Was Ro Khanna The Only Member Of Congress To Vote No On This Travesty? We'll Never Know

Ro Khanna voted NO but the bill passed Monday by voice vote (so unrecorded and unaccountable, using a fast-track procedure for "non-controversial" bills). The Senate will move as fast as they can-- even without committee hearings-- to pass it there as well. I kind of thought we just elected a Democratic House so that stuff like a ban on free electronic tax filings wouldn't be able to pass Congress. No? I had hoped that Justin Elliott's ProPublica piece, Congress Is About to Ban the Government From Offering Free Online Tax Filing. Thank TurboTax, would shame some corrupt Democrats into withdrawing their support for the misleadingly named Taxpayer First Act (H.R.1957), a bonanza for the for-profit tax preparation industry. In the name of cyber-security, the bill-- whose legitimate purpose is to prevent the use of predatory private debt collectors for late taxes-- permanently bars the IRS from creating a free electronic tax filing system.

"Companies like Intuit, the maker of TurboTax, and H&R Block have lobbied for years to block the IRS from creating such a system," explained Elliott. "If the tax agency created its own program, which would be similar to programs other developed countries have, it would threaten the industry’s profits." Consumer rights advocates were up in arms-- but... it didn't work. It passed the House Ways and Means Committee and quickly got to the floor and passed.

“This could be a disaster. It could be the final nail in the coffin of the idea of the IRS ever being able to create its own program,” said Mandi Matlock, a tax attorney who does work for the National Consumer Law Center.

Experts have long argued that the IRS has failed to make filing taxes as easy and cheap as it could be. In addition to a free system of online tax preparation and filing, the agency could provide people with pre-filled tax forms containing the salary data the agency already has, as ProPublica first reported on in 2013.

The Free File Alliance, a private industry group, says 70% of American taxpayers are eligible to file for free. Those taxpayers, who must make less than $66,000, have access to free tax software provided by the companies. But just 3% of eligible U.S. taxpayers actually use the free program each year. Critics of the program say that companies use it as a cross-marketing tool to upsell paid products, that they have deliberately underpromoted the free option and that it leaves consumer data open to privacy breaches.

The congressional move would codify the status quo. Under an existing memorandum of understanding with the industry group, the IRS pledges not to create its own online filing system and, in exchange, the companies offer their free filing services to those below the income threshold.

One member of the Free File Alliance explicitly told shareholders that the IRS “developing software or other systems to facilitate tax return preparation … may present a continued competitive threat to our business for the foreseeable future.”

The IRS’ deal with the Free File Alliance is regularly renegotiated and there have been repeated, bipartisan efforts in Congress to put the deal into law.

Those efforts have been fueled by hefty lobbying spending and campaign contributions by the industry. Intuit and H&R Block last year poured a combined $6.6 million into lobbying related to the IRS filing deal and other issues. Neal, who became Ways and Means chair this year after Democrats took control of the House, received $16,000 in contributions from Intuit and H&R Block in the last two election cycles.

Last year Intuit hired 53 lobbyists (including the notoriously sleazy Greenberg Traurig LLP) and spent $2,600,000 on lobbying. They also spent just over a quarter million dollars on legalistic bribes (campaign contributions), the biggest iff them going to half a dozen conservative-leaning Democrats, Zoe Lofgren, Bob Casey, Heidi Heitkamp, Joe Manchin, Beto O'Rourke and Jacky Rosen. The three biggest non-incumbents they backed were also conservative-Dems-- Doug Jones, Susie Lee and Ben McAdams.

H&R Block was another big spender. Last year their PAC raised $371,260 and spent $318,950, top recipients all being members known for selling their votes, Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO), Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO), Jason Smith (R-MO), Mike Bishop (R-MI) and Lacy Clay (D-MO)-- as well as $4,500 to Ways and Means chairman Richard Neal, a co-sponsor of the bill. Their biggest single contribution was a $12,500 check to the New Dems PAC and their second biggest contribution was to Linda Sanchez's PAC. Sanchez was an original co-sponsor of the bill. They also spent $4,040,000 on lobbying last year.

What Happens To The CFPB Now? No More Protecting Consumers From Wall Street Avarice?

On Friday, Trump appointed right-wing crackpot and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney acting director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. But there already was an acting director. Richard Cordray, on announcing that he was stepping down at the end of the day, also announced that his chief of staff, Leandra English, is the new deputy director and acting head of the agency. The Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, specifies that the deputy director will be head of the bureau between permanent directors-- and permanent directors have to be confirmed by the Senate.

The CFPB was Elizabeth Warren's idea and she recounted to her supporters on Saturday that "In 2014, then-Tea Party Congressman Mick Mulvaney called the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a 'sick, sad joke.' When asked what changes he’d like to make to the CFPB, Mulvaney replied: 'Well some of us would like to get rid of it.' And in 2015, he cosponsored a bill that would do just that." In response to Trump appointing Mulvaney acting director-- when there already is one-- she pointed out that "Trump does NOT have the power to do this. The Dodd-Frank Act is clear: if there is a CFPB Director vacancy, the Deputy Director becomes Acting Director. Trump can nominate the next CFPB Director-- but until that nominee is confirmed by the Senate, Deputy Director Leandra English is the Acting Director under the Dodd-Frank Act. We knew that Donald Trump was likely going to use Rich Cordray’s departure as his chance to dismantle the CFPB. Earlier this year, he promised corporate CEOs that he would deliver 'a major elimination of the horrendous Dodd-Frank regulations.' And now, he could do it... We fought Donald Trump when he named an Education Secretary who doesn’t believe in public education. We fought him when he named an EPA director who doesn’t believe in climate change. We fought him (and won) when he named a Labor Secretary who doesn’t believe in unions. And we will fight him now to stop an Acting CFPB director who doesn’t believe in protecting working families from the big Wall Street banks."

Yesterday, the White House responded by claiming Trump has the authority to do whatever he wants. Still, as Politico reported. "the two moves plunged the agency into confusion over the leadership of the bureau, which was established in the wake of the financial crisis and has become a lightning rod for attacks by Republicans and business executives for its aggressive enforcement."


The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, explicitly says the consumer bureau's deputy director shall “serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director,” giving the edge to English.

Yet the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position, like Mulvaney has as leader of the Office of Management and Budget.

Still, the Vacancies Act says that an opening may also be filled if another law "expressly … designates an officer or employee to perform the functions and duties of a specified office temporarily in an acting capacity.”

It doesn't say whether one approach supersedes the other, something the courts will likely have to sort out.

Today's actions were the latest drama engulfing an agency that Republicans have targeted since its inception. GOP lawmakers and bankers say the consumer bureau regulates through enforcement rather than rulemaking and that its single director has unconstitutional power.

Banksters and their lobbyists are going berserk at the idea of Trump being stymied in his goal of destroying the agency by installing Mulvaney. Chris Stinebert, head of the American Financial Services Association, probably the most venal defender of aggressive Wall Street corruption: "Today’s actions by former CFPB Director Richard Cordray in appointing his own Acting Director to lead the bureau reinforces the problematic nature of having a single and completely unaccountable leader. The decision to choose who should lead the country’s consumer protection agency, and confusion that’s been caused by Cordray’s own 'succession plan,' should not be made by one individual and for this reason AFSA has long advocated the need for a bipartisan commission."

