Dodd About To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory On Bank Reform Bill

[Me.]

What is it with these people that they can't do right by us and... not let progressives offer amendments? Seriously...is there a banking job he's hankering after?

“”The financial reform bill now pending in the Senate could be a huge win -- for both restraining the excesses of Wall Street and for Democratic progressives -- or Senator Chris Dodd could snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. The risk is a replay of the endgame of the health care battle, but in reverse: instead of Democrats hanging together and passing a bill with the president belatedly leading, we could see a hollow bipartisanship and a feeble bill.

On Thursday, there was an uncharacteristically fractious meeting of the Senate Democratic Caucus. On one side, leading progressives such as Maria Cantwell, Ted Kaufman, Dick Durbin, Byron Dorgan, and Jeff Merkley, argued that this was a moment to put forward floor amendments that would both strengthen the bill and force Republicans to take difficult votes either backing reforms or identifying themselves with Wall Street.

But the Banking Committee Chairman, Chris Dodd, was more inclined to try and strike deal over the weekend with his Republican counterpart, Richard Shelby, for a bipartisan bill. The price of this would be weaker provisions on derivatives, consumer protection, and on resolving failed large banks. The political price would be that progressives don't get to offer floor amendments. Under Dodd's scheme, which is favored by Obama's legislative and economic advisers, the Senate would immediately vote to take up the bill, and would then vote cloture by a wide bipartisan margin. The bill -- still a shell with details to be filled in later -- would go directly to the House, where the House-passed bill would become the vehicle for the final measure.

This course would be an appalling abdication, and it would be stupid politics. The protestations by the Republican Senate leader, Mitch McConnell, that the Democrats are proposing a pro-Wall Street bill, have been ringing increasingly hollow. It's Republicans who have been working hand in glove with Wall Street lobbyists. The problem is that so have several Democrats, including Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.”…cont…

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/financial-reform-at-a-cro_b_549424.html

[villager]

1. But who on earth is *surprised* by any of this? Who expected different?

n/t

[Better Believe It]

2. Will anyone really be surprised by such an outcome? Who won the last election? Wall Street did!

They win every election.

[abelenkpe]

3. See

What happened to the global economy and what we can do about it
Make The Call Or Get Out Of The Booth: After The President’s “Wall Street” Speech

Update: The Progressive Change Campaign Committee has a petition that takes you to a page with your senators’ names and phone numbers, as well as a script to use when calling them.

The president’s rhetoric today at Cooper Union was impressive and his body language indicates a major shift in administration attitudes towards the big banks over the past year. This is commendable.

But there is still the awkward question of legislation that would actually reduce the political power of big banks – and make our financial system significantly safer. The latest indications from the Senate are that there will be some sort of “Dodd minus” compromise bill brought to the floor early next week. The Republicans have substantially backed down from Senator McConnell’s “hell, no” position of last week because the polling is crystal clear: Anyone perceived as opposed financial reform will lose badly in November.

But the Democratic leadership is not seizing on this advantage and on the opportunity presented by the SEC case against Goldman Sachs – key figures in the Democratic establishments are too worried about upsetting financial sector donors. As a result, come November, independents will view the Democrats with scorn, while the Democratic base will be far from energized; you do the math.

What can you do? What makes sense in both economic and political terms?

Call your Senator, call Senator Harry Reid (Senate majority leader), and call the White House. Tell them that you support the Brown-Kaufman SAFE banking act (unveiled yesterday) – as an amendment that would greatly strengthen the Dodd bill by capping the size and leverage of our biggest banks. Politely ask the people who answer the phone to make certain that this amendment gets an “up or down vote” in the Senate.

(more at link)

------------------------------------------------------------------
Please sign and call.

[Me.]

4. Please Call

[phone]

[chill_wind]

5. Looking around for my surprised face.

Dodd

Top 5 Industries

Securities & Investment $4,242,546
Lawyers/Law Firms $1,942,553
Insurance $1,440,422
Real Estate $1,282,741
Commercial Banks $905,044

Top Contributors

Citigroup Inc $316,494
United Technologies $264,400
SAC Capital Partners $248,500
American International Group $223,478
Royal Bank of Scotland $218,500
Bear Stearns $201,000
Goldman Sachs $180,200
Credit Suisse Group $157,050
Morgan Stanley $156,600
JPMorgan Chase & Co $134,050
Merrill Lynch $132,950
Lehman Brothers $122,300
Hartford Financial Services $117,150
KPMG LLP $116,650
General Electric $113,000
UBS AG $110,800

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00000581


These were 2003-2008 numbers. Throwing Emanuel in here just for funzies...who is and has never been exactly hostile to Wall Street, either, AFAIK.


