Will Obama Name Brad Miller Secretary Of The Treasury?

When the North Carolina legislature sat down to redistrict the state, they targeted 3 Democratic incumbents with grotesquely gerrymandered districts: two Blue Dogs-- Larry Kissell, who was defeated, and Heath Shuler, who promptly got a job as a K Street lobbyist and retired, his seat going to a radical right sociopath-- and a mainstream progressive, Brad Miller, who would have had to challenge a friend and colleague, David Price, if he was to remain in Congress. First elected to the North Carolina legislature in 1992 and to Congress in 2002, Brad is one of Congress' most brilliant and decent members (a graduate of the London School of Economics and Columbia Law). But he opted to retire instead of going up against Price. He has been one of the Democratic stars on the House Financial Services Committee and his tenure has been all about working to protect consumers from financial predators. He wrote the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act of 2009, which passed the House but which the banksters were able to get their shills in the Senate to kill. A bill he worked on with Elizabeth Warren, the Financial Product Safety Commission Act, was included as one of the better parts of Dodd-Frank.

There couldn't be a better nomination Obama could make as Treasury Secretary for his second term. Nor one he is less likely to consider. Brad Miller is not a shill of the Wall street banksters or K Street hucksters. That alone would tend to disqualify him from presidential consideration for a job like that. And, if that wasn't enough, he had the temerity to face down Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2006 and ask him, "With tax cuts going to the people who receive inherited wealth, can you identify a single policy of this Congress or the Bush Administration that appears directed at closing income inequality or the concentration of wealth?" Nope, not a potential Obama Secretary of the Treasury. Yesterday, Brad penned a long piece for American Banker that demonstrates exactly the kind of Secretary of the Treasury Obama should be-- but isn't-- looking for.

The speculation about what to expect in a second Obama term has overlooked one obvious possibility: another financial crisis.

According to JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon, financial crises are "something that happens every five to seven years," which makes us due for the next one in the next four years. Tyler Cowen, a professor of economics at George Mason University, has said "the most important development to emerge from America's financial crisis" was that the "age of the bank run has returned," a view he ascribes to economists generally.

Rather than rely on insured deposits for financing, the biggest financial institutions now rely increasingly on the largely unregulated shadow banking system. The sheer size of shadow banking—$67 trillion, according to the Financial Stability Board-- may create "a need for sudden payouts [that] could also prompt a run on a financial institution," Cowen says. "It now seems that the 21st century will resemble the 19th and early 20th centuries, with periodic panics and runs on financial institutions, perhaps followed by deflationary collapses."

All of this makes banking regulators' nonchalance about preparing for a crisis puzzling.

The Dodd-Frank Act did not break up the biggest banks into small-enough-to-fail institutions or end their reliance on shadow bank borrowing. Instead, the Act provides an "orderly resolution authority" so regulators can dismantle failing institutions without catastrophic consequences for the financial system or for the real economy.

The Act requires the largest institutions to submit resolution plans, or "living wills," to help regulators prepare. Living wills outline how institutions are organized and identify critical operations and known risks. Regulators use living wills to spot impediments to quick, orderly resolution in bankruptcy. If the plans do not show a credible way to avoid severe disruption, regulators can require tougher supervision or restructuring.

The biggest banks submitted their first living wills this summer. William Dudley, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, recently conceded that the banks' living wills "confirmed that we are a long way from the desired situation in which large complex firms could be allowed to go bankrupt without major disruptions to the financial system and large costs to society. Significant changes in structure and organization will ultimately be required for this to happen." The "initial exercise," Dudley said, provided regulators a "better understanding of the impediments to an orderly bankruptcy," and was the beginning of an "iterative process."

Simon Johnson, former chief economist for the International Monetary Fund, concluded from Dudley's remarks that the living wills process was "a sham, meaningless boilerplate and box checking." Maybe Johnson is too harsh, but "ultimately" is a very indulgent deadline in the new "age of the bank run." The uncertainties in the financial system may not allow for year after year of polite suggestions by regulators and modest tweaks by institutions.

Dudley said that the "current approach" of regulators is to reduce the likelihood that the biggest institutions might fail by requiring frequent stress tests, increased capital and liquidity buffers, and reforms to shadow banking and derivatives markets. "The bad news is that some of these efforts are just in their nascent stages," Dudley said.

