Of course Elizabeth Warren needs to be on the Senate Banking Committee

Majority Leader Harry (left) knows that Senator-elect Warren (right) belongs on the Banking Committee. That's why he'll slot her in -- or maybe why he won't.

by Ken

On Tuesday Howie wrote a post called "Wall Street Kind of Lost -- But Not Really, Of Course." As he indicated, there's no reason to believe that, however the bodies may change, the soul of the economic team surrounding the president in his second term is going to be solidly in the bag for Wall Street and the banksters.

One early test of the seriousness of the Democratic alternative to the rule of the Oligarchy of the 1 Percent -- or perhaps the existence of a Democratic alternative to the rule of the Oligarchy of the 1 Percent -- is the decision by the Senate majority in the 113th Congress as to whether freshman Sen. Elizabeth Warren gets a seat on the Banking Committee.

From a personal standpoint, let me say that when I belatedly started taking in then-known election results on Election Night, by thich time the networks had all called the presidential election for President Obama, and I was indeed relieved to know that Willard Inc. was not about to remake the Oval Office as the White House HQ of the first incorporated president, the names I was happiest to hear announced as declared winners were Warren and Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin. Let's throw in news of the reelection of OH Sen. Sherrod Brown.

Because it was quite easy enough to imagine an Obama reelection victory alongside Senate victories by MA Sen. Scott Brown and WI former Gov. Tommy Thomjpson -- and also whoever that creep was being so heavily bankrolled by the Right to oust OH's Senator Brown. In Senator-elect Warren's case, the result was made especially sweet by the very nature and intensity of her hardest-core opponents, the cabal of Bankster & Bankster Inc., which cratered the economy once and then quickly segued back to its traditional role of sucking all the life it can out of the economy.

Now Senator Warren needs a seat on the Banking Committee -- and Majority Leader Harry Reid, who's going to make the call, doesn't need me to tell him that this is precisely why Massachusetts voters, backed up by well-wishers across the country, have sent her back to DC as a U.S. senator. She should, of course, be running the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), since the thing was her idea, and no one understands better: (a) why it was needed, (b) what it has to do, and above all (c) what it has to overcome to do it.

But the Obama administration didn't have the nerve to fight the certain powerful opposition of Senate Republicans to a Warren nomination. For that matter, the Obama administration almost certainly didn't have the will to offer such a nomination. Not over the objections of Treasury Sec'y "Tiny Tim" Geithner, who knows only too well how well she knows how corporate-cravely he administered the TARP bailout. (It was in particular the selection of Tiny Tim's successor that Howie was focused on in his Tuesday post.) A number of Senate Dems weren't enthusiastic either -- not least outgoing Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, who emerged ever more embarrassingly, as he slithered his way out of the Senate, as a signed-and-sealed stooge of Bankster & Bankster.

Anyway, Senator Harry knows as well as anyone that Senator Warren belongs on the Banking Committee. And he could slot her into one of the vacancies created by the retirements of Sens. Daniel Akaka (HI) and Herb Kohl (WI). Or, knowing how badly Bankster & Bankster wants her not on the committee, he could keep her off Banking.

Business Insider's Linette Lopez reports today that "right now it looks like if she wants it, she can have it" ("Here's What's Happening In The Big Battle To Keep Elizabeth Warren Off The Senate Banking Committee"; lots o' links onsite).

Ultimately, the decision of who sits on what committee is left up to Harry Reid (D-NV), the Senate Majority leader. He takes into consideration things like seniority and Senators' talents, backgrounds and preferences. But in the end, the choice is his.

Now let's look at the committee. There are two seats opening up: Herb Kohl (D-WI) and Daniel Akaka (D-HI). New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has already said she's not taking one of them.

The other person being considered is Delaware Senator Chris Coons, and he isn't really talking about the situation.

So there's space. There's also pressure ... on Reid.

Rhode Island Senator and Banking Committee member Jack Reed is said to be supporting Warren for the seat.

And there's also this comment Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson made on Tuesday:

“I have a good working relationship with Elizabeth Warren and I would welcome her to the Committee if that’s what she wishes. Her expertise and knowledge would be an asset to the Committee as we continue working to protect consumers and maintain financial stability.”

Politicians aside, the Democratic constituency seems into giving Warren a seat on Banking as well. News site Daily Kos has a petition going to get Reid to put her on the committee. It has 80,872 signatures on it so far.

Politico's Ben White reported that Wall Street's lobbyists are on the case, trying to pressure Reid to put Warren on another committee (like Judiciary or Finance).

The question is, how much influence do they have over a man who, two years ago, made fun of the GOP for "making love to Wall Street"? (from CBS):

"They won't let us move on any amendments," he said, adding that "It's obvious that they do not want to put in decent restrictions" on the financial industry.

Reid suggested the GOP is stalling because "they are having difficulty determining how they're going to continue making love to Wall Street" by opposing regulation.

Ultimately, if Warren wants the seat, it looks like Reid is absolutely in the position to give it to her.

#

Who'll Stand Up For Regular American Working Families?

Worth fighting for?

Do you ever imagine you're a senator? I don't. I was in the student Senate in college; never need to do that again. It was more fun being an executive. (I was freshman class president and chairman of the Student Activities Board. That's where the action was.) But sometimes I do think about how I would vote on one thing or another. Before the senators left for their August holidays, the very last vote was on President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan. It passed 63-37, five Republicans-- Susan Collins (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Judd Gregg (NH), Dick Lugar (R-IN), and Olympia Snowe (ME)-- crossing ye olde aisle. And yesterday she was sworn in, only the 4th woman ever-- out of a total of 112 Justices-- to serve on the Supreme Court.

Would I have voted for her confirmation? Or would I have joined reactionary asshat Ben Nelson (NE) crossing the aisle in the other direction? Nelson voted against her so in case she ever votes to uphold women's right to choice, he can go braying to his backward constituents that he voted against her. I would have been hard-pressed to vote for her, because I'm not convinced she realizes that corporate interests are undermining America and that they're the most pernicious enemy our nation faces. I'd rather vote to confirm someone who does... like Thom Hartmann.

I imagine in the end I would have held my nose and voted to confirm, hoping-- still hoping-- Obama's 14-dimensional chess was going to somehow add up to something good for the good guys... one fine day. Unlike Chris Dodd, though, where I'd really be putting my energy would be into getting Elizabeth Warren confirmed as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the body she thought up. Dodd thinks it isn't worth the battle. He's incorrect. There's some thought that she's too much an advocate for working American families and that it wouldn't be fair to Wall Street and the bankers. I guess that would be more true if Wall Street didn't own the Senate, the Republican Party, half the Democratic Party, the Blue Dog Caucus, much of the House, most of the Supreme Court, the Department of the Treasury, virtually all of the federal and state agencies dealing with them and, of course, nearly as much of the White House as it owns during an average Republican administration. Go, Rahm!

The New Republic’s Noam Scheiber wrote that “after surveying a dozen insiders over the last few days-- congressional aides, industry officials, progressive activists, and a few administration officials-- I’ve concluded that the odds are good that Warren would be confirmed if nominated by the White House.” And Dodd now seems to have shifted his rhetoric, saying that even if Warren is confirmable, it’s not worth a potential fight to get her the job: "What you don’t need to have is an eight-month battle for who the director or the head or chairperson of this new consumer financial protection bureau will be."

...Leaving aside Warren’s qualifications, it makes little sense that Dodd feels a political fight here isn’t worth it. Warren is an unabashed, articulate consumer advocate, and her nomination would set up a clear choice: consumers or the banks. After having overwhelmingly voted against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform bill, Republicans standing against her nomination would once again be siding with the financial services industry. It’s worth the fight to show that dynamic at work.

Dodd's friends-- and probably future employers-- on Wall Street will do anything to stop Elizabeth Warren. I doubt, considering how much they've paid Rahm Emanuel over the years, they'll have to do much. She does have Al Franken, Dr. Phil and Stephen Colbert pumping for her, though. Oh, and every honest member of the Senate, though that doesn't amount to too, too many. Just the handful who always favor consumers and workers: Barbara Boxer, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Bernie Sanders, Sheldon Whitehouse, Ron Wyden, Tom Harkin, yadda, yadda, yadda, instead of who Boehner and McConnell call the "job producers" (like Lloyd Blankfein and Paris Hilton-- i.e., rich people who buy politicians their careers).

