Feingold and the filibuster

[ProSense]

Steve Benen

<...>

To clarify, Feingold isn't just talking about opposing the legislation; he's also promising to side with far-right Republicans on a filibuster, preventing the Senate from even voting on the bill. The consequence of Feingold's support for GOP obstructionism may kill the legislation, leaving an industry regulatory structure in place that nearly collapsed the global economy. Feingold, in effect, prefers a broken status quo to a reform bill he believes doesn't go far enough -- which is exactly the outcome sought by the Wall Street lobbyists the senator claims to oppose.

Of course, it's not just Feingold. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is prepared to kill the bill over a modest bank fee that would help pay for the broader reform effort. Yesterday, Maine Sens. Susan Collins (R) and Olympia Snowe (R) said they're also prepared to walk away from the bill over the bank fee. Making matters even worse, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) said he's "concerned" about the fee, suggesting his vote is far from secure, too. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), who supported the GOP filibuster last month, is non-committal, for now, as is Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), who backed the filibuster but supported final passage.

Remember, to break a Republican filibuster in May, the majority had exactly 60 votes, which included three Republicans (Brown, Collins, and Snowe). Byrd's death puts the number at 59, meaning the majority will need to make up at least one vote somewhere. Instead, yesterday, the bill was losing votes, not gaining them.

The goal has long been to have the final bill on the president's desk by the 4th of July. That now appears increasingly unlikely.

[Jennicut]

1. The bank fee will now most likely be dropped because of Feingold not voting for cloture.

Feingold sure helped....

[DCBob]

3. So the bill gets weaker due to Feingold..

good job Russ.

[Jennicut]

4. Exactly. I do respect him generally but the refusal to look at the reality of the situation also

drives me nuts. During the whole D.K. thing with the health care bill I said the same thing.

[DCBob]

6. Yeah.. in fact I think I am closer in policy to Feingold than any other Dem Senator but..

in this case he's "right" but wrong. In politics, there are times when you have to hold your nose and vote or nothing gets done.

[midnight]

20. The bill is weaker because that truck driving naked man

who took Ted Kennedy's seat, wanted to make sure the bankers could continue business as usual.

[DCBob]

27. I expected as much from a naked truck driving Republican but Russ is supposed to be on our side..

Fact is, his opposition is likely to either kill the bill or weaken it. It wont get stronger thats for sure. If they add in the stuff Feingold wants they will lose the few supportive GOPers and all the conservative Dems.

[impik]

2. What an ass. Filibustering with those GOP crooks. Ass.

[depakid]

5. You all look to pass a farce of a bill- a shameful set of fake "reforms'

and you wonder you lose support in droves.

You don't stand for anything. And hence- one by one, tens by tens- people don't stand with you.

Stinky the clown was right- and still, despite looking down the barrel of 1994- you still don't get it.

[ProSense]

7. Which of these are fake reforms:

• Consumer Protections with Authority and Independence
  
• Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
  
• Financial Stability Oversight Council
  
• Limiting Large, Complex Financial Companies and Preventing Future Bailouts
  
• Reforming the Federal Reserve
  
• Bringing Transparency and Accountability to the Derivatives Market
  
• Office of Minority and Women Inclusion
  
• Mortgage Reform
  
• Penalties for Irresponsible Lending
  
• Oversight of Credit Rating Agencies
  
• Volcker Rule
  
• Regulating Hedge Funds
  
• Strengthen protections for whistleblowers who help expose financial fraud

Feingold states: "While there are some positive provisions in the final measure, the lack of strong reforms"

He should list the provisions that he considers positive and why he's voting against them.


You may believe standing for the status quo is admirable, but it is the same as standing with Wall Street.

[Jennicut]

8. What is so wrong with passing those reforms?

Are they harmful in anyway? He won't even vote for cloture.

[Mass]

9. The only reason his vote is wrong is because it is the Conference report and therefore

it cannot be amended.

His criticisms of the bill are serious and warranted, and many among those who will vote for the bill share them. He is not standing for the status quo, he is standing for more change. He may be wrong, but does not merit the attacks he has been getting from DUers. When are you going to bash people like Conrad this way. Hell, he wants to gut social security. Should this not get your attention at least as much?

[ProSense]

10. It's wrong, and it earned him the criticism.

"When are you going to bash people like Conrad this way."

Seriously, Conrad is a fool, and Social Security isn't on the Senate floor, let alone in conference.

[Mass]

14. I said he was wrong, but I am not sure it justifies three threads on the topic.

personally, the number of threads you posted on this topic makes me disregard these posts.

As for Conrad, when social security will be on the Senate floor, it will be too late, just as it is too late to work on a meaningful finance bill.

[ProSense]

16. Nothing uncomfortable ever does. n/t

[impik]

11. He is going to filibuster with the Republicans. There's no way you can justify it

No way. He can vote against the bill, but not allowing a vote? Fuck him.

[depakid]

12. Spare us the copy & paste, false attribution and really lame attempts at framing

There were four problems to solve- and the legislation solved none of them- but instead engaged in a dog & pony show.