Mensonge du jour

Former Treasury Department economist and Iowa congressional candidate Austin Frerick reminded us about regulatory capture-- a Trump Regime specialty-- this morning. "This is how an agency gets captured: Industry attempts to get one of its stooges appointed to one of its largest regulators. We have to fight this action and insist on the rule of law Senator Warren pointed out, but we can’t keep playing defense. Industries are able to capture industries because of their monopolistic power (cough cough FCC). Antitrust enforcement is about restoring competition to our markets and removing corruption from our political system."

Jared Golden is running for the Maine seat occupied by multimillionaires and House Financial Services Committee crook Bruce Poliquin. Jared, the majority whip of Maine's state House, was very straight forward about how this works: "What’s going to happen now is they are going to dismantle and hamstring the CFPB and there won’t be anyone left to watch consumers backs. The big banks and giant corporations are going to run roughshod over normal people who don’t stand a chance without tough consumer protections in place to keep things fair." That, in short, is why it's so important to help elect candidates like Austin Frerick and Jared Golden.

Katie Porter, the candidate running for the inland Orange County congressional seat held by Republican carpetbagger Mimi Walters, is one of California's most respected and knowledgable experts on consumer protection. "With Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies in office, the very existence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is at risk," she told us. "As a consumer advocate who has spent nearly twenty years fighting to help families who were cheated, I can tell you for a fact that the big banks are not going to put consumers ahead of profit. We need a system of fair and reasonable protections to make the marketplace work for all of us. We need a watchdog with a proven record of protecting consumers to lead the CFPB, not Mick Mulvaney."

The GOP Ramps Up Their War Against Consumer Protections While Everyone Is Looking At The Horrors Of Trump And TrumpCare

The vote in the House Tuesday evening was 231-190. Every Republican but Walter Jones of North Carolina voted to hamper the ability of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect bank customers from the kinds of systemic abuse and predatory behavior that led directly to Bush's Great Recession and destroyed the financial stability of millions of American families. Every single Democrat-- even the worst paid-off Blue Dogs and New Dems-- opposed bankster-pawn Keith Rothfus' bill.

What the Republicans are doing is stripping the rights of consumers to use class action lawsuits to protect themselves from the big banks. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce lobbyists who wrote Rothfus' bill for him, were dancing for joy. They are furious that over 34 million bank customers received $1 billion in payments from lawsuits over the past 5 years and want to destroy the Bureau.

Here in California, several progressive Democrats running for congressional seats alerted voters in their districts that their own congressmen had betrayed their interests once again. The architect of the CFPB was Elizabeth Warren, who noted that the rule the Republicans just voted to repeal "allows working families to hold big banks accountable when they’re cheated and help discourage the kinds of surprise fees that consumers hate." The Orange County candidate who has worked with her on this issues is Katie Porter, who is running for the seat held by rubber stamp Republican Mimi Walters. This issue is part of Porter's field of expertise and we asked her for a reaction last night. This is what she told us:

As the Senate voted to take away health care for millions, Congresswoman Mimi Walters and the House GOP were taking away justice for all consumers. Today, they rewrote the rules in order to protect Wall Street banks that cheat consumers, no matter how outrageous the banks' conduct. "Mandatory predispute arbitration" agreements ban consumers from telling their stories to judges, instead forcing them into an arbitration process that exists only to protect the big banks from being held accountable.

I've fought against arbitration in my decades of work as a consumer advocate. That's a fundamental difference in this race. I have stood up to powerful financial institutions that break the law and hurt families. In Congress, Mimi Walters has done the opposite. She is as consistent of an ally for big banks, as she is for President Trump's agenda. Wall Street banks can count on Walters' support 100% of the time. Our district needs a congresswoman who will stand up to powerful interests, and that's my pledge to Californians.

Ironically, Porter isn't the only stalwart progressive in the CA-45 race who worked on this issue. Kia Hamadanchy worked on the staff of another top Democrat concerned with Republican collusion with Wall Street predators, Sherrod Brown. Hamadanchy told us that "Once again Mimi Walters has put the interests of her donors and those in Wall Street who have ripped off consumers time and time again above the people of Orange County. If this rule is repealed it would mean that a bank like Wells Fargo could avoid being held accountable for its actions despite a clear evidence of a pattern and practice of wrongdoing. Every American deserves their day in court when they are taken advantage of by the financial services industry and its not surprising that Mimi Walters doesn't agree. Time and time again she continues to vote against the interests of her constituents and in November 2018 she is going to see where that gets her."

North of CA-45, we get to Wall Street puppet Ed Royce's congressional district. Since 1990 Royce, who is a senior member of the House Financial Services Committee, has taken an astounding $7,116,597 in legalistic bribes from the Financial Sector. The only current members of the House to have taken bigger bribes than Royce are Paul Ryan ($9,781,835) and House Financial Services Committee chairman Jeb Hensarling ($7,468,190). All three should be rotting in prison.

The DCCC is trying to run some qualification-less "ex"-Republican lottery winner and self-funder, Gil Cisneros, against Royce. Fortunately there's an eminently qualified progressive determined to take on Royce instead, Sam Jammal. Yesterday he pointed out that "If you're wronged, Americans believe you should be able to have your day in court. It's a fundamental check on absuses by the most powerful. This apparently doesn't apply to the biggest banks. It's hard to tell who Ed Royce really represents. Common sense would say that consumers should know their rights and have options to preserve those rights. But, if that is upsetting to his big donors, it looks like Ed is perfectly fine forgetting about consumers in Buena Park or small businesses in Walnut. We need our voices heard again in Washington."

No one ever doubted CA-25 Rep, Steve Knight, would vote to repeal the amendment protecting financial consumers. He's perversely dependable in that sense-- the perfect little rubber-stamp for Ryan and Trump. His progressive opponent, Katie Hill told us "This is yet another example of Steve Knight putting special interests-- in this case big banks-- ahead of working Americans. I personally know so many people in the 25th district who have been taken advantage of or harmed by Wall Street in some way or another. This simple rule would give every day people some small protection and a way of banding together to fight back-- but Steve Knight and other Republicans are too concerned with protecting the profits of their own financial backers. We need representatives in Congress who will once again return power to the people."

Some good news in regard to the Republican war against consumer protections-- yesterday Allied Progress launched the CFPB Action Tracker, a new interactive website that tracks, state-by-state, the CFPB's enforcement actions against big banks, credit card companies, and other financial institutions that have preyed on consumers. The website is a great resource for elected officials and organization in the states, allowing them to see what the CFPB has done to benefit local consumers and arming them with important information in the fight to protect the CFPB from attacks by Wall Street special interests and their allies in Congress, like Ed Royce, Paul; Ryan, Jeb Hensarling and Mimi Walters.

Karl Frisch, executive director of Allied Progress: "The Consumer Bureau has played a pivotal role in bringing justice to consumers over the past six years. They have cracked down on big banks, payday lenders, and other financial bad actors and put an end to the irresponsible practices that caused the great recession that cost so many Americans their jobs, their homes, and their savings. Lawmakers in the pockets of big banks have spread misinformation in their efforts to eliminate the Consumer Bureau, but the truth is in the data. Our new interactive Consumer Bureau Action Tracker shows just how much the Bureau has put back into the pockets of Americans. In just six years, the Consumer Bureau has taken $12 billion from predatory financial institutions and returned it to the more than 29 million Americans they ripped off."