The "blunter approach" of breaking up the biggest banks "may yet prove necessary," Dudley said, but it is "premature to give up on the current approach."

The "negative externalities" of the last crisis, to use Dudley's phrase, were widespread, long-term unemployment and underemployment; declining wages; the loss of decades of wealth accumulation by most families; and frightening rage that may be incompatible with enduring, stable democracy. A trial and error approach to regulation really should not be an option.

Megabanks have many incentives to remain too big to fail. They apparently enjoy immunity from criminal prosecution, even for "epic" rigging of the world's benchmark interest rates to defraud counterparties to interest rate derivatives, and for money laundering for terrorists, genocidal regimes and drug cartels. The "implicit government guarantee" provides almost unlimited liquidity for every line of business and allows megabanks to borrow more cheaply than smaller competitors. Megabanks will not voluntarily become small enough or simple enough to fail.

In fact, the most obvious impediments to orderly resolution appear intentional. The seven largest banks have 14,500 subsidiaries between them, but each megabank operates as a single enterprise with consolidated management and a common pool of capital and liquidity. As a result, every subsidiary is responsible for the liabilities of the parent corporation and all of the siblings. An obvious starting point for regulators is to require that the riskiest lines of business be conducted in separately managed, separately capitalized subsidiaries. A stand-alone subsidiary could fail without a collapse of the entire enterprise, and if the enterprise became insolvent, many subsidiaries could still operate relatively normally. Stand-alone subsidiaries would be easier to sell or spin off without serious disruption, even if the megabank is at the point of death.

The Dodd-Frank Act did not give regulators the choice of taking measures to make a panic less likely or planning for a panic. Banking regulators should act with urgency to require that living wills be credible plans to resolve failing firms without the "negative externalities" of the last crisis. Banking regulators should not wait for a protracted "iterative process" to remove obvious impediments to orderly resolution.

Obama has been kicked around by Republicans insisting he give John Kerry the Secretary of State job and by AIPAC Zionists insisting he ditch Chuck Hagel as a potential Secretary of Defense. The thing about Secretary of the Treasury is that Wall Street won't even have to raise its voice to make sure Obama doesn't even consider anyone as qualified to work for the interests of the American people-- rather than the odious criminal banksters who finance the careers of American politicians-- as Brad Miller. Miller has as much a chance of being nominated by Obama as he would being nominated by Mitt Romney, John McCain or George Bush. Brad Miller has made it abundantly clear-- and quite publicly-- that he  fully understands the nature of Wall Street/Capitol Hill corruption.

HSBC did say they were sorry for laundering billions of dollars for terrorists, genocidal regimes and drug cartels. "We accept responsibility for our past mistakes," Stuart Gulliver, HSBC's CEO said. "We have said we are profoundly sorry for them, and we do so again." The settlement also "would most likely tarnish the bank's reputation," so maybe HSBC executives will feel embarrassed at holiday parties.

Not everyone agrees that the settlement was tough punishment that fit the crime. Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi asked "Are you fucking kidding me? That's the punishment?" A New York Times editorial, in more Gray Lady-like language, called the settlement "a dark day for the rule of law." "When prosecutors choose not to prosecute to the full extent of the law in a case as egregious as this," the editorial said, "the law itself is diminished. The deterrence that comes from the threat of criminal prosecution is weakened, if not lost." Even the Economist asked "Has a handful of banks become not too big to fail, but too big to jail?"

So what are government officials in Kenya, Azerbaijan or Nepal going to make of our scolding about the evils of corruption and the importance of the rule of law? Our moral authority may be in doubt, but our advice is sound. Nations really do work better when an impartial rule of law constrains abuses of political or economic power.

Maybe we should take our own advice.

I'm sure Brad Miller is not even on Obama's Christmas card list.

Holding The Banksters Accountable-- Congress On The Way To Creating A Consumer Financial Protection Agency

Thursday a lot of us may have missed an historic vote in the House Financial Services Committee. I don't know if anyone is calling it "bipartisan" just because one Republican, Mike Castle, went along for the ride by Barney Frank's committee voted 39-29 to create a federal agency devoted to protecting consumers from predatory lending, abusive overdraft fees and unfair rate hikes. One of the strongest and clearest voices on the committee for consumer protection is Florida Congressman Alan Grayson, who sees this as one step in the right direction of establishing a more equitable balance between ordinary working families and powerful corporate entities. "The entire existing regulatory regime for the banks," he told us after the vote, "is concerned only with the wellbeing of the banks. It's about time that we did something to promote the wellbeing of their exploited, abused customers."