Dr. Phil is getting political.

TV's best-known shrink is endorsing Harvard economics professor Elizabeth Warren -- a frequent guest on his show-- to be the first federal consumer-protection czar.

"I could not more strongly support Professor Warren's appointment to head up this new bureau," he wrote on his personal blog under the headline "Elizabeth Warren: Fighting for Consumers"

"But you don't need me to tell you how to feel about her," he says.

It is an unusual departure for Dr, Phil, who has been close to fellow-Texans former President George W. Bush and wife Laura, but has never come out publicly for a political candidate before.

..."As you know, I don't talk politics on this blog or on the show," Dr. Phil wrote, but then went on to urge fans to "write or e-mail your congressperson and tell him or her how you feel. Washington DC is always up to something, but this one counts!"

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
Consumer Protection Agency - Barney Frank
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes 2010 Election Fox News

Of course Elizabeth Warren would be confirmable as CFPB head. The real question: Is she nominatable?

Treasury Sec'y "Tiny Tim" Geithner pinky-swears that he's not blackballing Elizabeth Warren for the CFPB job. Of course he doesn't have to. It's doubtful that there's anyone in the administration who would offer that [expletive deleted] [expletive deleted] the time of day, let alone a job of this potential importance.


"As you make your decision regarding the nominee for this position, we believe it is essential that you select someone with a proven history of standing up to unfair and abusive practices in the financial industry, particularly in the area of consumer protection. It will be especially important that the first director be someone who will not cave in when pressured by the financial industry, which we expect to be enormous."

-- from a letter to the president signed by 12 U.S.

senators regarding the choice of the first CFPB director

by Ken

THE HILL'S BLOG BRIEFING ROOM

Dodd doubts Warren's confirmability for job of consumer guardian

By Michael O'Brien

Elizabeth Warren might not have the votes to win confirmation as head of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) suggested Monday.

Dodd, the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, said he sensed rumblings among colleagues that Warren, the chairwoman of the panel overseeing the 2008 Wall Street bailout program, might not get the 60 votes necessary to win confirmation.

"I think Elizabeth would be a terrific nominee," Dodd told NPR's Diane Rehm on Monday. "The question is, 'Is she confirmable?' And there's a serious question about it." . . .

Two observations about the groundswell of support for Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) authorized in the newly enacted financial reform package:

(1) Contrary to the smokescreen raised the other day by Sen. Chris Dodd, of course Warren is confirmable -- provided the administration and Senate leadership are serious about getting her confirmed. Meaning that they actually mean for the CFPB to work, as opposed to giving it some low-level funding (ooh, jobs for cronies!) so it can serve as do-nothing cover for one thing we know the administration believes in: business as usual. That means making a clear and emphatic case for its mission. In other words, something like this letter sent to the White House today by a group of 12 U.S. senators. (Apologies for typos. I had to retype the letter -- I actually thought it was worth the trouble -- from this PDF file.)

Dear Mr. President:

One of the most important provisions in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank) establishes, for the first time, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). As you know, in the years preceding the crisis, providers of financial services offered consumers many products that were unfair, deceptive, and abusive, with disastrous effects on consumers and on our economy. In many instances, consumers were hurt because our financial regulators failed to enforce existing consumer protection laws. In other cases, because at least seven different agencies were responsible for consumer protection, no single agency viewed consumer protection as its primary responsibility. All too often this important function was relegated far down their priority list. The new CFPB will rectify these flaws and make sure the financial system also works for consumers.

The idea behind the CFPB came from the current head of the Congressional Oversight Panel, Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren. In her 2007 article that launched the idea, Professor Warren wrote, "Just as the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) protects buyers of goods and supports a competitive market, we need the same for consumers of financial products -- a new regulatory regime, and even a new regulatory body, to protect consumers who use credit cards, home mortgages, car loans, and a host of other products." With your help, Congress was able to make this vision a reality over the objections of those in the financial services industry who spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to weaken or removed the CFPB.

Establishing and empowering the CFPB immediately is among the most important challenges that you face in implementing this historic legislation. To help ensure the CFPB is able to stand up to the power of the financial industry, Congress endowed the CFPB with a single director to be nominated by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. As you make your decision regarding the nominee for this position, we believe it is essential that you select someone with a proven history of standing up to unfair and abusive practices in the financial industry, particularly in the area of consumer protection. It will be especially important that the first director be someone who will not cave in when pressured by the financial industry, which we expect to be enormous. Only with such a leader can we properly protect consumers from the unfair, abusive, and deceptive practices that have been standard practice in too many segments of the financial industry for too long. Indeed, someone with a track record akin to that of Professor Warren would be the type of person we believe is necessary to head this Bureau.

With the enactment of Dodd-Frank, much work is now left to be done by the financial regulatory agencies, including the CFPB. We look forward to your selection of a strong nominee to head the CFPB and to working with you to assure this person's confirmation by the U.S. Senate. Putting this person in place swiftly is among the important steps necessary to implement this groundbreaking legislation to ensure that it reaches its full potential of improving the financial system. We appreciate y our serious consideration of our views.

Tom Harkin
Sherrod Brown
Bernard Sanders
Ron Wyden
Al Franken
Sheldon Whitehouse
Edward E. Kaufman
Roland Burris
Byron Dorgan
Barbara Boxer
Jeff Merkley
Mark Begich

[Um, er, I notice that Senator Dodd's name -- you know, as in "Dodd-Frank" -- isn't among the signatories. Probably he just had one of those damned pens that when you try to, you know, write with the damned thing, you get nothing. There are a lot of other missing Democratic senators, and I notice that there don't seem to be any Republican signers. Could this be like when somebody has a birthday in my office and the card gets passed around furtively for everybody to sign -- maybe this letter was being passed around and just never reached all those other Dems, and never did get shot across the aisle?]

A commitment to confirmation of a Warren nomination, and to the successful functioning of the CFPB, also means making sure that senators are forced to go on the record with their objections to the nomination, and understand that for once there will be a price to pay for defending the interests of the country's economic predators. One has to suspect that the real concern of the opponents of a Warren CFPB nomination isn't that she wouldn't be confirmed but that she would be.

SIDE NOTE: ISN'T THIS SOME SORRY SPECTACLE
CHRIS DODD IS MAKING OF HIMSELF?

The suggestion has been made that you see a pol's true colors when he/she reaches lame-duck status. Remember, back when Dodd announced that he wouldn't seek what seemed increasingly unlikely reelection, and there was speculation that, despite his longstanding bankster and Wall Street ties, he might make a powerhouse financial reform package his legacy? We discovered pretty quickly that that wasn't going to happen, that his mission was to keep whatever package ultimately passed within manageable (by financial industry standards) bounds. Now he's just embarrassing himself.

(2) I don't think there's a chance in hell that Professor Warren will be offered the job. I thought it was great theater the way Treasury Sec'y "Tiny Tim" Geithner stepped in to squelch those rumors that surfaced suddenly about him working to ensure that she wouldn't be. Absolutely untrue, his flak insisted. The secretary has the highest regard for Professor Warren, and she will definitely be considered for CFPB.

Yeah, right, she'll be "considered." As in:

Dear Professor Warren:

After careful consideration, we've decided we would sooner eat poison than let you anywhere near the CFPB.

Have a nice life.

Yours truly,
A Senior White House Official

The standard line of people inside and outside the administration preparing for Warren not getting the nod is that while she would be well-qualified, there are many other well-qualified candidates. Why, to quote Senator Dodd: "That's not the only potential nominee -- there are many fine nominees." But of course we're never told the names of any of these other "fine nominees," not even as window dressing, people to be "considered" in the same way that Professor Warren will be. Sorry, but if the best they can come up with is a stooge like Ass't Treasury Sec'y Michael Barr (now being said "to have the inside track"), maybe we ought to just forget about this whole CFPB thing.