The DCCC, of course, is doing nothing about targeting Rothfus and his traditionally blue district (PA-12) north and east of Pittsburgh. The second biggest veterans' district in the country, it was John Murtha's seat forever but has been abandoned to the Republicans by a DCCC eager to woo white collar suburbanites while ignoring the legitimate interests of blue collar workers. Hillary did worse than Obama had both times he ran and she was crushed by Trump, 58.7% to 37.9%. But a progressive veteran who was knocking on doors for Bernie last year, Tom Prigg, has every intention of replacing Rothfus in 2018... running on a progressive platform geared for the people in his district.

This morning Prigg told us that "It's absolutely unacceptable for our Congress to, once again, expose the American people to the unfair banking practices exercised that led to the 2008 housing crash. During that time, America saw the loss of ten million American homes-- that’s five-times more than during the Great Depression. It is bad enough that none of the perpetrators of this crash faced criminal charges; but now our representatives are trying remove any possible class-action litigation to protect the public. The dissolution of this agency is a direct attack on the American public. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, in just 5 ½ years of its existence, has awarded five billion dollars in lawsuits against unfair banking practices for twenty-nine million Americans. Not only are those impressive numbers for such a young agency, it’s also a testament to how important this agency is for the American public. It’s this type of irresponsible behavior and special-interest policy making that we can no longer accept. I will never let the American people, and our families, take the fall for irresponsible banking practices like we saw ten years ago. We must vote out politicians who’ll sacrifice the security of American citizens in favor of greed. This is one of the reasons why I’m running against the author of this bill, Keith Rothfus."

Expect to hear more from Tom Prigg here at DWT.

Who Has Bad Judgment?-- Wall Street Version

Zach Carter is one of Huff Po's most perceptive reporters and yesterday he warned his readers that while we were all distracted by the clown show Trump had finally delivered one on big campaign promise-- not for his voters, of course, but for his Wall Street donors-- he pretty much gutted Dodd-Frank. "Trump," he reminded us, "campaigned on conflicting promises about big banks. One minute, he was going to stick it to the corrupt financial insiders who had wrecked the middle class. The next, he’d vow to liberate our benevolent princes of capital from crushing regulations Obama had cruelly imposed." Pushed by the traditional GOP swamp creatures all around him-- from Pence, Ryan, Priebus and Hensarling to Mnuchin, Ross and Cohn-- the Trump Regime has been all about deregulation.

Last week, a council of top regulators quietly met to discuss the future of the Volcker rule-- the most important structural change Obama established for the financial system. A few days later, a freshly installed Trump official went further, threatening to defang the rule “unilaterally” by “reinterpreting” its entire purpose.

The rule is basically dead, Keefe Bruyette & Woods analyst Brian Gardner wrote in a note to clients last Monday: “Examiners can start giving banks the benefit of the doubt regarding compliance with Volcker almost immediately.”

The Volcker rule was conceived as an update to the Depression-era Glass-Steagall law, which banned traditional banks from engaging in risky, high-stakes securities ventures, which became the domain of investment banks, hedge funds and other firms that didn’t rely on federal support. Until its repeal in the 1990s, Glass-Steagall put an end to many conflicts of interest that had plagued banking during the Roaring Twenties, and prevented government subsidies from flowing into speculative securities schemes, which made it harder for big crazy asset bubbles to accumulate.

Glass-Steagall was as powerful as a sledgehammer, but only slightly more precise. The Volcker rule tried to draw a finer distinction. Instead of banning banks from the securities business outright, it only barred proprietary trading. Banks were no longer allowed to make reckless bets for their own accounts, but other types of trading to help clients meet legitimate market needs would be permitted. Done right, the Volcker rule would have been a technocratic improvement on Glass-Steagall, providing all the benefits of its New Deal predecessor without its costs.

It reflected the broader approach Obama and congressional Democrats took with Wall Street reform, treating the financial crisis as a mechanical malfunction best corrected by expert regulators who could write specific rules for nuanced situations. The economic system, they believed, could not be properly repaired with blunt instruments or lines in the sand.

Twenty-first-century banking is indeed a nasty thicket of money and numbers. But the financial crisis was more than a technocratic breakdown. It was an abuse of power. And the 2010 Dodd-Frank law didn’t really try to reshape the political dynamic between Wall Street and Washington. A handful of financial titans retained control over multitrillion-dollar institutions tasked with socially essential functions. They were not prosecuted for fraud, they continued to lobby both Congress and federal agencies with ferocity, and their firms continued to provide lucrative jobs for political operatives from both parties. Against this mountain, Obama set the willpower of individual regulators.

It didn’t work. Consider the Volcker rule, which ran into trouble almost immediately. “One of the world’s largest banking firms” enlisted the Podesta Group-- a lobbying powerhouse founded by Democratic power brokers John and Tony Podesta-- to water down the rule in Congress. The Podesta Group still boasts about the effort on its website, under “Wins.”

“The client’s desired language on the ‘Volcker Rule’ was passed into law,” reads the page, titled “Challenging Wall Street Reform To Defend Jobs.” The lobbying barrage continued at the regulatory agencies, whose final version of the rule stretched to 300 pages of loopholes, exemptions and special considerations. Bank lobbyists succeeded in delaying the implementation of key elements of Volcker for years. Now the beast is being put out of its misery by Trump appointees with close ties to the financial industry, demonstrating that Wall Street’s political clout remains as strong as ever. Volcker’s destroyers will include former bank lawyer Keith Noreika, along with Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, a Goldman Sachs alum, and Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Jay Clayton, who served as Goldman’s bailout attorney.

A similar fate will soon follow for the derivatives regulations and other rules written during the Obama years. Even capital requirements, the simplest and last line of defense against bad bank behavior, are under assault following the resignation of Federal Reserve Governor Daniel Tarullo. We will never know if Obama’s tweaks and adjustments would have prevented or ameliorated another financial crisis. Today, big banks are bigger than they were before the crash, and are returning to pre-crash levels of oversight. The potential for financial turmoil under an erratic president is just as strong as the potential for foreign policy dislocation.

The one element of Dodd-Frank that will likely survive the Trump presidency is also the only aspect that seriously restructured the power relationship between government and finance. The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is important not because it involves a host of complicated new rules-- stealing from customers was illegal before, during and after the crisis-- but because it changes the way these protections are enforced. Prior to Obama, consumer banking products were regulated by five different agencies that competed with each other for “assessment” fees paid by the banks they regulated. This gave banks political power over their regulators-- an agency that was too tough on consumer protection risked losing its banks, and the funding they brought, to another regulator.

Obama scrapped this regime in favor of a single consumer finance overseer, the CFPB, and charged lifelong consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren with setting up the agency and hiring critical personnel. This established a new power center in Washington capable of challenging not only big banks, but also broken bureaucracy. When Obama’s Education Department turned a blind eye to student loan abuses, the CFPB took action. It has returned over $11 billion in ill-gotten bank gains to customers since its inception.

So the next meltdown probably won’t be caused by consumer fraud. Other than that, we’re pretty screwed.