Of course, Grayson was hardly the only person pushing for these basic consumer protections. Obama had asked Congress to address these things and Barney Frank has been adamant. He seemed elated after the vote as well: "This is a much stronger bill than people predicted months ago and it will only get better going forward." He recommended we take a look at remarks that Elizabeth Warren and Travis Plunkett made after the vote. We all know who Warren is, of course (Matt Taibbi's candidate for president) but Travis Plunkett is with the Consumer Federation of America-- an organization that looks to protect consumers, sort of a good version of the violently anti-consumer U.S. Chamber of Commerce. First Warren: "I just want to say, when I first came to Washington with the idea of this agency, everyone told me: 'The banks always win. Quit now, because the banks always win.' They didn’t win today. Chairman Frank has done something that is historic here... I never thought I would see this day, so I am delighted." Plunkett was as enthused as Warren and as overjoyed as the Chamber was bummed. "We think it's very significant that the first major hurdle has been cleared for this legislation. We are on the brink of a monumental achievement for consumers."

The Chamber called it "a step backward." For them indentured servitude would be a step in the right direction. The Chamber lobbyists were able to hold all the Republicans but Castle in line and they peeled off two of the most reactionary Democrats on the panel, Travis Childers (Blue Dog-MS) and Walt Minnick (Blue Dog-ID), two who can always be counted on to vote against the best interests of ordinary working families when those interests are in conflict with banksters. Even Republicans in serious electoral difficulties because of anti-family voting records-- like Michele Bachmann (R-MN), Lynn Jenkins (R-KS), Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI), Judy Biggert (R-IL), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), and Scott Garrett (R-NJ)-- voted against their own constituents. Lobbyist money was just too tempting for them. Opposite of these sleazy characters are members of Congress who really want to take the opportunity to make the lives of ordinary citizens better through government action. Brad Miller (D-NC) is a good example:

“The Committee vote today is a rifle shot at abusive financial practices, not a shotgun blast that would hit community banks making an honest living from fair lending practices. It’s no surprise that the lenders with the worst practices are still fighting tooth and nail against this bill. The last thing they want is to have to make an honest living."

And not all the Blue Dogs on the committee joined Minnick and Childers in their lobbyist-inspired sprint across the aisle. Dennis Moore (D-KS) was more Democrat and less Blue Dog Thursday:

“Protecting consumers is a must in any new financial regulatory system, and the Consumer Financial Protection Agency will help make that happen. I commend Chairman Frank for his leadership on these issues, and I look forward to working with him and other Members as we move forward in the process to improve not only CFPA, but the rest of the financial regulatory reform package so we can strengthen protections for all consumers, investors and taxpayers."

Do Congressmen Really Betray Their Constituents To Vote For Their Campaign Donors? Let's Look At Two, One Dem and One Repug, Who Just Did

Allen Boyd forgot his makeup; Paul Ryan never leaves home without it

Last week the DCCC had an inspired idea in their campaign to unseat fast rising Republican leader, Paul Ryan (R-WI). All the media outlets in Milwaukee, Racine, Kenosha, and Janesville got a press release entitled "Representative Paul Ryan Just Says No To Putting More Americans on the Path to a Better-Paying Job and Reducing the National Debt." The release went out on the 17th, right after Ryan voted against HR 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009, which passed with a huge majority, 253-171. It's the largest single federal investment in higher education in American history." Six mainstream conservative Republicans crossed the aisle and voted with the Democrats but Ryan never even considered such a move. He's dead set against the entire philosophy of government actually helping improve people's lives, He lives in a dark, black and white world where the only rules that matter are the Law of the Jungle and the Golden Rule-- he with the most gold rules and everyone else can go die. It's nothing new for Paul Ryan to oppose a common-sense solution meant to help Americans compete for the best jobs, by helping families afford college tuition. It was somewhat shocking, though, that he also voted against paying down the national debt, particularly given his role-- as a 100% rubber stamp for the Bush Regime-- in running up the national debt to its highest levels in history.

