End of omnibus jeopardizes funding for Wall Street regulation

[Joanne98]

Source: The Hill

Increased funding for financial regulators implementing the Wall Street reform bill has been jeopardized by the Senate's scrapping of an omnibus spending measure.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) announced Thursday night that he lacked the support needed to advance a $1.1 trillion omnibus bill, and instead would focus on crafting a short-term funding measure to keep the government running beyond Saturday.

That decision could put the budgetary fate of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) more in the hands of Republicans, who opposed the Wall Street overhaul that called for increased financial regulation. Regulators at the SEC and CFTC were counting on the additional funds to hire workers to implement the reform measure.



Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/134195-added-funding-for-dodd-frank-agencies-in-flux

[TwilightGardener]

1. Well...that sucks.

Edit to add: the tax issue was just the beginning of some bad shit headed our way in January.

[KamaAina]

2. It jeopardizes LOTS of stuff

it puts the budgetary fate of, well, pretty much everything in the hands of repukes. :scared:

Example:

http://www.offthechartsblog.org/tens-of-thousands-could-lose-housing-assistance-under-proposed-funding-cuts/

Earlier this year, the full House and the Senate Appropriations Committee approved separate bills that would provide enough funding for fiscal year 2011 (which started October 1) to renew all vouchers now in use, according to our analysis. But Congress hasn’t approved any final funding bills for the fiscal year and, in the meantime, proposals to make deep cuts in overall funding for non-defense programs have gained momentum.

Here’s a breakdown of what could happen to voucher funding under three plausible scenarios:

“Omnibus” spending bill could mean loss of vouchers for 38,000 families. If Congress approves an omnibus spending bill before the end of December, overall funding for discretionary programs is likely to be reduced at least to the level proposed by Senators Sessions and McCaskill earlier this year. If the reductions were spread evenly across nondefense discretionary programs, renewal funding for 38,000 vouchers would be eliminated.

Long-term funding resolution could mean loss of vouchers for 100,000 families. If Congress can’t agree on an omnibus appropriations bill, it could approve a resolution to continue to fund federal agencies at 2010 levels (without adjusting for inflation) through the rest of the fiscal year. Such a “continuing resolution” would eliminate funding for 100,000 vouchers. (The number is so large in part because Congress has funded new vouchers for homeless veterans, people with disabilities, and other vulnerable populations in recent years, and a large share of these vouchers must be renewed for the first time in 2011.)

Short-term funding resolution could mean loss of vouchers for 475,000 families. Congress could leave final decisions to the next Congress by approving a temporary resolution to fund federal agencies at 2010 levels through early next year. Under this scenario, the new House would almost certainly make major changes to most funding bills, and it likely would use as a starting point the September proposal by House Speaker-elect John Boehner to cut overall funding for nondefense discretionary programs by $101 billion. If such a deep cut were spread evenly across programs, the loss of voucher renewal funding would eliminate 475,000 vouchers.

:scared:

[Thav]

4. The above quotes talk about Housing Assistance Vouchers

I was confused when I started reading it, so I thought I'd share that bit of info.

[Odin2005]

6. Fuck, that that cover rent assistance, too? I'm on Section 8

:scared:

[xxqqqzme]

3. Just a reminder of who really is in control.

You think Senate rules are going to change on January 5? Reid will never let it happen.

[Turbineguy]

5. It's ironic really

since the millions who make a few measly thousands on their investments will pay more in taxes than those who steal it.