In the most unlikely event that, for political reasons, the administration coughs up Warren's name as "the one," I think we can safely take that as a signal that CFPB nullification by other means will be the order of the day. It shouldn't be that difficult. As eight years of the Bush regime demonstrated so convincingly, when government people are determined to prove that they're incompetent, their success rate is formidable.

#

Now Boehner Has Something Else To Campaign About Besides Repealing Healthcare-- The Republicans Want To Repeal Wall Street Regulations Too!

Click the on the golfer & help make history

Yesterday at 11AM the Senate voted to shut down the Republican Party filibuster against the far too modest Wall Street regulatory bill. But Republicans weren't trying to kill it because it was too modest. They oppose it-- and now pledge to repeal it if they win the midterms-- because they think Wall Street can handle its own business without government interference. Apparently they missed just how that worked out last time it was tried-- under Bush-Republican rule. We haven't dug out from under that mess yet.

The vote for cloture was 60-38, every Democrat except Russ Feingold (who did oppose it because the legislation isn't strong enough) voted to shut off the filibuster and all the Republicans except mainstream conservatives Scott Brown (R-MA), Susan Collins (R-ME) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME) voting in favor of Wall Street banksters. A couple of hours later the Senate passed the reform bill 60-39 and the GOP moved into high gear to reassure Wall Street donors that they have a friend on Capitol Hill.

"I think it ought to be repealed," said House Minority Leader John Boehner, in response to a question from TPMDC, at his weekly press conference this morning.

One of his top lieutenants, Republican Conference Chair Mike Pence agrees. "We hope [the Senate vote] falters so we can start over," Pence told TPMDC yesterday. "I think the reason you're not hearing talk about efforts to repeal the permanent bailout authority is because the bill hasn't passed yet."

GOP leaders can throw around silly "repeal" rhetoric when it comes to health care reform, in large part because an aggressive and dishonest campaign had made the Affordable Care Act controversial. The Republican base is pleased with the boasts, and most of the political mainstream doesn't take the promises seriously anyway.

But talking about repealing Wall Street reform is much dumber, since the effort is far more popular. Boehner & Co. consistently forget this, but Americans still tend to be pretty annoyed with the financial industry that nearly destroyed the global economic system, and which was bailed out by taxpayers. The available evidence suggests voters want the new reform measures, if only to help keep the industry that ran wild in check.

Arguing that new safeguards and accountability measures should be "repealed," before they even pass, makes it sound as if Republicans-- if given a chance by voters-- plan to go out of their way to look out for the Wall Street lobbyists and hedge fund managers that brought the system to the verge of collapse. (Those would be, by the way, the same Wall Street lobbyists congressional Republicans huddled with when plotting how best to kill reform legislation.)

Boehner's remarks aren't surprising, of course. He did, after all, recently suggest accountability measures are a "nuclear weapon," being used to kill "an ant." But it's nevertheless a message Republicans may not want to take to the public: "Vote GOP: We'll put Wall Street safeguards back to 2008 levels!"

North Carolina Secretary of State Elaine Marshall sent out a very clear message to North Carolina voters about her opponent's decision to filibuster against reform:

It's high time Washington reign in Wall Street, and I'm happy to hear that the Senate will finally vote to move forward on legislation today. Unfortunately, Senator Burr has made it quite clear where he stands: on the side of Goldman Sachs and Citibank.

While Burr continues to fight against extending aid to the jobless, he is bowing to big banks by voting against reforming Wall Street. It's time for North Carolina to elect a U.S. Senator that will stand up for the people of our state, not Wall Street executives.

Why is Burr siding with Wall Street over North Carolina?

Because in Washington, it makes it easier to get reelected.

The truth is the unemployed don't have lobbyists, and they don't make campaign contributions. In Senator Burr's Washington that means they cannot afford a seat at the table-- but Wall Street executives can and have spent millions to buy his vote.

As we pointed out yesterday, Obama's glass house-- and his support for corrupt corporate whores like Blanche Lincoln-- doesn't allow him to speak out as convincingly and as forthrightly as someone like Elaine Marshall. It helps explain why Blue America is so enthusiastic about supporting her. She continued:

This historic bill will strengthen consumer protections, and help to end taxpayer-funded bailouts. It even helps small businesses by cutting the transaction fees they pay to the credit card companies. The reform bill will also make great strides in ensuring another financial disaster doesn't drag the U.S. economy into recession.

That alone makes it worth supporting.

But for a campaign bankrolled by corporate lobbyists, Burr has agreed to say 'no'.

That is exactly what's wrong with Washington.

There aren't that many in the Senate I trust when it comes to Wall Street reform, but Jeff Merkley (D-OR) is one. His statement accentuated the positive without trying to claim everyone's getting a pony now:

“Today the Senate sent a clear message that the financial security of families and businesses on Main Street must always come before the short-term profits of Wall Street. For decades, we let rampant deregulation and deceptive lending practices undermine families’ well-being, poison our financial system and ultimately bring the economy to its knees. This bill will help restore safety and soundness to our financial system and ensure that working families get a fair deal in their everyday financial transactions. 

“I am pleased that the final bill includes the Merkley-Levin amendment that will ban high-risk trading inside the banks and put an end to conflicts of interest, where giants like Goldman Sachs bet against the very securities they were selling to their customers. This provision will encourage banks to return to the days where their main focus was lending. I can’t thank Senator Carl Levin enough for his tireless work to ensure that our banks won’t engage in high-risk trading and put our entire financial system at risk.

“In addition, I’m pleased that the bill includes provisions I championed to end some of the most egregious mortgage practices that led to the housing crisis and cost millions of families their homes. The bill will ban steering payments, liar loans, and prepayment penalties and give Americans the transparency they deserve when purchasing their own home. It will also create a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau dedicated to protecting consumers from financial tricks and traps, such as unfair overdraft fees and exploding interest rates.

“Now, this bill will not solve every problem in our financial system, and from my perspective, could be stronger in significant ways. Regulators have been given an enormous amount of responsibility to implement the bill as intended. In order to ensure that they hold up their end of the bargain, Congress needs to conduct vigorous oversight of government regulators and our financial markets.

Imagine a Senate where Ted Kaufman's no-nonsense fin-services speech is the norm, and where Joe Sestak could take his stands

The temporary senator from Delaware

by Ken

Tomorrow night I'm going to toss in my two cents' worth of lamentations about the pathetic state of the U.S. Senate, from what I think is a slightly different angle. Maybe I should leave the outcome in suspense, but I don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I'm going to arrive at a conclusion any less hopeless than everybody else.

However, for tonight I want us to indulge in the luxury of a harmless little fantasy.


(1) A TEMPORARY SENATOR TAKES ON THE MEGABANKS

Ted Kaufman, of course, is only a temporary U.S. senator, having been appointed to fill the Delaware seat vacated by Vice President Joe Biden until a new senator is elected this November. (The general speculation, you'll recall, was that Kaufman, Biden's Senate chief of staff for almost a decade, would be a place-holder for the veep's son, state AG Beau Biden. But Beau took a good look at this year's election climate and decided to sit the race out.)

Yesterday the senator delivered a speech, Ending Too Big to Fail, whose text left a lot of people gasping in disbelief, going beyond the question of where a new consumer regulatory commission should be placed to the proposition that no regulatory commission could deal effectively with the megabanks that fall into the "too big to fail" category, and that bringing them under some basic regulatory control is crucial to our economic well-being.

Here's just the start of the speech:

[T]here is little in the current legislation that would change the behavior or reduce the size of the nation's six mega-banks. Instead, this bill invests its hopes in two ideas: First, that chastened regulators (who failed miserably in preventing the crisis) will this time control these mega-banks more effectively – today, tomorrow and decades into the future. And, second, that a resolution authority designed to shield the taxpayers from yet another bail-out will be able successfully to unwind incredibly complex mega-banks engaged across the globe.

In the midst of the Great Depression, Congress built laws that maintained financial stability for nearly 60 years. Through the Glass-Steagall Act, which included the establishment of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Congress separated investment banks, which were free to engage in risky behavior, and commercial banks, whose deposits were federally insured. As I described in a previous speech, during the last 30 years, that division was methodically disassembled by a deregulatory mindset, leading to the reckless Wall Street behavior that caused the greatest financial crisis and economic downturn since the 1930s.