Emanuel
(top 5 industries)

Securities & Investment $660,400
Lawyers/Law Firms $233,951
TV/Movies/Music $193,050
Health Professionals $149,850
Insurance $144,200

Top Contributers

UBS AG $64,700
AT&T Inc $50,450
Blackstone Group $47,000
Simmons Cooper LLC $46,000
JPMorgan Chase & Co $45,700
Grosvenor Capital Management $38,900
Goldman Sachs $37,750
Citigroup Inc $31,000
Lehman Brothers $27,600
CME Group $25,650
Merrill Lynch $23,800
Texas Pacific Group $23,000
Mf Global $20,400
DreamWorks SKG $18,100
Endeavor Agency $16,500
Carlyle Group $16,250
Morgan Stanley $16,200
Evercore Partners $16,100
Madison Dearborn Partners $16,100
Bank of America $16,000

http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00024813


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5310764#5312039

[Me.]

6. There-In The Reason We Are Being Sold Out

Great info :thumbsup:

[anigbrowl]

7. I support it

I think the Dodd bill sets up a pretty good regulatory framework, and there is nothing preventing further amendment and modification (eg Blanche lincoln's separate bill regulating the derivative trade). Note that I said framework - I do not think it it is perfect or addresses every situation exhaustively...and nor do I think it should. I want to see it passed to establish a solid basis for regulating the industry and built up from there.

Put another way, I would rather this - unfinished but basically functional:


than this - 'finished' but not roadworthy:

[laughingliberal]

8. Oh, Goody! Another inadequate sellout of a bill we can 'build' on

with decreased majorities after November.

[Me.]

9. No So Fast With The Decreasing Majority Bit

As of yesterday, Nate Silver says the Cons have just about maxed out their advantage. The landscape is changing due to NY and Wisc. and their expectations may not be fulfilled. That isn't to say we will have 60 again as that doesn't seem likely but it may not be the predicted bloodbath. What really annoys me with Dodd on this is he is cutting off progressives making any amendments which means they can't clean up whatever mess he makes of this bill. I hope the house stands strong.

:hi:

[laughingliberal]

10. I hope Nate's correct

But I'm damned annoyed at this. How many times do we let Wall Street and the Banksters destroy us before someone stands up for the right thing to do?

[Me.]

11. My Prediction

We will have to suffer through one additional meltdown before the real death knell is sounded for them. I see their lifespan, as things current;y stand, to be 2-3 years.

[anigbrowl]

12. Have you read the bill?

I don't consider it a sellout at all. I would much rather a well-written piece of legislation that will stay in place for many years, than a poorly written populist bill that will fall apart when challenged in court.

Making law is not just a matter of having good intentions or imposing the biggest penalties you can think of for criminality. It has to consistent, strict enough to regulate but flexible enough to administrate, clear enough to be easily followed, and above all, constitutional.

That's why I picked those pictures. The car on top doesn't look like much but you can see it has a good engine in it. The...thing underneath may be ready to roll, but looks like it would flip over the first time you tried to take around a corner.

Not everyone likes reading legislation, and it is a pretty large bill, as befits the complex industry it aims to regulate. so here's a plain English summary from Senator Dodd's office: http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/FinancialReformSummaryAsFiled.pdf the final bill will not have all of this stuff in it, because no complex bill becomes law without some adjustment. Some things are included with the expectation that they will be negotiated out during debate, like bargaining chips.

If you do want to read the actual bill, it's here: http://banking.senate.gov/public/_files/AYO09D44_xml.pdf or you can read a fairly non-partisan summary at wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_American_Financial_Stability_Act

This is just the reality of democracy - you ask for more than you expect to actually get, and give up some things you might want in order to get the things you definitely need. But including them in the bill will make it considerably easier to add them back in the future. As a parallel, you might like to consider how the law creating Medicare is over 40 years, but has had a great deal of stuff built onto it over such that Medicare functions reasonably well (except that it has only been available to retirees as part of its basic form).