As we mentioned a couple of weeks ago, the corrupt nest of thieves headed by Texas crook Jeb Hensarling-- the House Financial Services Committee-- has almost been entirely bought off by the banksters. Millions and millions of dollars in bribes have gone to corrupt Republicans like Hensarling ($7,372,690), Ed Royce ($6,931,797), Steve Stivers ($4,192,037), Patrick McHenry ($3,949,286), Peter King ($2,761,274), Sean Duffy ($2,376,646) and Blaine Luetkemeyer ($2,371,565) and to corrupt Democrats on the committee as well-- Jim Himes ($5,545,212), Gregory Meeks ($3,120,688), DavidScott ($2,770,894), Charlie Crist ($2,474,349), John Delaney ($2,100,202) and Kyrsten Sinema ($1,662,043).

There's no doubt the House is going to pass the legislation the bank lobbyists have written for Hensarling, destroying as many consumer protections as they can, especially the CFPB. But even McConnell admits that the greed and avarice of the banksters and the bribed House members won't get the legislation through the Senate for Señor Trumpanzee to sign. McConnell told Bloomberg News "I’d love to do something about Dodd-Frank, particularly with regard to community banks but that would require Democratic involvement. I’m not optimistic... So far, my impression is the Democrats on the banking committee believe that Dodd-Frank is something akin to the Ten Commandments."

Despite McConnell’s remarks, helping community lenders hasn’t been the main sticking point in negotiations between Republicans and Democrats. Ohio Senator Sherrod Brown, the banking panel’s top Democrat, has said he supports relaxing rules for the smallest banks. But Democrats have been vocal in resisting any changes to Dodd-Frank that they say will aid Wall Street, such as scrapping Volcker Rule trading restrictions and weakening the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

On Tuesday, Brown pushed back on McConnell’s contention that Democrats are blocking efforts for a bipartisan compromise.

“The Senate Republican leader seems to have forgotten the harm Wall Street’s greed and reckless behavior caused to millions of working families and taxpayers,” Brown said in a statement. “If this were really about community banks, we might have come to an agreement years ago. Republicans are once again using them as leverage to help a rogue’s gallery of special interests.”

[Senate Banking Committee chair Mike] Crapo has previously said efforts to revise Dodd-Frank would be slow as most major bills require 60 votes to pass the Senate, and Republicans hold just 52 seats. The House is moving faster, with that chamber’s Financial Services Committee approving legislation earlier this month that would alter many of the law’s key provisions. House Speaker Paul Ryan has said he wants the legislation to move to a floor vote as soon as possible.

Absent action by Congress, McConnell said rolling back Dodd-Frank will fall to the Trump administration. After a slow start, President Donald Trump has made progress in recent weeks in filling the agencies that oversee Wall Street with his own appointees.

Trump, who has called Dodd-Frank a “disaster” that has made it difficult for businesses to get loans, signed an executive order in February requiring regulators to examine financial rules. The Treasury Department is scheduled to issue a report on the findings next month, kicking off what the administration has promised will be a broad rewrite of regulations implemented under Dodd-Frank.

Unless the situation in Congress changes, we will be “stuck with whatever the administration thinks it can do on its own to modify the impact of Dodd-Frank,” McConnell said.

No, Unfortunately, The Republican Agenda Is Not A Mirage

Wednesday House Republicans rolled back another Obama rule so that-- after Trump signs it-- when people file for unemployment compensation they will be able to be drug-tested. Looks like the GOP is eager to ramp up the War of Drugs again-- and fill those private prison jail cells for their campaign donors. Kevin Brady's blil passed 236-189. Four of the very worst right-wing Democrats crossed the aisel to vote with the Republicans:

• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Dan Lipinski (Blue Dog-IL)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kurt Schrader (Blue Dog-OR)

And-- lo and behold!-- this horrible legislation is rendered "bipartisan."

Yesterday, John Harwood reported for CNBC that when ole Rahm met with Trump, he came away chattering that Dreamers will be safe-- one was arrested in Seattle this week-- and that the GOP plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act will fail but that the Republicans will achieve Wall Street;'s top priority of neutering Dodd-Frank, setting the predatory banksters loose to plunder America again.

When Jennifer Steinhauer reported in yesterday's NY Times that the GOP's grand vision for Congress is falling apart and now looks like a mirage, she wasn't taking into account that the one tie that binds all Republicans for all wings the party is the greed and selfishness factor and that the pro-Wall Street/anti-Dodd-Frank mania is far from a mirage. If they accomplish not else but that, they're go to their political demises happy as pigs in shit. Sure, Trump and amateur, a buffoon and a bungling moron, but Republicanism inches forward.

Congressional Republicans, who craved unified control of the government to secure their aggressive conservative agenda, have instead found themselves on a legislative elliptical trainer, gliding toward nowhere.

After moving to start rolling back the Affordable Care Act just days after President Trump was sworn in last month, Republican lawmakers and Mr. Trump have yet to deliver on any of the sweeping legislation they promised. Efforts to come up with a replacement for the health care law have been stymied by disagreements among Republicans about how to proceed. The same is true for a proposed overhaul of the tax code.

The large infrastructure bill that both Democrats and Mr. Trump were eager to pursue has barely been mentioned, other than a very general hearing to discuss well-documented needs for infrastructure improvements. Even a simple emergency spending bill that the Trump administration promised weeks ago-- which was expected to include a proposal for his wall on the Mexican border-- has not materialized, leaving appropriators idle and checking Twitter.

At this point in Barack Obama’s presidency, when Democrats controlled Washington, Congress had passed a stimulus bill totaling nearly $1 trillion to address the financial crisis, approved a measure preventing pay discrimination, expanded a children’s health insurance program, and begun laying the groundwork for major health care and financial regulation bills. President George W. Bush came into office with a congressional blueprint for his signature education act, No Child Left Behind.

But in the 115th Congress, the Senate has done little more than struggle to confirm Mr. Trump’s nominees, and Republicans ultimately helped force his choice for labor secretary, Andrew F. Puzder, to withdraw from consideration on Wednesday in the face of unified Democratic opposition.

The House has spent most of its time picking off a series of deregulation measures, like overturning a rule intended to protect surface water from mining operations. For his part, Mr. Trump has relied mostly on executive orders to advance policies.

The inactivity stems from a lack of clear policy guidance-- and, just as often, contradictory messages-- from the Trump administration, which does not appear to have spent the campaign and transition periods forming a legislative wish list. Democrats have also led efforts to slow the confirmation of nominees to Mr. Trump’s cabinet who might otherwise be leading the charge.

“When you spend a lot of time talking about policy and debating policy in the presidential campaign, it is far easier to be specific about legislation when you get into office,” said Austan Goolsbee, who served as the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers during the Obama administration. “President Trump spent the campaign fleshing out nothing in detail, so it’s not really a surprise that they can’t even agree on priorities, much less on actual legislative detail.”

Chief New Dem, Jim Himes, who was looking forward to teaming up with the Republicans to push the goals that bind the GOP and the Republican wing of the Democratic Party, is disappointed. "It’s painful for someone like me who was excited about infrastructure and tax reform. It seems like the administration and the majority are nowhere." But don't cry for Himes, an ex-Wall Street bankster and one of Wall Street's favorite members of Congress-- he's taken $5,547,712 in legalistic bribes from the Finance Sector since first getting into Congress in 2008-- his top priority is still very much on track: screwing with Dodd-Frank. Just ask House Financial Services Committee chairman, Jeb Hensarling! As we mentioned over the weekend, Trump's cascading unpopularity isn't slowing down the Republican (and New Dem) mania to kill Wall Street reforms-- and the #1 priority is the CFPB.