“Given the chance to help more students compete for a better-paying job while paying down the national debt at the same time, Representative Paul Ryan sounded an all-too-familiar tune: no,” said Ryan Rudominer, National Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Parents struggling to pay for their children's college in this economy deserve better than Representative Ryan trying to block a solution that will put them on the path to a better-paying job.”

 
The measure, which was violently opposed by predatory lenders who make a bundle off student loans-- and the political hacks on their payroll-- will make federal student lending more efficient through a variety of reforms that will save the federal government $87 billion. Of those savings, $77 billion will be invested toward making college more affordable and $10 billion will be used to pay down the national debt. The measure increases the amount of Pell Grants over the next two years, lowers the interest rates of federally subsidized student loans, expands the Perkins Loan program, and streamlines the application form for financial aid and envisions cost savings by:

o       Converting federal lending to the Direct Loan Program.
 
o       Establishing a competitive bidding process, allowing the U.S. Department of Education to select lenders based on how well they serve borrowers.
 
o       Allowing non-profit organizations to continue servicing student loans.

In Ryan's southeast Wisconsin district alone 14,127 students will get Pell Grants in 2010 and the total amount available for the districts students rises from $50.1 million to $62.3 million. Ryan has never given a second thought to the well-being of his constituents, other than the ones who give him big campaign contributions anyway. On the other hand, it was a bit of a shock when Blue Dog Allen Boyd, who represents the hard-pressed eastern part of Florida's panhandle, crossed the aisle and voted with the Republicans. The DCCC didn't send out a press release to Tallahassee media outlets about that.

Under the new law Boyd's district, FL-02, will see Pell Grants for 19,322 students rise from $55.1 million to $68.5 million. And if there's a district that needs that kind of help for young people it's FL-02, where 18.1% of the residents under 65 (126,000 people) have no health insurance whatsoever and where unemployment levels are catastrophic and where 36,282 home foreclosures are projected in the next four years. And yet Boyd, like Ryan and the rest of the GOP, adamantly opposes the government helping average working families, although both are perfectly fine with multi-billion dollar corporate bailouts for Wall Street banksters. Ryan has taken in more in thinly veiled bribes from finance companies than any other member of the Wisconsin House delegation, including members who have been there far longer than he has. And Boyd has taken in even more than Ryan! Help defeat corrupt Blue Dogs like Allen Boyd on our nice, new BadDogs page; Ryan has his very own page, StopPaulRyan.

What's Wrong With Paul Ryan (R-WI)?

Wisconsin's shame: two clowns

Paul Ryan has become the front man for the worst excesses and betrayals of the Republican Party. He's the less ugly face of the more ugly policies we all rejected at the polls in November when we elected Barack Obama instead of opting for a third Bush term-- including, by the way, a majority of the voters in the southeastern part of Wisconsin Ryan purports to represent. Wednesday we were looking at Ryan's anti-health care agenda the latest travesty he trotted out to simulate solving problems without actually offering any substantive solutions.

Yesterday the DCCC sent media alerts to all the press outlets in Kenosha, Racine, Janesville, Waukesha and Milwaukee so that Wisconsin residents would be aware that the state's entire congressional delegation-- minus Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner-- voted to pass the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act. And it did pass-- 300-114-- 60 Republicans joining the Democrats to protect consumers from predatory and abusive mortgage lenders. In Wisconsin everyone from Dave Obey (D-Wausau) to Tom Petri (R-Fond du Lac) got behind the bipartisan reform measure.

So the question is, why, with record foreclosures, did Ryan decide to protect predatory lenders who have been victimizing mortgage applicants? Do you think it could possibly have anything to do with the huge amount of money, "donations," Ryan has been receiving from the financial, insurance and real estate sector? After all, the FIRE sector gives to everyone, right? Well, almost everyone. But very few are as richly rewarded as Paul Ryan. These are the contributions from this sector that each Wisconsin House member has gotten (with the number of years they've been in office):

Paul Ryan- $1,593,345 (in 10 years)
Ron Kind- $786,911 (in 12 years)
Jim Sensenbrenner- $625,707 (in 30 years)
David Obey- $617,796 (in 40 years)
Tammy Baldwin- $330,648 (in 10 years)
Gwen Moore- $319,779 (in 4 years)
Tom Petri- $316,520 (in 30 years)
Steve Kagen- $131,835 (in 2 years)