This legislation will not stop Wall Street speculation in derivatives, the financial system will still be dominated by a few "too big to fail" banks doing just that, the ratings agencies will still operate with inherent conflicts of interests and CEO's and executives will still get exorbitant pay and bonus incentives to take high stakes, systemic risks.

As was said above- your problem is that you don't believe in anything.

-and everyone on this board knows it- or should know it, given your performance with the public option.

[ProSense]

13. "false attribution "? n/t

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Obama is not solving all of our problems tomorrow, ergo he caves to fraudsters and banksters

We know, we know.

[depakid]

22. Volcker Rule Could Wait Until 2022

With supporters and opponents of the much-debated financial reform bill emphasizing the urgency of the moment, one crucial component of the legislation may be delayed for years.

Bloomberg News reports this morning that banks could be given until 2022 to implement the so-called Volcker Rule, which would force the nation's largest banks to reduce their investments in private equity and hedge funds.

Proposed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, the rules were originally intended to stop banks from using taxpayer-backed cash to speculate in the financial markets. The measures were softened in the conference committee process. As HuffPost's Shahien Nasiripour pointed out, thefinal language allows banks to invest up to 3 percent of their Tier 1 capital in private equity and hedge funds. JPMorgan Chase, for example, could use $4 billion of its cash to speculate in the markets.

The rules wouldn't take effect until 15 months after passage, Bloomberg News reports, but with particularly hard-to-sell securities like real estate holdings, banks could be granted extensions until 2022.

As Goldman Sachs Group analyst Richard Ramsden put it, "While this may lead to further surprises down the line, we see this as important, as financial institutions have time to adapt their business models."

:rofl:

Better than 2012-14 I guess....

[BeyondGeography]

23. Your proposed course would make them even happier

[depakid]

29. Nice try, but nope

Principled action- making a courageous stand and showing backbone would reverse the trend and relegate Republicans (and their enablers?) back to the fringe- where they belong.

Obama and the Democrats had an army and a mandate- high past time to start living up to it.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. How much wood could a woodchuck chuck?

[vaberella]

31. Sadly, people forget Obama isn't writing the laws either----thank our Senate.

However on DU, Senators/Congressman get off scott free as long as it gives free reign to attack the president in anyway.

[jefferson_dem]

15. So you support obstructionism?

No up or down vote even? Talk about standing for nothing. :crazy:

Saint Russ is a tool, on this matter. He's earned as much ridicule and scorn as folks are willing to heap upon him.

[depakid]

18. Yet another lame attempt at framing

LOL- really lame.

You really should read Lakoff- it would help your rhetoric.

SOLVE THE FUCKING PROBLEMS.

Take a stand -stand up and fight!

People see through this shit. That's why rather than making big gains this year, Democrats are on the verge of losing their majorities.

[jefferson_dem]

21. Right.

I know Lakoff, well.

This isn't about "not thinking of elephants" silly. This is just another instance of you opposing every item on the Dem/Pres agenda and talking doom and gloom along the way.

Right now, the fight is on. And Feingold has joined the wrong team. He's as much of the problem as the most tea-baggy republican. It's this conference report or nothing. Try framing this: "We didn't do shit about financial regulation."

[depakid]

24. There's bit more to it than one little paperback book

This bill is a pile of fail- and the only saving grace is that it wasn't done under the same spotlight as HCR.

That bit about the ratings agencies- gotta love that, eh? Had 64 votes- and yet-

"We need more study" from the SEC.

LOL. Pullese. No one's buying that line.

Speaking of the SEC- where Obama promoted another person who got it wrong Mary Schapiro failure of FINRA -what's happened with all those "regulators" who knew about Madoff and Stanford?

Are they still there- like the folks at the MMS?

You betcha.

[ProSense]

30. There is always a Democrat willing to side with Republicans on a filibuster

This time it's Feingold. Republicans are strengthened by this, whether it's done by Lieberman or Nelson, and just as Republicans crossing the isle strengthen the Democrats ability to pass legislation when they're lacking the votes within their own caucus.

[geek tragedy]

26. You're right, we should do NOTHING instead.

Brilliant solution.

Republicans and Blue Dogs will run Congress next year. If you think this is weak sauce, just wait until what next year's much more Republican and Wall Street friendly Congress cooks up.

Feingold is being a preening purist idiot.

[ProSense]

28. Imagine voting against Glass-Steagall because it only established a temporary FDIC

Improvements to the original legislation:

•Banking Act of 1933 (P.L. 73-66, 48 STAT. 162).
Also known as the Glass-Steagall Act. Established the FDIC as a temporary agency. Separated commercial banking from investment banking, establishing them as separate lines of commerce.

•Banking Act of 1935 (P.L. 74-305, 49 STAT. 684).
Established the FDIC as a permanent agency of the government.

•Federal Deposit Insurance Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-797, 64 STAT. 873).
Revised and consolidated earlier FDIC legislation into one Act. Embodied the basic authority for the operation of the FDIC.

•Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (P.L. 84-511, 70 STAT. 133).
Required Federal Reserve Board approval for the establishment of a bank holding company. Prohibited bank holding companies headquartered in one state from acquiring a bank in another state.

link

[vaberella]

32. You know...This should be it's own thread. Heads might explode. n/t

[Aramchek]

33. Lieberman for Lefties