House Republicans are making a big move against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which was designed for basically one reason: to prevent crooked, avaricious, greed-obsessed banksters from preying on bank customers and investors. The Members of Congress the banksters pay off most richly are determined to deliver for their bankster masters by destroying the extremely successful agency.

...The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee will move forward on legislation to neuter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its power to crack down on predatory business practices, according to a leaked memo that emerged on Thursday and infuriated Democratic defenders of the bureau.

The memo, drafted by the chairman, Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Republican from Texas and a longtime foe of the consumer agency, aligns House Republicans with President Trump in the latest attack on President Barack Obama’s legacy. The memo detailed plans to weaken the leadership of the agency, allowing the president to replace the bureau’s director at any time. Legislation in the works would limit the bureau’s enforcement authority, reduce its ability to make rules and repeal its consumer complaint system.

It would also greatly shrink the enforcement tools at the consumer watchdog’s disposal, blocking it from being able to go after businesses engaged in deceptive practices and restricting its oversight of big publicly traded companies that are already regulated by agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“This would substantially change the structure of the C.F.P.B. and greatly limits the scope of its authority,” said Hunter Wiggins, former principal deputy enforcement director at the bureau.

The proposal was part of a broader set of policies that Republicans have been devising to roll back the Wall Street regulations known as the Dodd-Frank Act, which emerged from the 2008 financial crisis. While Mr. Trump also supports dismantling the law, Republicans would probably be unable to accomplish a sweeping repeal of Dodd-Frank without the support of some Democrats.

That's where Himes and his New Dems come in. They just have to be a tiny bit patient.

Corrupt Congressional Conservatives Are Making Their Move To Unleash Wall Street Predators On Society Again

Are you stunned to see Trump's sinking poll numbers? You should be. A newly elected president has never had a reaction from the country like his. His first week in office and 35% of Americans already thought he should be impeached. That rose to 40% last week and then 46% this week! Rachel Maddow suggested on her show that the way she reads the data, Trump's impeachment number would be even higher except for the fact that so many people worry that Mike Pence would be even worse president than Trump!

PPP's new national poll finds that Donald Trump's popularity as President has declined precipitously just over the last two weeks. On our first poll of his Presidency voters were evenly divided on Trump, with 44% approving of him and 44% also disapproving. Now his approval rating is 43%, while his disapproval has gone all the way up to 53%. If voters could choose they'd rather have both Barack Obama (52/44) or Hillary Clinton (49/45) instead of Trump.

...Voters are increasingly taking the media's side in his fights with them. The New York Times has repeatedly been a target of Trump's attacks, but voters say they think the Times had more credibility than them 52/37. Trump seems to be losing ground in that conflict-- he was only down 51/42 a week ago. The Presidency has been so diminished over the last 3 weeks that voters even say Saturday Night Live has more credibility than Trump, 48/43.

...[U]nhappiness with Trump-- and with Congressional Republicans-- could help Democrats to make big gains in 2018. Democrats lead 49/41 on the generic Congressional ballot. That's partially a product of Trump's unpopularity but also an outgrowth of Paul Ryan (35/47 approval), Mitch McConnell (23/52 approval), and Congress as a whole (16/68 approval) being unpopular in their own rights.

Is any of that slowing down the Republicans and their catastrophic agenda? Certainly not in terms of licking the boots of the special interests that finance their careers. As Alan Rappeport reported in yesterday's more-credible-than-Trump NY Times the House Republicans are making a big move against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau which was designed for basically one reason: to prevent crooked, avaricious, greed-obsessed banksters from preying on bank customers and investors. The Members of Congress the banksters pay off most richly are determined to deliver for their bankster masters by destroying the extremely successful agency. First the congressional crooks who have taken the biggest bribes in the past cycle from the Finance Sector:

These were just the bankster bribes for 2015-16

What you're looking at is a chart of a baker's dozen of corrupt members of Congress-- 10 Republicans and 3 slimy assholes from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- who have sold out their constituents for the Wall Street cash. If these 12 men and one woman were all in prison, America would be a far, far better place for working families. Note, particularly, Texas Congressman Jeb Hensarling, the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Since first being elected to Congress in 2002, has has taken $7,375,190 in bribes from the banksters.

The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee will move forward on legislation to neuter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its power to crack down on predatory business practices, according to a leaked memo that emerged on Thursday and infuriated Democratic defenders of the bureau.

The memo, drafted by the chairman, Representative Jeb Hensarling, a Republican from Texas and a longtime foe of the consumer agency, aligns House Republicans with President Trump in the latest attack on President Barack Obama’s legacy. The memo detailed plans to weaken the leadership of the agency, allowing the president to replace the bureau’s director at any time. Legislation in the works would limit the bureau’s enforcement authority, reduce its ability to make rules and repeal its consumer complaint system.

It would also greatly shrink the enforcement tools at the consumer watchdog’s disposal, blocking it from being able to go after businesses engaged in deceptive practices and restricting its oversight of big publicly traded companies that are already regulated by agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“This would substantially change the structure of the C.F.P.B. and greatly limits the scope of its authority,” said Hunter Wiggins, former principal deputy enforcement director at the bureau.

The proposal was part of a broader set of policies that Republicans have been devising to roll back the Wall Street regulations known as the Dodd-Frank Act, which emerged from the 2008 financial crisis. While Mr. Trump also supports dismantling the law, Republicans would probably be unable to accomplish a sweeping repeal of Dodd-Frank without the support of some Democrats.

That will be difficult to get.

I have to break in here and say that Rappeport couldn't be more mistaken. While actual Democrats will oppose Hensarling with all their might, all last year he was consistently enabled in his committee by 9 crooks from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party: Kyrsten Sinema (AZ), Jim Himes (CT), Patrick Murphy (who was defeated in November but who took $2,161,722 from the banksters in 2016), John Delaney (MD), David Scott (GA), Ed Perlmutter (CO), Terri Sewell (AL), William Lacy Clay (MO) and Gregory Meeks (NY). Of the 4 new Democrats on the committee this year, 3 are stinky-fingered corruptionists of the utmost magnitude, who Hensarling was delighted to welcome aboard: Josh Gottheimer (NJ), Charlie Crist (FL) and Vicente González (TX). Notice that Rappeport seamlessly switched from the House, where the action is, to the Senate, where the Democrats are actually more united in protecting the CFPB from Trump and the Republicans.

Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, blasted Mr. Hensarling’s plan on Thursday and accused Republicans of plotting to turn an effective consumer watchdog into a “toy poodle.”

“It took less than three weeks for House Republicans to show their hand on how they will renege on candidate Trump’s campaign promises to hold Wall Street accountable and help working Americans,” Mr. Brown said after reviewing the memo.

Mr. Trump has been relatively muted on the future of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which is the brainchild of one of his most vocal Democratic critics, Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. But advisers to Mr. Trump have signaled that the administration is prepared to gut the agency.

Steven Mnuchin, Mr. Trump’s nominee to head the Treasury Department, said during his confirmation hearing that the consumer protection bureau, created by Dodd-Frank, should cease to be funded by the Federal Reserve and should instead be funded through Congress, a move that could curb its independence. Representative Mick Mulvaney, Republican of South Carolina, who is waiting to be confirmed as the White House’s budget director, has referred to the bureau as a “sad, sick joke.”