What walls will this bill erect? None. On what bedrock does this bill rest if the nation is to hope for another 60 years of financial stability? Better and smarter regulators, plain and simple. No great statutory walls, no hard divisions or limits on regulatory discretion, only a reshuffled set of regulatory powers that already exist. Remember, it was the regulators who abdicated their responsibilities and helped cause the crisis.

Thus far, on the central aspect of “too big to fail,” financial reform consists of giving regulators the authority to supervise institutions that are too big, and then the ability to resolve those banks when they are about to fail. Upon closer examination, however, the former is virtually the same authority regulators currently possess, while the latter – an orderly resolution of a failing mega-bank – is an illusion. Unless Congress breaks up the mega-banks that are "too big to fail," the American taxpayer will remain the ultimate guarantor in an almost certain-to-repeat-itself cycle of boom-bust-and-bailout.

The senator went on to discuss in detail the problem of the "too big to fail" banks and the kind of congressionally mandated control he thinks needs to be included in serious financial reform legislation to deal with it, with no pussyfooting around the issues or trying to make nice to institutions that have a lot of political clout -- and throw around a lot of political cash.

Chris Dodd has many outstanding personal and political qualities. But among his liabilities is a worrying closeness to the financial-services industry which made a lot of people uneasy about his role as the Senate's point man on any reform legislation, especially when the Republicans have made it clear that they will fight tooth and nail against any kind of regulatory reform, not just as part of their "Just Say No" strategy but as a matter of faith. As Howie put it earlier this week, "For Conservatives The Best Bank Regulation Is No Regulation."

There seemed some possible grounds for hope when Dodd announced that he won't run for reelection this year. Maybe now he would feel free to legislate free of electoral "pragmatism." Maybe now he would want this bill to be his congressional "legacy."

Sadly, it doesn't seem to have worked out that way, and in retrospect it's not hard to see why. After all, the senator will still have a family and a lifestyle to support after he leaves the Senate. It appears that retirement is not a time when you suddenly begin biting hands that have been feeding you for a long, long time.

Still, just for tonight, close your eyes and imagine that the speech Ted Kaufman gave yesterday wasn't given by someone who was just passing through the Senate. No, no, imagine harder. I know we here live in that dreary "reality-based" world, but just for this brief moment, let it go.


(2) A SENATE CANDIDATE ESTABLISHES HIS VOICE

As I've mentioned before, Rep. Joe Sestak's insurgent campaign to wrest the Pennsylvania Democratic Senate nomination away from Dem-for-a-day Arlen Specter is on fire with no-nonsense, serious discussion of a vast array of crucial issues, staking out forceful positions that I'd be only too happy to have held by my senator. Of course he has staff to work on these position papers, but they certainly bear the candidate's stamp, and they certainly represent a commitment to run the kind of no-holds-barred campaign-on-the-issues we enlightened folk always claim we're so eager to see.

Yesterday I plucked out three Sestak campaign e-mails from my e-mailbox, and I've added a fourth from this morning. I'm just going to reprint them, so you can read as much or as little as you like. I'm as impressed by how they say what they say as I am by what they say. I get a real sense of a voice emerging here.

Subject: SUNDAY 1:15: Sestak to hold Health Care Town Hall in Philadelphia

SUNDAY 1:15 PM: Joe Sestak to Hold Health Care Town Hall Following Historic Vote in Congress
Continues Dialogue With Voters On Vital Issue for Working Families

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak will hold a town hall meeting this Sunday at 1:15 at the Baptist Worship Center in Philadelphia to have an open discussion about health care reform.

Just as Joe was the first member of Congress to hold a health care town hall during last year's August congressional recess, he plans to be the first member to convene a town hall after the historic votes in the House and the expected vote this week in the Senate. Joe believes it is part of an elected official's duty as a public servant to explain his positions and provide people the opportunity to have their questions answered.

"The voters didn't send us to Washington to duck the tough issues -- they sent us to take them head-on, both before and after the votes are cast. We must enact the right policies for America's working families and stand accountable for our votes before the American people. Americans deserve transparency in their public servants, and I will continue to explain why I support this health care reform effort and how it will benefit Pennsylvania's working families. This is the right thing to do. I'm proud of our work, and I look forward to standing accountable for it before the people of Pennsylvania."

WHO: Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Joe Sestak
WHAT: Town Hall on Health Care Reform
WHEN: Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 1:15 PM
WHERE: Baptist Worship Center, 4790 James Street, Philadelphia, PA 19137

Subject: Sestak: Time to End Workplace Discrimination

Sestak: Time to End Workplace Discrimination
Urges Committee to Move on Legislation to Protect LGBT Employees

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak wrote today to House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller urging him to bring the Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) to a vote during the remaining months of this session of Congress. ENDA -- of which Joe is an original co-sponsor -- would protect Americans from being fired or discriminated against in the workplace because of real or perceived sexual orientation or gender identity. Currently, it is legal in 29 states to fire workers simply because of who they are. A committee vote on ENDA was set for last November, but was unexpectedly postponed and has not been rescheduled.

"This fundamental piece of civil rights legislation is long overdue. We should not delay this markup any further," Joe wrote. "My position on this issue and my support for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act is borne out of my experience in the military. While commanding men and women in harm's way during my 31 years in the Navy, we knew, because of public surveys, that a certain percentage were lesbian and gay service members. Having seen their dedication, their allegiance, and their sacrifices, how can I -- or anyone -- not say that these individuals deserve equal rights when they return home."

Subject: Sestak Supports START Follow-On Treaty

Joe Sestak Supports START Follow-On Treaty
Former Admiral Calls on Senate to Move Swiftly Towards Ratification of Historic Nuclear Weapons Agreement

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak responded to today's announcement that the United States has reached an agreement with Russia on a new nuclear arms treaty which will be signed next month in Prague.

"President Obama should be commended for his willingness to engage with other nations who have interests that at times are adverse to ours. His efforts to 'push the reset button' on U.S.-Russian ties after eight years of tension under President Bush, particularly over missile defense, have led directly to today's monumental achievement," said Joe.

On December 5, 2009, the historic Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) expired. START was the largest arms control agreement in history and was ratified after a decade of negotiations with the Soviet Union. This landmark agreement was instrumental to reducing Cold War nuclear tensions and establishing precedents for inspection and verification measures that provide both sides with confidence about the other's arsenal.

Under the terms of the treaty announced today, the United States and Russia will cut by one third their numbers of deployed strategic weapons. The agreement contains stringent verification regimes which, according to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, provide our intelligence community the tools they need to assess Russian compliance with the treaty's terms.

"The goodwill that these arms control measures generate has historically provided both sides with the confidence and political capital to cooperate in a number of other areas. There are a multitude of challenges that require collaboration with our Russian counterparts, such as the pursuit of multilateral sanctions against Iran in the U.N. Security Council. Today's remarkable diplomatic breakthrough demonstrates that we have the ability to reach agreement with Russia on divisive issues and can continue to pursue their cooperation on future initiatives," Joe continued.

The future of this landmark agreement is by no means certain, as it must be ratified by both the United States Senate and Russian Duma. Senator John McCain, a key Republican voice on foreign policy, said this week that there would be no GOP cooperation on anything in Congress because the Obama White House had 'poisoned the well' with its health care effort.

"Although Senator McCain has since walked this statement back, I remain concerned that some may play partisan politics with our national security. Similar recalcitrance prevented ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty during the 1990s, which has continued to provide other nations with justification to operate outside the international mainstream on nuclear issues," said Joe.

"Signals from the Senate on this issue in coming weeks may have a direct impact on Russian ratification. Additionally, they will also weigh on the appearance of our commitment to nuclear non-proliferation at this spring's nuclear security summit in Washington, where President Obama will host more than 40 heads of state, and at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in New York which will follow," said Joe. "This may have a direct bearing on the willingness of non-nuclear states to continue to operate within the tenets of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and with this in mind, I urge the Senate to move quickly towards ratification of today's treaty."