They sure seem to like Mr. Ryan... a lot. And he has never once let the well-being of his constituents get in the way of his unswerving loyalty to the crooked bankers and insurance cheats who have financed his political career. True, Wisconsin hasn't been hit with the tidal wave of foreclosures that Florida, California, Nevada, Arizona and Georgia have. Oh, wait... there is a Wisconsin district that has been as hard hit as the California and Florida districts-- Ryan's district. The projected foreclosures over the next 4 years in WI-01 are 14,874. That's a lot of families being pushed out of their homes.
“Responsible Wisconsin families who played by the rules but are still losing their homes in this foreclosure crisis can thank Representatives Paul Ryan and James Sensenbrenner for voting to protect predatory lenders instead of trying to help them keep their homes,” said Ryan Rudominer, National Press Secretary for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

The bill Ryan opposed earlier this month puts an end to the kind of predatory lending practices that helped lead to the current financial crisis and also prevents borrowers from misstating their income to qualify for a mortgage. It also establishes statutory standards for all lenders and places limits on high-cost mortgages. And one of the parts Ryan objected to most strongly-- since it hits his crooked campaign contributors-- is that it bars lenders from steering consumers to loans that they cannot reasonably be expected to repay and prohibits lenders from paying mortgage brokers for getting consumers into loans with above-market interest rates. At the same time, the bill also requires that tenants in foreclosed properties be given at least 90 days notice before having to leave.

Paul Ryan has never had a serious opponent. Blue America is trying to find one for 2010. We would really appreciate any help you could give us with that endeavor.

House Passes Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act As 60 Republicans Ignore Their Own Leadership And Join The Democrats

Today the House passed Brad Miller's Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act (H.R. 1728), 300-114. And, yes, 111 Republican punks and 3 reactionary "Democrats" voted for kicking families out of their homes and for predatory lenders being able to prey on the public. 60 Republicans crossed the aisle in terror, abandoning their obstructionist leadership and voted with the Democrats. But, of course, all the crud from the bottom of Joe the Plumber's boots-- Boehner, Cantor, Ryan, Hensarling, Sessions, McClintock, Sessions, Garrett, Bachmann, Mean Jean Schmidt, Virginia Foxx, McHenry... al the worst garbage-- voted against working families as they always do.

Before the vote, Republicans offered 3 bankster-oriented amendments to undermine the effectiveness of the legislation, all of which failed. Interestingly there were only two uber-reactionary Democrats-- Bobby Bright from Alabama and Ann Kirkpatrick of Arizona-- who voted in favor of each anti-family amendment, one by Jeb Hensarling, one by Tom Price and one by Patrick McHenry, the three most extreme right members of the Financial Services Committee, who are all major shills for the banksters and work tirelessly to undermine regular American working families.

All of the candidates endorsed by Blue America backed this bill-- and several, like Tom Perriello, (D-VA) wrote amendments to strengthen it. On passage Tom was justifiably overjoyed. "This is another big victory for accountability in Washington. This bill holds consumers accountable who lie about their incomes to qualify for a mortgage, holds lenders accountable who rely on predatory practices to turn a profit, and slams the door shut on speculators. If Congress had passed these measures ten years ago, we may not be in today’s financial mess. This is why I came to Congress: to clean up the mistakes that Washington and Wall Street made that have put responsible homeowners at risk.”

Eric Massa (D-NY) had a similar perspective: "I'm proud to have helped pass this common sense, bipartisan legislation which was designed to protect consumers, improve the economy and prevent future economic calamities. Congress is taking action to hold creditors accountable and restore much needed regulation in the mortgage industry. We got into this recession because Washington was asleep at the wheel for eight years while Wall Street went wild, but those days are now over. The families of Western New York want Congress to pass good legislation that protects their interests and that's exactly what we've done today."

If the Senate passes the bill and allows Obama to sign it, it will put tighter oversight on mortgage brokers, and lenders will have to prove that homeowners are well-served when they refinance a home loan under the rule. The legislation would also help renters fight eviction when their landlords default on their mortgages.