And Sean Spicer, White House spokesman, said Mr. Trump had not yet decided if he would try to oust the bureau’s director, Richard Cordray, before Mr. Cordray’s term ends in 2018.

“You bet I’m worried,” Ms. Warren said in an interview. “I’m worried for the millions of working families who have gotten some help over the last five years from a strong and independent consumer agency.”

She added: “I’m worried that Trump wants to take the life out from that.”

The bureau has returned billions of dollars to bilked consumers since it was created in 2011. Its regulators exposed the scandal of Wells Fargo employees creating fake accounts.

For Mr. Trump, hobbling the bureau would have the added sweetness of outraging Ms. Warren, a political nemesis whom he derided regularly on Twitter during his campaign as Pocahontas, referring to a controversy about her Native American heritage. [Rappeport desperately needs a competent editor to get him to stop embedding GOP propaganda in his writing.]

That revenge would not be that easy to exact. While Mr. Trump is fond of bellowing, “You’re fired,” sacking Mr. Cordray could be complicated.

“In my view, attempts to fire him would be not only illegal but unwise politically,” said Rohit Chopra, a fellow at the Consumer Federation of America and a former official of the bureau. “The director of the agency is not intended to be a political pawn of the president.”

Changes to the bureau generally need to come from Congress, and Republican lawmakers have been hoping to tear it down since its inception. Mr. Hensarling argued in a Wall Street Journal editorial this week that it should be abolished.

“The C.F.P.B. has eroded freedom, trampled due process and killed jobs,” Mr. Hensarling wrote. “It must go.”

Hensarling, of course, refers of the freedom of banksters to rip off society with impunity and without regard to accountability. It's part of Republican Party DNA to refer to that as "freedom" or "liberty." Republicans are apoplectic that the CFPB has provided 27 million Americans who were ripped off by the banksters with almost $12 billion in restitution. Some of that money could have made its way into the pockets of corrupt congressional scumbags, like Hensarling, Ryan, McCarthy... well, you see that list up there. Well Fargo and Mastercard were caught red-handed stealing from their clients-- and forced to repay the people they stole from. Under Hensarlings plan, not a nickel of the stolen money would have even been discovered, let alone returned.

What kind of Democrats could support something like this? Oh, that's an easy one-- Democrats who are desperate to be primaried and Democrats who don't want any grassroots support in their reelection efforts.

Yes, Conservatives-- Of Both Parties-- Hate Regulations That Protect Consumers

At the kiddie table debate last night Chris Christie took the first opportunity he got to attack Dodd-Frank, the legislation passed to protect consumers from banksters and other financial sector crooks That ad above, which debuted last night at the very first commercial break (and then ran again), part of a 4-week, $500,000 buy from the the shady American Action Network-- an extreme right-wing group founded by Nixon's Jew counter, Fred Malek-- is meant to stir up fear and emotions by lying about one of Wall Street's biggest bugaboos, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Republicans on the House Financial Services Committee, along with right-wing Democrats on the committee who work for Wall Street-- like Patrick Murphy (New Dem-FL), Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ), John Delaney (New Dem-DE), Gregory Meeks (New Dem-NY), David Scott (New Dem-GA) and Jim Himes (New Dem-CT)-- have been busy little bees working to chip away at Dodd-Frank protections, especially those that are part of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The American Action Network ad smearing the CFPB elicited a message from Elizabeth Warren to her supporters. "I’m not surprised," she wrote, "that the big banks and Republicans are attacking me or the CFPB. After all, in just four years, the brand-new consumer agency has already forced the biggest financial companies to return more than $11 billion directly to the people they cheated. And even on Wall Street, $11 billion is real money. But I am surprised by just how bold and shameless these new attacks are." 

Wall Street has a problem: they know that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is working and that it’s incredibly popular with the families it helps. So the big banks are smart: $30,000 for a TV ad is nothing compared to the money they can save if their Republican buddies will go after the agency. And if they can soften up support for the CFPB, the Republicans will feel a little bit safer when they try to undercut the agency and rollback financial oversight during closed-door deals.

I’m a big girl, and I can take the personal attacks. But working families who need the CFPB can’t-- not when they’ve been crushed, squeezed and hammered by the big banks and their friends in Washington for years. It’s up to us to fight back.

Progressive Democrat Lou Vince is running for the House seat in Santa Clarita, Simi Valley and the Antelope Valley (CA-25) currently occupied by extremist anti-regulation fanatic Steve Knight, a devoted enemy to all rules and regulations that protect ordinary citizens from powerful business forces. "Republicans," Lou told us during the debate, "consistently show how they would rather side with Wall Street bankers that gamble with our money, rather than stand up for hard-working Americans. Congressman Steve Knight is no exception. He has voted for dismantling Dodd-Frank, the only thing protecting Americans from Wall Street fat cats. He has voted against the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the brainchild of Elizabeth Warren who stands up for the middle class against corporations who try to take advantage of American consumers. Rather than be another corporate shill like Congressman Knight, I want to go to DC and stand up to Wall Street and fight for ordinary Americans who want the system to be fair for everyone, not designed to make the top 1% even richer at the expense of everyone else."

Carol Shea-Porter is likely to win back her old seat in New Hampshire, currently held by crackpot extremist Frank Guinta. Unlike Guinta, she understands the importance of protecting families from the immense power of corporations and banksters. "I'm proud," she told us right after the debate, "that I voted for Dodd-Frank and the CFPB. The CFPB has helped millions of consumers resolve complaints concerning loans, credit cards, mortgages, etc. It exists to protect consumers and their money, which is why my opponent and his donors hate it and try to destroy it. In Congress, I fought to protect the CFPB, and I will continue to do that when I win next November."

Ruben Kihuen has been a strong progressive leader in the Nevada state legislature running for a blue-leaning seat held by anti-regulations extremist Cresent Hardy. He's the perfect antidote to bankster-allied conservatives like Hardy. He told us during the debate that "Congress is a club of the wealthy and elite and members like Rep. Cresent Hardy continue to vote to protect big corporations and special interests instead of hard working Americans. The latest attacks on Dodd-Frank and the CFPB is just another example of reckless Republicans protecting the corporations that elect them instead of their constituents. I am running for Congress to give a voice to working class families and fight to stop Wall Street's predatory practices."

Rod Blum is a multimillionaire shill of Wall Street sitting in a blue-leaning Iowa district. Former Iowa House Speaker, Pat Murphy, a strong and successful progressive disagrees with Blum's attempts to wreck Dodd-Frank. "This is the problem with Congressman Blum," he said during the debate. "He is voting to weaken Dodd-Frank and CFPB, weakening consumers against the big banks. We should be strengthening consumer laws by reinstating Glass-Stegall to avoid these crisises. Instead we are going to leave the foxes in charge of the chicken coop and Congress Blum is opening the door and saying 'enjoy lunch on me.'"

The most recent Blue America endorsee, Suffolk County Legislature Presiding Officer DuWayne Gregory (NY-02), is taking on arch deregulator and Wall Street pawn Peter King.  He told us that "The attempt by the Republicans to rollback Dodd-Frank has created significant risk for the taxpayers who have already picked up the tab for banks that are too big to fail. While my opponent has voted against the interests of the victims of the financial crisis, I will work to protect taxpayers and hold Wall Street accountable. I commend Senator Warren and Congressman Cummings for their leadership on this issue."