Joe also supports the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and President Obama's stated goal of the eventual eradication of nuclear weapons. In September 2008, he voted against the U.S.-India nuclear deal, which would allow trade of nuclear materials with India, because of his concern that the agreement would exacerbate India's nuclear arms race with Pakistan.

Subject: Sestak Backs Administration's Effort to Prevent Foreclosures

Sestak Backs Administration's Effort to Help Americans Avoid Foreclosure
2.25 Million Could Lose their Homes this Year Without Aggressive Action

Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Congressman Joe Sestak released the following statement today following the Obama Administration's plan to implement incentives for principal reduction as a means to decrease the number of foreclosures across the country:



"Since the outset of this housing crisis, I have called for a broad program to help the most vulnerable homeowners - those with homes valued at less than their mortgage," said Joe. "Over a year ago, I introduced H.R. 1356, the Homeownership Vesting Plan, to take similar steps to those the Administration proposed. Similarly, the Homeownership Vesting Plan would have reduced the principal for these 'underwater' homeowners through a new Federal Housing Administration-backed mortgage. It also included incentives for lenders to forgive portions of a mortgage to prevent more foreclosures, which would harm the overall economy.

"

Although I hoped that the Administration would have taken this action sooner, this marks an important step forward. Initial estimates suggest that anywhere between 1 million and 1.5 million homeowners could be helped by this program. The program also provides incentives to support lenders who temporarily reduce mortgage payments for unemployed homeowners. Moody's Chief Economist Mark Zandi-- with whom I worked closely to craft the Homeownership Vesting Plan -- projects that approximately 2.25 million homeowners could lose their homes this year in foreclosures or short sales. We must take aggressive actions, such as those outlined by the Administration today, not only to help those Americans with underwater mortgages, but also to prevent the decrease in property values of surrounding homes that result from foreclosure.

"

I have repeatedly called for this action because the housing market's stability is the key to our overall economic stability. February's housing numbers have rightly given pause to many policy makers. Without action to incentivize premium reduction, we risk a further decline in the housing market which could pull our economy into a 'double-dip' recession and force even more families into foreclosure. This announcement will bring us a step closer to rebuilding the economic security of Pennsylvania's working families."

And yet, even though there's hardly any sort of case to be made for Senator Specter, unless you measure him against the unimaginably debased standard represented by the likely Republican nominee, Club for Growth quack Pat Toomey, whose surging support in this Year of the Teabaggers caused our Arlen to bolt the GOP in the first place, knowing that he had virtually no chance to win a Republican primary.

So Arlen, self-involved opportunist that he is, isn't as benighted as the politically demented Toomey. Is this really a standard we want to apply to candidates? Whereas Sestak, the onetime admiral, who seems to me to be doing all the things we say we want in a serious candidate, can't seem to be making any headway in the polls.

But once again, this is our night for making believe. Let's pretend that the media covering the Pennsylvania Senate primary suddenly woke up and decided to, you know, cover the news, as opposed to merely reporting the latest political race-track odds. And/or that the Sestak campaign found a way to really make Pennsylvania Democratic primary voters hear what the candidate is saying.

Go on and pamper yourself. Doesn't that feel just a little bit good? Like when you get a massage, you don't expect to feel better permanently. You know that by a day later, maybe even an hour later, you're going to feel crummy again. But you do it anyway (well, no, I don't, but a lot of people seem to), for that brief blessed relief.

It's the weekend. There's plenty of time for reality afterward. I'm prepared to offer you a whole day. (That's the best deal I've got.)

#

For Conservatives The Best Bank Regulation Is No Regulation-- Buyer Beware

Judging from the rallies on Wall Street yesterday, the capitalists haven't bought into the GOP talking points about socialism quite to the extent of the Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh crowd of modern day Know Nothings. But if you think the conservatives dig in on healthcare reform, just watch them on financial reform-- the real line in the sand for the representatives of institutionalized Greed and Selfishness.

After foot (and knuckle) dragging all year, the GOP was left out of the final legislation entirely-- although far, far too many of their reactionary demands were met as Dodd and the Democrats compromised with good sense for no reason, unless currying favor with the banksters is considered reasonable in Inside the Beltway Democratic circles. Yesterday the Senate Banking Committee approved Dodd's financial overhaul legislation 13-10, without a single Republican vote.

The 10 crooked, bribe-taking handmaidens of the Wall Street banks who have vowed to throw themselves under the bus of progress are Richard Shelby (R-AL- $5,213,130), Robert Bennett (R-UT- $2,354,767), Jim Bunning (R-KY- $2,580,305), Mike Crapo (R-ID- $1,728,513), Bob Corker (R-TN- $3,058,330), Jim DeMint (R-SC- $2,463,860), David Diapers Vitter (R-LA- $2,083,149), Mike Johanns (R-NE- $687,621), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX- $4,702,438) and Judd Gregg (R-NH- $1,077,149).

Dodd says his bill will end taxpayer-funded bailouts of companies supposedly "too big to fail," regulate-- for the first time-- the multitrillion-dollar derivatives market, and bring long-overdue consumer protection to financial products. The Republicans have watered down the most important aspects of real reform and are expected to filibuster the eventual bill, no matter how weak and crappy the Democrats make it to please them. Sound familiar?

President Obama, who's unlikely to favor anything that would ever substantively rein in the banksters, is painting Dodd's overly compromised bill as the bee's knees:

We are now one step closer to passing real financial reform that will bring oversight and accountability to our financial system and help ensure that the American taxpayer never again pays the price for the irresponsibility of our largest banks and financial institutions. For that I congratulate Chairman Dodd and the Senate Banking Committee.
 
By creating a new consumer agency, we will finally set and enforce clear rules of the road across the financial marketplace. And as this bill moves to the floor in the coming weeks, I will continue to fight to strengthen the bill and against attempts to undermine the independence of this agency. I will also oppose efforts to add loopholes that could harm consumers or investors, or that allow institutions to avoid oversight that is critical for financial stability. I urge those in the Senate who support these efforts to resist pressure from those who would preserve the status quo and to stand up for long overdue reform that will protect American families and the long term health of our economy.

Conservatives, of course, think we need less regulation, not more. They believe in the Law of the Jungle:

  

Will Obama's Quest For Illusory Bipartisanship Manage To Screw Up Financial Services Reform As badly As Healthcare Reform?

When I woke up yesterday, the first thing I heard was someone on CNN babbling about how a former Obama political advisor was predicting the Democrats would be slaughtered in November. It was Steve Hildebrand, and here's the quote:

I think that there is a real shot we [Democrats] are going to get slaughtered in elections this fall if we aren't leading the efforts to reform Washington. We campaigned in '06 and '08, and if voters don't see that change, we haven't lived up to that promise.

Sounds reasonable. The healthcare reform bill is a guaranteed disaster because Obama-- so pointlessly eager for a bipartisan patina on the legislation-- compromised away everything that would have made it worth fighting for. You have a raging religious fanatic, Bart Stupak, sensing weakness and deciding to use the nation's healthcare as an opportunity to turn back the clock on women's choice. [Please support his primary opponent, Connie Saltonstall.] And now you have progressives (like Mike Capuano and Hispanic members, for example), who have been made to eat shit all through this whole repulsive process, ready to just say no (along with lobbyist-owned Democrats, like Suzanne Kosmas and John Adler, and natural-born reactionaries, i.e., Blue Dogs).

But healthcare reform isn't the only desperately needed reform that Obama's incompetent team has bungled. We might as well have had the GOP in charge for all that's been accomplished-- next to nothing substantive-- on reining in Wall Street. If there's one thing people hate as much as the Inside the Beltway crowd, it's the Wall Street crowd. And there's plenty-- even short of setting up a guillotine on the corner of Wall and Broad-- that could have been done.

Obviously this can't all be blamed on Obama. The massive endemic corruption of our campaign financing system makes it next to impossible for cowardly career politicians to take on the banksters-- not that the Republicans or Blue Dogs even want to, since their entire philosophy of conservative governance is that our "betters" (rich people) should be calling the shots.