And here's something else to bear in mind. You know who wants more regulation of the Federal Reserve built into this bill? Richard Shelby...the ranking Republican on the banking committee. And does he want this because he is a lover of transparency and fair dealing? I don't really think so. Keep in mind that the 'Federal Reserve Transparency Act' proposed from the GOP is the creation of Ron Paul, who has frequently introduced bills to abolish the Fed completely. When Richard Shelby is talking about regulating the Fed more closely, what he actually means is that he wants to reduce the Fed's authority to regulate the banks. He is most definitely not looking to bring the banking industry under tighter federal control.

For example: http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.NewsReleases&ContentRecord_id=a900f2db-802a-23ad-4607-8125dd3aa38e&Region_id=&Issue_id=&County_id= He starts talking about the Fed's failure to prevent the crisis (reasonable enough) but within a few paragraphs he's moved on to arguing that the Fed (and thus the government) has too much power...the same kind of reason that he's against the creation of a consumer financial protection agency. He reasonably suggests that such an agency could be part of the FDIC, which is not a bad idea in principle, but the actual suggestions he offered for how this could work are designed to result in deadlock and and make such a body ineffective in practice, eg a suggestion that the board have two independent members and two appointed by the President - a formula for paralysis with a Dem president and a GOP-controlled congress. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/03/01/shelbys-two-counteroffers-on-consumer-protection/

[Me.]

13. The Issue Here Is...

"But the Banking Committee Chairman, Chris Dodd, was more inclined to try and strike deal over the weekend with his Republican counterpart, Richard Shelby, for a bipartisan bill. The price of this would be weaker provisions on derivatives, consumer protection, and on resolving failed large banks. The political price would be that progressives don't get to offer floor amendments"

[laughingliberal]

14. Yeah, yeah. SSDD

Same crap we heard as we warned what a sellout the HCR bill was. Yeah, I read it and when I said so then the supporters would swarm and tell me the bill didn't say what I thought it said. And, now that it's passed, it said everything I said it did. All the loopholes I pointed out, the lack of price controls, etc..etc...etc...

Sorry. We have 3 fed chairmen saying that breaking up TBTF is essential and this bill does not. The same people who let this crisis happen are defending the lack of consumer protections and letting the TBTF's continue to control 60% of GDP.

I believe Elizabeth Warren on this. One more, "What can they do??? We have to cave to the wealthy and the Republicans on it to get anything done. I'm just not buying it. They stand with their campaign donors and their buddies on Wall Street. Another damned sellout of the people.


Ask for more than you expect and give up some things you might want??? Nah, Democrats start with the weakest bill they can imagine and cave from there. Pragmatism is another word for Democrats passing Republican legislation.

[Me.]

15. There Is Also This

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8203651

[chill_wind]

17. Damn!!

I was just typing right here in this same thread minutes ago about that provision.

Thanks for the link. Unbelievable. He and Mel Watt should get a prize.:-(

[anigbrowl]

19. Clearly you made up your mind long ago

So, you read the bill, eh? would you care to direct me to your substantive criticisms of it, as opposed to your general statements of it being a sellout? Which of the 12 major sections do you find lacking, for example? Thing is, I've searched for your past criticsms, but am unable to find anything but your general expressions of disappointment. as you've read it, I look forward to reading your specific complaints. feel free to cite by page or by section as you prefer.

[chill_wind]

16. Guys like Shelby and Paul not withstanding, don't forget about Grayson

who partnered up with Paul, despite his record, on some of the harder hitting notions of regulation and Federal Reserve transparency (ie Audit The Fed). Strange bedfellows and different motives, perhaps, but I would still support that as one of the outcomes of meaningful reform, despite its genesis.

[laughingliberal]

18. +1 nt

[dflprincess]

24. Framework?

Why don't they just reenact Glass Steagall with a few amendments to handle new scams like derivitives?

If they're serious about this, they won't decide to reinvent the wheel - they'll go back to what we know worked.

[bvar22]

20. SOP for today's "Centrist" Democrats.

"Centrist" = Almost Republican.

"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[glitch]

22. Ain't no almost about it. Centrist = formerly known as Republican

Now that Republican = Fascist.

[merkins]

21. "Chris Dodd is nothing but a paid manservant" for the Bankers

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/alan-grayson-discloses-dodd-bill-covertly-eliminates-already-passed-legislation-requiring-fu">Alan Grayson Discloses That Dodd Bill Covertly Eliminates Already Passed Legislation Requiring Full Fed Audit

[LWolf]

23. This is my senator's first term, and he's already a "leading progressive."

What does that say about the senate?

I'm glad to know that Merkley is fighting to make it a better bill. Too bad it's Chris Dodd he has to fight.