Before the housing market started to dive in 2006, Wall Street routinely bought and bundled risky subprime mortgages, shifting 100 percent of the risk onto investors. The 5-percent "skin in the game" rule in the House bill is meant to end that.

Advocates for the risk-sharing provision say it will force banks to "eat their own cooking." But the bill also expands consumer protections.

Mortgage companies will have to prove that the homeowner derives a "net tangible benefit" from a refinancing. Consumer advocates have accused mortgage lenders of duping homeowners into refinancing their home for a quick cash fix that ended up costing the borrower much more in the long run.

Democrats Pass Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act-- While Every Single Republican Joins In Boehner's Efforts To Kill It With Parliamentarty Tricks

Republicans Want You To Grab For The Cheese

Even in the middle of what is turning out to be the worst financial crisis since anyone younger than John McCain was born, Republicans are still hell-bent on screwing over working families and serving their corporate masters. Yesterday the House overwhelmingly passed H R 5244, the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2008, 312 to 112. Only one reactionary Democrat, a Blue Dog of course, Herseth Sandlin, voted with the Republican leadership. Meanwhile 84 Republicans fled in the other direction, joining the Democrats to pass a bill meant to protect consumers from predatory credit card companies.

If, by some miracle, McConnell and McCain can be overcome when they seek to use the filibuster to kill the bill in the Senate, and if, by another miracle, Bush signs it, the new legislation will protect consumers from unsuspecting interest rate hikes on credit cards. The opposition was led on behalf of the banks and credit card crooks by their pet hack, David Dreier (R-CA). Dreier has taken massive legalized bribes disguised as "contributions" -- $385,850 from commercial banks, $115,733 from Savings and Loans, $135,543 from assorted crooked lobbyists and another $156,299 from other financial corporations. The bill was proposed by House Financial Services Financial Institutions Subcommittee Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). The bill calls for major new regulations on credit card issuers that the banking lobby, with Dreier's help, has been beating back for years. Under the new law banks will have 45 days to notify consumers of any interest rate hikes and would ban "universal default," a practice in which a consumer's interest rate on one card increases if he or she misses a payment on another card or the credit score drops. It also ends "double-cycle billing," in which consumers are charged interest for the entire amount charged during the billing cycle unless the bill was paid in full.

Without shame, even in the current economic situation, Republicans are howling on behalf of their corporate paymasters. Far right extremist and one of the pillars of the GOP's Greed and Selfishness wing, John Campbell (R-CA) who is a member of the Financial Services Committee, insisted that the credit crisis means the bill is "the opposite of what we need right now."

The House Republican leadership, well aware that many of it's members are facing defeat in November for serving corporate interests instead of their constituents' interests, decided to attempt to kill the bill with a parliamentary maneuver, a motion to recommit, which is easier for sleazy Republicans (and Blue Dogs) to vote for than a bill that could easily make it into a 30 second TV ad and be devastating. Although the bill itself passed 312-112, with 84 Republicans joined the Democrats, the attempt to kill the bill was much closer, 219-198, with not a single Republican voting against the maneuver. Nine nominal Democrats from the Republican wing of the Democratic Party-- regular suspects like Nick Lampson (D-TX), Heath Shuler (D-NC), Harry Mitchell (D-AZ), and Trent Childers (D-MS)-- joined with their ideological brothers to try to kill the bill.

Among the dishonest Republicans who voted to kill the bill and then, choking in fear of their November meeting with voters, actually went against their own anti-families instincts and against their bribers' wishers to vote with the Democrats were

Mary Bono Mack (R-CA)
Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV)
John Culberson (R-TX)
Charlie Dent (R-PA)
the notorious Diaz-Balart Brothers (R-FL)
Thelma Drake (D-VA)
Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Jim Gerlach (R-PA)
Virgil Goode (R-VA)
Sam Graves (R-MO)
Robin Hayes (R-NC)
Ric Keller (R-FL)
Joe Knollenberg (R-MI)
Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Dave Reichert (R-WA)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Chris Shays (R-CT)
Mike Turner (R-OH)
Fred Upton (R-MI)
Frank Wolf (R-VA)
Don Young (R-AK)

That list is basically the 22 Republicans most likely to lose in November and willing to sell out their own beliefs in fear. Below are another 13 Republicans in serious jeopardy of losing their seats but who are more afraid of their bankster campaign donors than of the voters.