Again, Obama and the Democrats were so eager to work with their sworn enemies-- and, more important, the sworn enemies of reform-- in making it look like they were crafting a bipartisan bill that the whole effort was doomed from the git-go. The conservatives in the Senate, and their masters in the banks, would never agree to anything that would shave a dime off their ill-gotten gains. Yesterday, even financial industry dupe, Chris Dodd, chair of the Banking Committee, finally gave up working with the saboteurs. Supposedly he'll be presenting a bill-- one in which he'll just compromise and water down himself-- on Monday without any further input from foot-dragging Corky (R-TN) who had replaced knuckle-dragging Shelby as the GOP "negotiator." Will there even be a much-needed independent consumer protection agency?

Dodd said he is concerned that the chance for reform will dwindle as memories fade of the near-meltdown of the financial system in 2008... The main sticking point has been the Obama administration's controversial proposal to create an independent consumer protection agency. Republicans have opposed the measure and the financial industry has lobbied furiously against such an agency.

Democrats appear to have relented in an effort to win bipartisan support for the agency. The latest proposal would place the agency within the Federal Reserve, as long as it is given an independent head, independent funding, and rule-making and enforcement powers.

Other elements that appear likely to be included in Dodd's reform bill will be giving the government so-called "resolution authority," the power to wind down large failing firms in an effort to avoid a repeat of the "too big to fail" problems that led to the government's massive bailout of major Wall Street banks.

Dodd is also set to propose a systemic risk council, chaired by the Treasury Secretary, to monitor the nation's economy for possible threats to its stability. The oversight of the nation's biggest banks with assets of more than $100 billion appears likely to remain with the Federal Reserve.

Another element of the reform movement will be an effort to monitor the over-the-counter derivatives market, including the credit-default swaps that played such a pivotal role in the downfall of insurance giant AIG.

Is Chris Dodd's decision (finally!) to spurn GOP "bipartisanship" on banking reform a harbinger of things to come?

by Ken

News today, as reported on the NYT website by Sewell Chan:

The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, hoping to break a months-long logjam on the biggest overhaul of financial regulations since the Depression, will unveil his own proposal on Monday, without yet having a single Republican endorsement.

You want to think that this could be a a breakthrough for Democratic congressional decision-makers: the realization that nothing they can do, no amount of concession, will induce Republicans to support Democratic initiatives that are in any way controversial. After all, the only political "idea" the GOP has going is obstruction: the conviction that it has the power to make Democrats fail in the eyes of the public by making it impossible for Dems to do anything, however beneficial it might be to that public.

Heck, we can take it further: The more beneficial any legislative idea might be to Americans generally, the more it scares the bejezus out of Republican "strategists," who are terrified of Democrats being able to take credit rather than blame for anything.

Of course we on the sidelines have been screaming about this since we began to see signs that the Obama administration was not only uninterested in undoing the toxic legacy of the Bush regime but actually seemed quite comfortable with a wide range of its policies. (I don't think I have to retrace this bit of history for DWT readers.)

And the point we always have to remember about the wreckage-to-date of this session of Congress is that you really can't blame the Republicans. Especially in the time when the Democrats had their at least theoretical Senate supermajority, the problem has been the leadership's inability or unwillingness to deal with its internal ConservaDem blight.

But even that would have depended on the Dems' rare willingness to go it alone, which so far has appeared only as an absolute last resort. Following the lead of the White House, the Dem congressional leadership has positively groveled across the aisle, not to mention to its own Republican Lite members.

The notion currently being peddled to gullible buyers, of which there appear to be an alarming number, especially inside the Beltway, by the biggest liar inside that same Beltway (quite a distinction)!, Master Rahm Emanuel, that the Obama administration's woes are all the result of the president's failure to heed his urges to moderation might be worth discussing if there were recorded instances of the administration paying anything but (usually much-belated) lip service to its progressive constituency.

At some point we've all had to face up to the reality that the progressive legislative agenda we had hoped might be given serious consideration hasn't, not because "we don't have the votes," but because "we don't wanna do it." It's amazing how easy it is to never have the votes for stuff you actually don't want to do.

Which brings us back to Chris Dodd and "the biggest overhaul of financial regulations since the Depression." First, an aside to reporter Chan: Might we not want to wait and see what if anything is actually signed into law before announcing this as a fact?

Dodd, we all know, is on his final Senate lap, which inevitably raises the "legacy" question. You always worry when pols take to worrying about their legacy. In theory, it opens the possibility that such a person may finally feel able, if not quite impelled, to act out of principle rather than the usual "what's in it for me?" considerations. However, in practice it usually signals One Last Chance to Cover My Outsize Butt.

And there's been heightened concern in the case of Chris Dodd as Senate point man for this attempted overhaul of banking regulations, given his close ties to the financial services industries. We know the Big Money interests are on the job, in a big way, and as I was suggesting yesterday, in the spirit of "following the money" in evaluating legislative initiatives, the high-pressure effort to sabotage meaningful reform is being felt all over the place, both on and below the radar.

Of course Big Money can always count on Republicans to fight to the (political) death to protect their interests, and the news that Dodd has been huddling these weeks if not months with Tennessee dim bulb Bob Corker has led many of us to fear the worst. It's unclear to begin with, as Timesman Chan notes, why it's Corker rather than Banking Committee ranking member Richard Shelby of Albama whom Dodd has been shacked up with. Not that I think Shelby, another proud son of the Confederacy, would have been a more serious negotiating partner. If anything Shelby, with several extra decades' of Village insiderism under his belt, would have been even more impossible a negotiator, assuming there's such a thing as degrees of impossibility. It's just strange.

Even now, though, the stories are being framed, not in terms of the urgent need for meaningful financial-services reform and the Republicans' lockstep conspiracy to undermine it in any way possible, or in terms of the country's rather visible hostility to the banksters' conniving, but in terms of the wounded feeling of the "bipartisan" Senator Corker. Even now the Right knows how to control messaging with the Village media.

So maybe it really does mean something that Chris Dodd has had enough of phony bipartisanship. To Republicans it's only bipartisan if it's Republicanly partisan.

It's not the only issue, but for both practical and symbolic importance the immediate question of how much independence and authority any Consumer Financial Protection Agency is given is the obvious thing to watch.

Even in the worst-case scenario, where Dodd's committee reports a serious financial reform bill that falls victim to the Senate GOP filibuster buzz saw, at least the Dems will have a meaningful issue to take the voters, offering them a reason to return Dems to Congress. And if other Democratic legislative leaders finally rouse themselves to a serious effort to do what's best for the country, the party might even have, you know, a "platform" on which to run.

#

Chris Dodd Retiring-- Harold Ford Maneuvering

Michael Moore got his scalp. Chris Dodd, who polling showed was a dead duck for re-election, will retire Chances are Connecticut's very popular Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, will run for Senate and easily beat whichever one of the increasingly right-wing misanthropes the GOP vomits out. It's ironic that it was Dodd who was forced out as a Connecticut senator rather than the most despised man in Connecticut politics, Joe Lieberman. Luck of the draw! I do want to add, however, that Dodd wasn't exactly some towering liberal. His career long voting record on substantive matters paints a clear picture, right in the center of the Democratic Senate causus, the 29th most progressive member among the 59 Democrats. His 85.13 score on substantive issues lies between the voting scores of arch-conservatives like Mark Pryor (AR- 70.45), Tom Carper (DE- 70.70), Joe Lieberman (CT- 72.50) and Evan Bayh (IN- 74.03) and actual liberals like Sherrod Brown (OH- 96.56), Jack Reed (RI- 95.68), Bernie Sanders (VT-95.06), Dick Durbin (IL- 94.04) and Barbara Boxer (CA- 93.81).

And in other news today, one of the most corrupt and reactionary Democrats to ever worm his way up the chain of command, DLC president and defeated ex-Tennessee Rep. Harold Ford has barraged New York media with an armada of trial balloons for a run for the Senate against incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand. Gillibrand was a bit too conservative as a freshman House member from a Republican upstate district-- though never nearly as conservative as Ford, who represented a solidly Democratic district (Memphis)-- but she has been a solidly progressive senator. Ford is certainly to the right of Joe Lieberman and he would be the worst catastrophe Democrats could face in 2010. Despite all the hootin' and hollerin' on Morning Joe today, I doubt he'll run.