Paul Clements is the progressive Democrat running against crooked crony-capitalist Fred Upton in southwest Michigan. Upton has voted against every regulation that protects consumers, families and the environment. Upton's ideas are throwbacks to the 19th Century. Clements pointed out that "It's the big banks, big corporations, and the super-rich who have armies of lawyers and lobbyists and who make mega-campaign contributions. They were busy tilting the economic playing field in their direction for decades, before they crashed the economy in 2008. Dodd-Frank and the CFPB don’t go far enough to protect citizens and consumers-- we shouldn’t have banks too big to fail, and we need to get the big money out of politics-- but they are a start. Nevertheless, they were too much for Congressman Upton. Maybe if you are born into millions, consumer protection doesn’t seem so important. His votes against Dodd-Frank and to dismantle the CFPB fit with his general alliance with corporations and the super-rich over ordinary citizens. I would support them, and in Congress I will stand up for consumers’ rights and interests. We won’t get a level playing field unless someone does."

One of America's best investigative journalists, Lee Fang, writing for The Intercept yesterday noted that lobbyists are using ads during the debate to smear regulatory agencies investigating the crooked corporations writing their paychecks.

The advertisement portrays the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as a roomful of bureacratic automatons mercilessly stamping “DENIED” on loan applications, beneath Soviet-style banners depicting CFPB’s director, Richard Cordray, and its principal architect, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, (D-Mass.).

But the ad does not disclose that the group sponsoring it is led by lobbyists for Navient, a student loan company that the CFPB is currently investigating for allegedly cheating student loan borrowers.

...The American Action Network, the sponsor of the advertisement, is led by a team of lobbyists employed to beat back consumer protection regulations on behalf of industry clients. American Action Network board member Vin Weber is a lobbyist at Mercury LLC, where he is registered to work as a Navient lobbyist. On his registration forms, Weber says he specifically works on matters related to the CFPB.

Weber’s colleague on the board, Tom Reynolds, is also a registered lobbyist for Navient through the law firm Nixon Peabody. And another American Action Network board member, Barry Jackson, works with Brownstein Hyatt Farber Shreck, a lobbying firm that serves a number of student loan and payday lending firms on issues relating to the CFPB.

Navient processes federal student loans and works to collect on student debt. Formerly known as Sallie Mae, Navient spun off as a separate company in 2014. The company says it is responsible for managing $300 billion in student loans.

In August, Navient informed investors that the CFPB, after a multi-year investigation of the firm, had found evidence that Navient is in violation of consumer protection laws and may soon face a lawsuit from the agency. Separate investigations have faulted Navient for misleading borrowers on a range of issues, while seeking to maximize penalties and late fees.

If you'd like to help House candidates who have pledged to protect consumers and the middle class from the banksters and other financial predators, you can do that right here.

Cutting Up The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau... Bipartisan Affair?

Sinema

Thanks to a tiny gaggle of reactionary Blue Dogs, Boehner's latest attempt to gut the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection can be called "bipartisan." H.R.1195 passed yesterday, 235-183, with 5 Republicans voting for the interests of their constituents and 4 faux-Democrats crossing the aisle in the other direction and voting with Wall Street and the GOP. The bill was sponsored by Bob Pittenger (R-NC), and among the co-sponsors was right-wing Arizona Blue Dog Kyrsten Sinema. The bill itself wasn't that controversial, but it includes an amendment that would cut the CFPB's budget by $45 million over the next five years and $100 million over the next decade. The Democrats who voted with the GOP yesterday:

• Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• Collin Peterson (Blue Dog-MN)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)

2016 will see aggressive DCCC efforts to raise money for the Democrats who vote with the GOP and have managed to alienate Democratic base voters. Brad Ashford, Kyrsten Sinema and other faithless Blue Dogs and New Dems will get millions of dollars from the DCCC, much of it from progressives who are unaware that the DCCC distributes their money to Democrats who vote as badly as some Republicans! If you want to contribute to progressives running for the House, never give to the DCCC. Always contribute directly to progressive candidates you'll find endorsed by Blue America, PCCC, DFA and like-minded organizations.

The other notable House vote yesterday was passage, 307-116, of a controversial new cyber info-sharing bill, H.R. 1650. Devin Nunes sponsored the bill, although a bunch of New Dems-- Patrick Murphy (FL), Jim Himes (CT), Terri Sewell (AL), Adam Schiff (CA) and Mike Quigley (IL)-- signed on as co-sponsors. Generally speaking, the progressives Blue America endorses and supports were the ones who voted against it, like:

• Xavier Becerra (CA)
• Matt Cartwright (PA)
• Judy Chu (CA)
• Donna Edwards (MD)
• Keith Ellison (MN)
• Alan Grayson (FL)
• Raul Grijalva (AZ)
• Mike Honda (CA)
• Barbara Lee (CA)
• Ted Lieu (CA)
• Beto O'Rourke (TX)
• Mark Pocan (WI)
• Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ)

The above are all members whom Blue America backed and who all voted against the latest unconstitutional domestic spying bill (the 79 Democrats who voted "no" were joined by 37 Republicans). The bad Democrats we warned you about before the election include:

• Pete Aguilar (New Dem-CA)
• Brad Ashford (Blue Dog-NE)
• Ami Bera (New Dem-CA)
• Don Beyer (New Dem-VA)
• Brendan Boyle (New Dem-PA)
• Cheri Bustos (Blue Dog-IL)
• Jim Cooper (Blue Dog-TN)
• Jim Costa (Blue Dog-CA)
• Joe Crowley (New Dem-NY)
• Henry Cuellar (Blue Dog-TX)
• John Delaney (New Dem-MD)
• Tammy Duckworth (IL)
• Gwen Graham (Blue Dog-FL)
• Steve Israel (Blue Dog-NY)
• Ann Kuster (New Dem-NH)
• Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY)
• Donald Norcross (NJ)
• Scott Peters (New Dem-CA)
• Kyrsten Sinema (Blue Dog-AZ)

Privacy advocates blasted the legislation. "These bills do little to protect the Internet, but rather reward companies who undermine the privacy of their customers," said Nathan White, senior legislative manager at the advocacy group Access Now, in a statement. The Blue America-endorsed candidates stand strong for Net Neutrality and cyber-privacy, and last night Alex Law wasn't surprised when he saw Norcross voting with the conservatives-- again. 

"Yet again," Law told us, "we have a clear difference between myself and my opponent in the Democratic primary in NJ-01. Today, Donald Norcross voted in support of the Protecting Cyber Networks Act, a bill that is a surveillance bill disguising itself as a cyber-security bill. This bill gives companies a significant expansion in their ability to monitor customers' online activities. It allows them to share vaguely defined 'cyber threat indicators,' which then automatically go to the NSA. The NSA is then authorized broad law enforcement rights that could stretch beyond cyber-security.This chain of events is a slippery slope. I totally disagree with the structure of this bill. We must stand up for individual privacy. What we have in this bill is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and if I were in Congress, I would have voted against it like other progressives such as Alan Grayson and Judy Chu."

If you'd like to help make sure progressives like Alex do get into Congress in 2016, please consider contributing here.

