volcker Rule…”

Goldman most affected? We can’t have any of that. Chris Dodd needs a job starting in January.

Who’s In Charge Here? Follow the Money

06 Saturday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, Financial Crisis, lobbyists, Politics, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Washington D.C. game of finger-pointing, blame-shifting, and buck-passing rolls on. Robert Reich in Thursday’s Salon:

“Senator Chris Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, scolded Wall Street representatives at a hearing Thursday for sending “an army of lobbyists whose only mission is to kill the common-sense financial reforms” needed by the public. “The fact is,” Dodd said, “I am frustrated, and so are the American people.” He charged that Wall Street’s intransigence was the reason for Congress’s failure to pass any bill to regulate the Street.

Dodd left out the most telling detail, of course. Wall Street is where the campaign money is. Dodd of all people knows that. He’s been on the receiving end of lots of it over the years.

…In other words, it isn’t Congress’s fault. It isn’t the Senate Banking Committee’s fault. It certainly isn’t Dodd’s fault. The reason more than a year has passed since the biggest bailout in the history of the world and nothing has been done to prevent a repeat performance…is what, exactly, Senator? Because the Street has sent an army of lobbyists to Capitol Hill?

Call me old-fashioned, but I thought Congress was in charge of passing legislation, not Wall Street.

A little over $6 million, that’s all. Which leads to the REAL reason for the lack of Congressional action:

“Congress isn’t doing a thing about Wall Street because it’s in the pocket of Wall Street. Dodd’s outburst at the Street is like the alcoholic who screams at a bartender “how dare you give me another drink when all I’ve done is pleaded with you for one!”

The "Gang of Eight" on the Senate Banking Committee

02 Tuesday Feb 2010

Posted by in Congress, Democrats, economy, Obama, Republicans, Uncategorized, Wall Street

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

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

Since the “Gang of Six” in the Senate Finance Committee worked out so well, and produced such outstanding results (sarc) in writing health care reform legislation, why not just repeat the process in the Senate Banking Committee as they tackle reforming the financial industry? More openness and transparency from our elected officials in Washington:

“For two months, four pairs of Senate Banking Committee members — each with one Democrat and one Republican — have been meeting behind closed doors to reach a bipartisan compromise on regulatory reform.”

Here are the 8 senators involved, along with the amounts each has taken from financial industry PACs:

Chris Dodd, (D-CT) $3,124,237
Richard Shelby (R-AL) $2,171,369
Mark Warner (D-VA) $330,800
Bob Corker (R-TN) $426,750
Jack Reed (D-RI) $1,554,449
Judd Gregg (R-NH) $709,941
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) $1,629,295
Micheal Crapo (R-ID) $1,237,955

That’s a grand total of $11,184,796. And these are the people who are going to reform the financial system? That’ll be the day. But as good as things are for this new “Gang of Eight.” they’re about to get better:

“…the president’s new proposals have already provoked a sharp increase in the volume and energy of the lobbying on regulatory reform, with more chief executives stepping over their government relations staff to request personal meetings with lawmakers. The big banks, the lobbyists say, have become increasingly alarmed that the legislative process may move in unexpected directions outside their control.”

Well, we certainly have to put a stop to that. Can’t have anything going on that the banksters can’t “control,” can we? Speaking of banksters:

“...Jamie Dimon, chief executive of JPMorgan Chase had lunch with Mr. Obama last Tuesday, and then met separately on Friday with the Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke and the Treasury secretary, Timothy Geithner.”

No doubt to discuss who they like in Sunday’s Super Bowl.