Good video update from Connecticut TV:

Thad Cochran Can Expect A Fat Bonus From The Banksters This Year As He Kills Chris Dodd's Bill To Stop Credit Card Companies Bilking Consumers

You wanna guess what side these two dour a-holes are on?

A friend of mine does policy work for Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) and right now they're working on something that doesn't sound very sex-- but that touches almost every single person in the country-- interchange rates. Those are the fees that Visa, Mastercard, etc charge merchants, large and small, for the privilege of being able to use their payment network. Needless to say, the merchants have no real choice but to pass those charges on to their customers. The U.S. has the highest interchange rates in the world currently costing U.S. consumers $48 billion a year. This isn't chump change and the banksters are fighting-- with lobbying efforts and outright bribes to members of Congress-- regulation of these fees. In the UK, Canada, Australia and many other nations the government regulates the fees in order to protect consumers. The banksters, of course, are an oligopoly and because of their ability to control an entire political party and the conservative wing of another-- basically the Blue Dogs and DLC Dems-- dictate the terms.

My friend did some calculations to bring it right home to DWT readers. ActBlue has raised over $111 million online through credit card contributions. By my calculations with the kind of regulations being proposed by Senator Dodd lowering interchange fees, over $600,000 of that wouldn't have been paid in fees. That's hard-earned contributors money that could have gone to campaigns.

These interchange fees are just another way that the banksters and their credit card companies siphon from people. It's a hidden cost that people don't realize impacts them everyday. Meanwhile Dodd himself took to the Senate floor seeking unanimous consent to prevent the credit card companies from continuing to bilk consumers by jacking up interest rates at will. As you can see in the very compelling video below, the bankster-owned senior senator from the Confederate state of Mississippi rose to object-- many of the angry white citizens of his state being too stupid to understand how he just screwed them-- on behalf of the GOP (and the financial sector, which has donated $660,234 to his electoral campaigns).

When Dodd's bill originally passed, all but five of the very worst and most shameless Republicans were too embarrassed to vote against it and in the end it garnered 90 votes. Unfortunately, it included a grace period for the credit card companies to prepare for the changes that will take place February 1, 2010. But what we've been hearing is the giant sucking sound of credit card companies vacuuming up every dime they can get their criminal paws on before the law changes. Dodd pleaded with his colleagues to close the loophole in time for the holidays, when spending rises dramatically. "[T]he credit card industry as well has a responsibility to deal with their customers honorably. There is nothing honorable about what’s happened with these significant rate increases and fees. Most importantly, they don’t have a right to rip off American families, especially when the Congress has already gone on record opposing the very actions they’re engaging in. This will provide us a window of about 12 weeks between now and around the first of February, during this holiday season, to just put a stop to these outrageous rates and fees being charged to people. Ninety colleagues here voted for the bill this spring. Why wouldn’t you join us today? ... Unfortunately they’ve taken that window and used it as a way to jam in on consumers in this country. Particularly at a time when people are losing their jobs, their homes their health care, their retirement, and the holiday season is upon us." Cochran didn't bother saying way he was objecting, just that he was. And that ended that.

How Barack Obama Lost Me: FISA

Of course I voted for him; he was running against some reactionary fossil whose only reason to live is to start a war. And the symbolism inherent in either an Obama or a Clinton win was so overwhelming that it was absolutely predetermined that I would rush to the polls and vote for either of them. But I was never under any illusions than Obama was a progressive. I once was under such an illusion, though. I met him twice when he was an Illinois state senator. I co-hosted fund-raisers for him twice when he was looking to make the jump from state Senator in Springfield renowned for playing poker with cigar chomping state pols to member of the American version of the House of Lords in Washington. He took me in completely. After one speech I tore up a $500 check I had written and doubled down. But that was the last time that happened.

As soon as Obama got to the Senate, I knew something was wrong. It went beyond picking Joe Lieberman as his mentor-- bad enough-- and beyond the fact that he was never-- not ever-- nearly as progressive a voter as Hillary Clinton, something I warned Obamabots about all during the campaign. The fact of the matter is, he was always down near the bottom of the barrel with the putrid likes of said Lieberman, as well as Max Baucus, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Tom Carper, Mary Landrieu, Kent Conrad... all the quasi-Democratic dreck seemingly sabotaging his agenda.

During the campaign, Obama said quite a few things that didn't thrill me, not the least of which was his tragic perspective on the occupation of Afghanistan. But there was something that came up during the campaign that clinched it for me-- that made me realize he might be great symbolically but he would likely be another in a long, long line of abysmal political hacks who have gotten into the White House. Hope and Change? Not. A. Chance. During the campaign, the FISA bill came up, along with the issue of retroactive immunity. Thanks to Glenn Greenwald it became an important and much-discussed issue. One thing led to another and Obama vowed to vote against any bill that included retroactive immunity. I guess the polling didn't work because when the bill came up for a vote he broke his pledge and voted for it. I never did ask Glenn if he voted for Obama in November. I did... but knowing full well what to expect.

The Blue America PAC never endorsed Obama and never raised any money for him. Instead we concentrated our efforts on progressives running for the House and Senate. One of our favorite candidates-- favorite in terms of proven commitment to progressive principles was Oregon House Speaker-- now U.S. Senator-- Jeff Merkley. And Senator Merkley has lived up to the promise of his candidacy as he's fought on the right side of every battle since being elected-- from Employee Free Choice to health care reform. So it came as no surprise today when his office sent out a release that he has co-authored legislation with Chris Dodd, Pat Leahy, and Russ Feingold to repeal the retroactive immunity provisions of the FISA Amendments Act. The new legislation seeks to repeal a provision that shields telecommunications companies from legal repercussions if they violate the law; clean and straightforward-- and all-American. Or is it only 76 year old Roman Polanski who has to go to jail for breaking the law?

“During the previous administration, telecommunications companies were granted retroactive immunity for violating the rights and privacy of millions of Americans,” said Merkley. “I am proud to join Senator Dodd and co-sponsor the Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act to help restore accountability and increase oversight to protect the privacy rights that have been central to our nation since its inception.”

The Retroactive Immunity Repeal Act would amend the FISA Amendments Act, which was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2008. The controversial legislation included a provision to shield companies from liability for illegally violating their customers’ privacy during the Bush Administration. 

Last week, Senator Merkley also signed on as an original co-sponsor of the Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools in Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act, introduced by Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Richard Durbin (D-IL). The JUSTICE Act would reform the USA Patriot Act, the FISA Amendments Act, and other surveillance authorities to help restore judicial oversight. The legislation would protect the Constitutional rights of American citizens while making sure intelligence and law enforcement agencies still have the tools they need to fight terrorism.

“We must reverse the decisions that allowed our government to intrude into the lives of American citizens. The JUSTICE Act will restore judicial oversight of surveillance activities in order to keep Americans safe while preserving our rights,” said Merkley.

Dodd, who will be doing a live video blogging session on the bill tomorrow (5pm, EST) at My Left Nutmeg, has spoken eloquently about the bill as well: "I believe we best defend America when we also defend its founding principles. We make our nation safer when we eliminate the false choice between liberty and security. But by granting retroactive immunity to the telecommunications companies who may have participated in warrantless wiretapping of American citizens, the Congress violated the protection of our citizen’s privacy and due process right and we must not allow that to stand.” I'm sure Obama will make an eloquent speech about it if he ever gets a chance to sign it. Or maybe he won't.

Should Michael Moore Give Up That $10,000 Fact Checker Check To Chris Dodd's Campaign?

Like I said after a screening on Wednesday here in L.A., Michael Moore's new movie, Capitalism: A Love Story is awesome and I want to recommend it (again) to all DWT readers-- except for one part. As soon as Moore dealt with Chris Dodd I turned to my friends and said "this looks like trouble." The Washington Post noticed the same thing we did:

But then things get interesting-- in building his indictment against the ill-fated marriage of Wall Street and Washington, Moore zeroes in less on Phil Gramm or other GOP string-pullers than he does on White House economic adviser Larry Summers, Robert Rubin and Sen. Chris Dodd. Especially Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat and chairman of the Senate Banking Committee. Moore gets an on-camera interview with the mortgage officer who handled the special VIP loans provided to Dodd and other big names, which have dogged Dodd's reelection bid.