Inequality Of Opportunity Will Lead Inexorably To The Demise Of Democracy… Just As Its Meant To

"When People Cheat, You Cannot As A Regulator Continue Business As Usual"

You probably know by now that a great deal of Elizabeth Warren's new book, A Fighting Chance, deals with creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. "I had no doubt-- zero-- that the banks should be held accountable for breaking the law," she wrote. "Would the banks ever be held accountable, and would they ever be forced to repair the damage they had done to so many families." At one point she was recounting how, in the process of setting up the bureau, she asked her team to keep in mind who they were there to protect.

I have no doubt that the majority of [people working in regulatory agencies] have the best of intentions, but let's face it; Given the way their jobs are designed, they spend most of their time talking to bankers. "Show me the books," they say. "Explain this practice." "comment of this new mortgage for or proposed regulation." All the while, they are inundated by a constant stream of push-back and pressure from industry people. In the normal course of things, banking regulators simply don't hear from many ordinary citizens. After all, someone who gets ripped off in a $40 credit card scam might call a consumer complaint hotline, but that person doesn't have access to the agency lawyers and investigators who supervise the banks on a day-to-day basis. Nope. Bank regulators spend a lot of time with bankers and and almost no time with bank customers.

…How could we ensure that someone working for the CFPB would spend most of her time working on behalf of the consumers who didn't show up at our door-- rather than the representatives of the banks did?

One answer was to run straight up the middle and hit the biggest targets, and that's exactly what Rich Cordray did. Rich was fearless, and he led by example. Among other things, he investigated Capital One for misleading customers about the costs of "free" add-ons to their credit cards-- "free" services that actually cost customers a total of $140 million. (He ultimately forced Capital One to send the hidden fees back to every customer-- and not one customer had to file papers or ask for a refund because the checks came automatically in the mail. Rich and his team also hit up the company to pay an additional $25 million fine.)

The keystone of corporate law is that shareholders can't be help criminally liable for the activities of the corporation. But what can't criminal managers? Well, they can… but they almost never are. Wednesday, Robert Reich explained to his readers why that is so so wrong-- and so damaging to America. "Who," he asked, "is legally responsible when a big corporation breaks the law? The government thinks it’s the corporation itself. Wrong… Corporations don’t do things. People do."

For a decade GM had been receiving complaints about the ignition switch but chose to do nothing. Who was at fault? Look toward the top. David Friedman, acting head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, says those aware of the problem had ranged from engineers “all the way up through executives.”

Credit Suisse employees followed a carefully-crafted plan, even sending private bankers to visit their American clients on tourist visas to avoid detection. According to the head of New York State’s Department of Financial Services, Credit Suisse’s crime was “decidedly not the result of the conduct of just a few bad apples.”

Yet in neither of these cases have any executives been charged with violating the law. No top guns are going to jail. No one is even being fired.

Instead, the government is imposing corporate fines. The logic is that since the corporation as whole benefited from these illegal acts, the corporation as a whole should pay.

But the logic is flawed. Such fines are often treated by corporations as costs of doing business. GM was fined $35 million. That’s peanuts to a hundred-billion-dollar corporation.

Credit Suisse was fined considerably more-- $2.8 billion. But even this amount was shrugged off by financial markets. In fact, the bank’s shares rose the day the plea was announced-- the only big financial institution to show gains that day. Its CEO even sounded upbeat: “Our discussions with clients have been very reassuring and we haven’t seen very many issues at all.” (Credit Suisse wasn’t even required to turn over its list of tax-avoiding clients.)

Fines have no deterrent value unless the amount of the penalty multiplied by the risk of being caught is greater than the profits earned by the illegal behavior. In reality, the penalty-risk calculus rarely comes close.

Even when it does, the people hurt aren’t the shareholders who profited years before when the crimes were committed. Most current shareholders weren’t even around then.

…The truth is, corporations aren’t people-- despite what the Supreme Court says. Corporations don’t break laws; specific people do. In the cases of GM and Credit Suisse, the evidence points to executives at or near the top.

Conservatives are fond of talking about personal responsibility. But when it comes to white-collar crime, I haven’t heard them demand that individuals be prosecuted.

Yet the only way to deter giant corporations from harming the public is to go after people who cause the harm.

And, funny enough, speaking of Credit Suisse, their newsletter featured an interview with economist Joseph Stigliz yesterday of his book, The Price of Inequality. Editor Cushla Sherlock writes, in way of introduction, that "Inequality presents a major risk to human progress and carries a high economic price tag. A 'fragmented' education system, tax laws and corporate governance are some of the key causes of the problem in the United States-- one of the societies that scores worst on this measure in the developed world-- explains Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Winner for economics and leading economist. Professor Stiglitz discusses the future implications of inequality and explains why Scandinavian countries are some of the best in the world in terms of social mobility and equality of opportunity.

"Inequality," explains Stiglitz, "is not just a moral issue. High inequality results in a high economic price: our economy doesn't perform as well as it could, it doesn't grow as fast, it is less efficient, and it is more unstable. Inequality also undermines democracy and divides society… The life prospects of a young American are more dependent on the income and education of their parents than in virtually any of the other advanced countries, including old Europe, which we often think of as very rigid and lacking mobility. The US is completely lacking mobility. One of the reasons clearly has to do with our very fragmented education system. Basically, where you live determines the quality of education that you get. If you're poor, and you live in a poor neighborhood, chances are you will never get the kind of education that will allow you to move up the economic ladder." Then Sherlock asks him about what creates differences in levels of inequality around the world.

Inequality has grown enormously in most countries around the world, but not all. The fact that there are such large differences in inequality between the United States and many other countries-- in fact, some countries are actually reducing inequality, or at least preventing it from increasing-- highlights a very important lesson. That is, inequality is not just the consequence of economic forces, because the same economic forces are operating in virtually all countries, especially advanced countries. It's a result of policies and politics: what countries do to promote equality and equality of opportunity. Education is very important. Tax laws are very important: if you allow some of your richest people to pay much lower taxes than people who work for a living, which is what has happened in the United States, then obviously you're providing scope for increasing inequality. If you do not have good unemployment systems, social security systems, systems to help people who are in need, then again you're going to wind up with more inequality. Other factors also play a role. One of the most important sources of high inequality is the increase in what we call ‘rent seeking'. Here, people seek to become wealthy in one of two ways. One way is to increase the size of the national pie, make a contribution, invent a laser, a transistor-- something that really transforms our economy and society. The other way is to try to get a larger share of the national economic pie. Monopolies make their money by shrinking output and driving up price, not by making the economy bigger. Looking across the various sectors of the United States, there are many in which a few firms are dominant.

These are just a couple of examples of the ways in which inequality has been growing, with real implications for the future, because it carries momentum. The worry is that this greater inequality of income will lead to inequality of opportunity, and that will eventually feed back to even more inequality of income.

Tuesday, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, chairing the Constitution Subcommittee looking into how to deal with the Supreme Court's determination to abolish restrictions on the rise of plutocracy, was correct when he said that "It’s increasingly clear that the only way to really reform our system is to pass a constitutional amendment to regulate how we finance our elections." Most regular, normal Americans agree. But the big money behind conservatism does not. In fact, they smell victory in their class war against the American people-- and they're digging in for a long fight. Clearly, even beyond a constitutional amendment, billionaires need to be taxed out of existence. That's what the progressive income tax they have paid politicians to wreck, was intended to ensure.