Brian Bilbray (R-CA)
Steve Chabot (R-OH)
David Dreier (R-CA)
Scott Garrett (R-NJ)
Jon Kline (R-MN)
Randy Kuhl (R-NY)
Patrick McHenry (R-NC)
Steve Pearce (R-NM)
Mike Pence (R-IN)
Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Mean Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
John Shadegg (R-AZ)
Tim Walberg (R-MI)

Watch Carolyn Maloney, the principal sponsor of the bill, explaining what it's all about on the floor of the House yesterday:

WHICH CONGRESSMEMBERS SUPPORT PREDATORY LENDERS OVER THEIR OWN CONSTITUENTS? NOT MANY... BUT THERE ARE SOME

Brad Miller is one of the more sensible members of Congress I've ever talked with. He's a genuine populist who is in public service to actually help ordinary Americans. There should be more like him. Last year he talked to me about how much he wanted to help the Democrats win a congressional majority so he could accomplish some very specific things. And way on top of that list was mortgage reform. Now who could be against reining in predatory lenders? You know the answer, right? Basically, members of Congress who are bribed by... predatory lenders.

Brad's bill passed last night by an overwhelming and bipartisan vote, 291-127. Not one Democrat dissented and even the most corrupt and reactionary Democrats went along with the legislation. Even 64 Republicans abandoned the Culture of Corruption in the vain hope that voters will forgive them for years and years of selling the government to corporate forces. Most of the Republicans who are most vulnerable electorally are the ones who crossed over and voted with the Democrats today-- rubber stamps like Chris Shays (CT), Bill Young (FL), Robin Hayes (NC), Gary Miller (CA), Phil English (PA), Heather Wilson (NM), David Dreier (CA), Roscoe Bartlett (MD), Shelley Moore Capito (WV), Frank LoBiondo (NJ), Vern Buchanan (FL), Charlie Dent (PA), Sam Graves (MO), Steven LaTourette (OH), Joe Knollenberg (MI). In fact, electoral vulnerability was more a factor in how Republicans voted than ideology. Even as extreme a right-wing loon as Gary Miller, afraid of being turned out by the voters, left Boehner and Bush and Blunt on their own.

Very few Republicans who voted for predatory lenders and against homeowners are seen as likely to be defeated. The exception however include these die hard Culture of Corruption kingpins:
Tom Feeney (FL)
Tom Reynolds (NY)
Michele Bachmann (MN)
Tim Walberg (MI)
Scott Garrett (NJ)
Mean Jean Schmidt (OH)
Randy Kuhl (NY)
Thelma Drake (VA)
Virgil Goode (VA)
Brain Bilbray (CA)
Vito Fossella (NY)
John Doolittle (CA)
Michale McCaul (TX)
Ric Keller (FL)
But the battle is hardly over. Kentucky Obstructionist Mitch McConnell has vowed to kill the bill in the Senate with his usual bag of parliamentary tricks. And if enough fearful Republicans join with the Democrats, Bush has promised the mortgage industry, which has funneled millions of dollars into the Republican Party in the last few years, that he will veto the bill to protect their interests.

The bill would ban lenders from making loans that borrowers can't repay, create a nationwide licensing system for mortgage brokers and make Wall Street banks that package mortgage securities into investments liable for violations of lending laws.

...Proponents of the changes say the current mortgage market tumult could have been averted had stronger federal laws been on the books years ago.

Democrats and consumer advocates say many subprime loans made to people with weak credit were essentially predatory: containing confusing terms, generating high fees for mortgage lenders and forcing low-income borrowers into loans they can't repay.

"The mortgages we're talking about have nothing to do with home ownership," said Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C., one of the bill's authors.

Nearly 2.3 million subprime mortgages are projected to reset at higher rates -- and often dramatically higher monthly payments-- through the end of next year. Many fear those loans will result in foreclosures that will drag down property values.

Financial markets around the world have been rocky for much of the year amid worries about the growing scope of losses in investments tied to U.S. home loans. Bear Stearns Cos. and Britain's HSBC Holdings PLC and Barclays Group PLC were the latest major banks to predict losses in the billions.

Watch Keith Ellison (D-MN), one of the sharpest of the freshmen members explain why this bill is meaningful for all homeowners.