Dodd had appeared to be clawing his way back onto safer political ground in recent months, as he filled in for the dying Ted Kennedy as chair of the Senate health committee. But if Capitalism packs them in in Wallingford and Danbury, watch out.

Now understand I say this with love-- I have enjoyed all of Michael Moore's movies; I've seen everyone of them in the theater except Roger and Me (which is one of my favorite documentaries); I own all of his books in hardcover, and I still can't believe TV Nation, which my friend Daisy used to tape for me all the time, was both allowed on TV and then canceled  And this movie, aside from this one scene, could well be his best so far. What was he thinking?  Is he really repeating, without the benefit of his vaunted fact-checking operation, a long and often discredited right-wing smear?

Apparently so, using Dodd as an example of an overall repulsive meme that defines Rahm Emanuel's Washington. Emanuel, one of Wall Street's most powerful and long-time destructive players inside the government, never gets mentioned in the film, not once. So is Dodd the right target for Moore to be going after?

First, everyone who has seriously looked at the claims of a sweetheart deal has dismissed them: the Senate Ethics Committee; an independent compliance firm; the (not exactly Dodd-loving) Hartford Courant. And not once, but twice.

This is not the definition of the word "is." The man got a mortgage. He was told that he would get enhanced customer service, and assumed it was because of his  good credit score. He got the exact same mortgage rate that anyone else buying a mortgage at the time would have gotten. He didn't know the CEO of Countrywide, nor anything about a Friends of the CEO program.

Sounds simple, right?  No special treatment, no special rate, no problem.

Enter professional interviewee Robert Feinberg.  

Before he left Countrywide, Feinberg took copies of loan documents for seventeen V.I.P.s, which included ten prominent Democrats and their relatives. These documents ostensibly constituted smoking gun evidence of corruption associated with a company embroiled in the mortgage crisis. But the evidence does not withstand scrutiny.

Selected details on loans extended to Senator Chris Dodd were revealed by Portfolio.com on June 12, at a critical juncture in Dodd's long-standing effort to bring his housing bill, intended to increase regulatory oversight on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to a floor vote.

What a coincidence!  And Feinberg has a little credibility issue:

Feinberg recounted nothing, but he had no doubt in his mind about what Senator Dodd knew. Feinberg never considered that his phone taglines might sound like the shopworn marketing cliches.

...How does Portfolio know that Countrywide waived a fee that it might have otherwise charged? Not because of anything in the documentation. They reported the waiver based solely on Feinberg's recollection. It's quite remarkable that Feinberg would remember this detail on loans he processed five years earlier.

...Yes, the Countrywide V.I.P. loan story does raise some serious questions, about Robert Feinberg.

CARUSO-CABRERA: Mr. Feinberg, do you stand to gain in any way by coming out publicly? Are you suing the company? Do you have any financial incentive to talk?

FEINBERG: Not to sue the company. I am not in a position to do that. I'm just coming out to talk because I feel there is a need for this information to come out because of the situation we are in now.

Feinberg did not say, "I do not stand to gain in any way." There are an awful lot of coincidences about the Countrywide story that make you wonder, not only about Feinberg's motivations, but also about how sources can manipulate journalists in a way that crosses over into political P.R.

And-- Surprise!-- Feinberg (who miraculously had high priced criminal defense attorneys who specialize in making deals to avoid jailtime) turned out to be the star of Rep. Darrell Issa's (R-CA) non-jurisdictional partisan fishing expedition!

On December 22, 2008, Congressman Darrell Issa's staff interviewed Robert Feinberg, the fabulist "whistleblower" who accuses Chris Dodd and other Democrats of receiving "sweetheart deals" on their home mortgages with Countywide Financial. Feinberg's statements, plus the confidential company documents that he stole and handed over to Issa, represent the only direct evidence used in Issa's 63-page report, "Friends of Angelo: Countrywide's Systematic and Successful Effort to Buy Influence and Block Reform." Issa released his report, which he falsely characterized as a work product of the House Oversight Committee, on March 19, 2009.

Nothing in Issa's March 2009 report suggests that his findings are preliminary or incomplete.

...Any journalist who had done his homework would have questioned Issa about his decision to have Feinberg do a rerun of his testimony in secret last month. Issa chose to have Feinberg testify one day before testifying for the Senate Ethics Committee, three months after Issa's report was completed, and six months after Feinberg first testified the same information for Issa. In other words, any competent reporter would have questioned whether Feinberg's testimony to Issa was, in fact, real news.

Did they? Or did the media once again decide that scandal is fun!?!??! I wonder...

Larry Margasak of the Associated Press left readers with the impression that Feinberg's testimony was brand new information.

Margasak's unacknowledged rehashing of Feinberg's testimony touches on the real scandal surrounding the Countywide VIP loan story. He and other mainstream reporters are unwilling to report facts that undercut the false premise of their narrative. It's as if they recount demands to investigate Obama's birth certificate, but they never bother to read the actual birth certificate.

...To understand why Issa's effort is a complete sham, you need read his report. It soon becomes apparent that he lies about everything, sort of like Liz Cheney on steroids. Unfortunately, Margasak takes his claims at face value.

Well, okay, the traditional media, sure, the AP, of course, but not a liberal media source like Michael Moore, right?  Right?

Wrong.

Moore:  As I point out in the film, I have an exclusive interview with the VIP loan manager at Countrywide Loans, the largest mortgage company in the country, was giving sweetheart loans to Senator Dodd where he didn't have to pay fees, they did away with the paper work for him, he got all-- things the average person couldn't get. ... I think people are going to be surprised.

Hell yeah, they are going to be surprised!  Surprised that Michael-freaking-Moore ate this guy's story up without even the most basic fact check!  Sure, it fit his narrative well, but c'mon, could you at least check to see if he, in fact got a special deal? Time to hand over that $10,000, Michael.

Also, if you are Michael Moore, and you have basically made a career out of getting powerful people, people who you have no business interviewing, on film, how is it possible that Chris Dodd is not interviewed in the film?  Roger-- check. Charlton Heston-- check.  Chris Dodd-- [crickets].  If you get the accuser on video, making wild accusations that everyone now agrees are completely false, how is the accused not here, allowed even a moment to mention that HE GOT THE SAME FUCKING RATES AS EVERYONE ELSE?

Why does this feel like, in the interest of being able to sit on Leno and say, "I went after Democrats too!," Moore passed up the real story here?  It would have been really powerful if he made the connection between the bullshit allegations about Dodd and the banking industry desperately wanting to put the breaks on important housing and foreclosure legislation that Dodd was championing in the Senate at that very moment.  Well, mission accomplished assholes, excuse me, the Sheriff is here to foreclosure on my house (is it possible its the same one from Roger and Me? Oh, the irony).

Finally, exclusive?  You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.  Maybe what he meant was that, even though the Feinberg Interview Express has more miles on it than the Madden Cruiser, he was only getting interviewed by Moore at that particular moment, so it was exclusive as to that particular place and time.  Or something.  (Seriously, not counting Darrell Issa's I-am-doing-the-bidding-of-the-NRSC's sham investigations, Feinberg has done roughly seven quintillion interviews.  You can look it up.)

All in all, still love Moore, still want everyone to see the movie, but kind of wish he hadn't decided to jump ugly with one of the most progressive Senators in the Senate-- the guy responsible for the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Credit CARD Act, who voted for cramdown, worked to make that disaster of a bankruptcy bill better, then voted against it twice, voted for a 15% cap on interest rates, and is co-sponsoring another cap that is likely to come up again, is a leader on direct-student-loan reform, is in favor of a consumer financial protection agency and stripping the fed of some of its regulatory authority, and just last week introduced legislation to reign in the diabolical overdraft fee practice-- all stuff, if you are keeping score, which Moore clearly wasn't, that banks would rather paint a hammer and sickle on their walls than accept!  I wish Moore hadn't got played like a three dollar harmonica. He should donate the 10 grand to Dodd's campaign.