Senator Feingold on financial bill: "It caves to Wall Street interests and it won't get my vote."

[Better Believe It]

Feingold: 'Standing Up to the Unholy Alliance Between Washington and Wall Street'
Statement by Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI)
June 30, 2010


WASHINGTON - Wall Street and its allies have been calling the shots in Congress for decades, so they must be glad to see how things are shaping up on financial regulatory reform. Congress is about to vote on a final bill that fails to fix the key flaws in the bills passed by both the House and Senate. At the start of this process I made clear that I had a simple test for financial reform -- will it stop another financial meltdown? This bill fails that test, and I won't support legislation that fails to protect the people of Wisconsin from the pain of another economic disaster. And I don't need to be lectured about this issue by people who supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for this terrible recession.

I had hoped I would be able to support the legislation, given the clear need for strong reform. I cosponsored a number of critical amendments during Senate consideration of the bill including a Cantwell-McCain amendment to restore Glass-Steagall safeguards, Senator Dorgan's amendment that addressed the problem of "too big to fail" financial institutions, and another "too big to fail" reform offered by Senators Brown and Kaufman that proposed strict limits on the size of those institutions. Each of those amendments would have improved the bill significantly, and each of them either failed or was blocked from even getting a vote.

After that, it wasn't a close call for me. It would be a huge mistake to pass a bill that purports to re-regulate the financial industry but is simply too weak to protect people from the recklessness of Wall Street. That would be like building an impressive-looking dam without telling everyone that it has a few leaks in it. False security is no security at all.

Since the Senate bill passed, I have had a number of conversations with key members of the administration, Senate leadership and the conference committee that drafted the final bill. Unfortunately, not once has anyone suggested in those conversations the possibility of strengthening the bill to address my concerns and win my support. People want my vote, but they want it for a bill that, while including some positive provisions, has Wall Street's fingerprints all over it.

In fact, reports indicate that the administration and conference leaders have gone to significant lengths to avoid making the bill stronger. Rather than discussing with me ways to strengthen the bill, for example, they chose to eliminate a levy that was to be imposed on the largest banks and hedge funds in order to obtain the vote of members who prefer a weaker bill. Nothing could be more revealing of the true position of those who are crafting this legislation. They had a choice between pursuing a weaker bill or a stronger one. Their decision is clear.

On this bill, like the others that preceded it, the biggest financial interests have won.

I've seen this too many times before. When I was in the Wisconsin State Senate, I chaired the Senate Banking Committee for nearly a decade, and fought against enactment of an interstate banking law that resulted in the concentration of financial assets and most large Wisconsin banks being bought up by even larger out-of-state banks.

Shortly after I came to the U.S. Senate we considered a national interstate banking bill, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act of 1994, which accelerated the concentration of financial assets, and the creation of "too big to fail" firms. I was one of only four senators to oppose that legislation. Five years later, I was one of only eight Senators to oppose the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall and paved the way for this disastrous recession, which has been an economic nightmare for so many Americans.

Those two measures -- the 1994 law and the 1999 law -- accelerated the trend toward increased concentration of financial assets, aggravating the problem of "too big to fail." Before those two laws were enacted, the six largest U.S. banks had assets equal to 17 percent of our GDP. Today the six largest U.S. banks have assets equal to more than 60 percent of our GDP.

Ultimately, it was the threat of the failure of the nation's largest financial institutions that spurred the Wall Street bailout. I opposed that measure as well, in part because it was not tied to any fundamental reforms of our financial system that would prevent a future crisis and the need for another bailout. We could have had a much tougher reform package if the bailout had been tied to such a measure.

Every single one of those bills caved to Wall Street and the biggest financial interests, and so does the current regulatory reform bill. Economist Dean Baker called this bill a "fig leaf," and former IMF Economist Simon Johnson has slammed the bill's failure to address "too big to fail." These experts paint an accurate picture of this bill's failings, and frankly those failings shouldn't come as a surprise. Many of the critical actors who shaped this bill were present at the creation of the financial crisis. They supported the enactment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, deregulating derivatives, even the massive Interstate Banking bill that helped grease the "too big to fail" skids. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the final version of the bill looks the way it does, or that I won't fall in line with their version of "reform."

This bill caves to Wall Street interests, it doesn't meet the test of preventing another financial crisis, and it won't get my vote.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/30-9

-------------------------------------------

Feingold Statement on Financial Regulatory Reform Conference Report


Monday, June 28, 2010



“As I have indicated for some time now, my test for the financial regulatory reform bill is whether it will prevent another crisis. The conference committee’s proposal fails that test and for that reason I will not vote to advance it. During debate on the bill, I supported several efforts to break up ‘too big to fail’ Wall Street banks and restore the proven safeguards established after the Great Depression separating Main Street banks from big Wall Street firms, among other issues. Unfortunately, these crucial reforms were rejected. While there are some positive provisions in the final measure, the lack of strong reforms is clear confirmation that Wall Street lobbyists and their allies in Washington continue to wield significant influence on the process.”

Senator Feingold was one of eight senators to oppose the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999. Senator Feingold also opposed the Wall Street bail-out in 2008. During consideration of the financial regulatory reform bill, Feingold cosponsored a number of key amendments to ensure that banks are no longer too big to fail, and that depression-era reforms to create a firewall between Wall Street and Main Street are restored, among other critical issues. None of these amendments were included in the final bill, which is why it failed Feingold’s test for real reform. Amendments Feingold cosponsored included:

Cantwell-McCain-Feingold amendment to restore the Glass-Steagall firewall between Wall Street and Main Street
Senator Dorgan’s “too big to fail” amendment, which requires that no financial entity be permitted to become so large that its failure threatens the financial stability of the U.S.
Brown-Kaufman amendment proposing strict limits on the size of financial institutions
Dorgan amendment to ban so-called naked credit default swaps, speculative bets that played a role in the economic crisis
Merkley-Levin amendment to prohibit any bank with government insured deposits from engaging in high-risk finance, like investing in hedge funds or private equity funds

http://feingold.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=326020


Great! Let's hope that Senator Sanders and other liberal Democratic Senators join Senator Feingold in a serious effort to kill this legislation written by and for Wall Street. If a "procedural filibuster" ends without the bill being withdrawn, most Democrats who describe themselves as progressives or liberals should join Senator Feingold and vote against this bill. Will they? We'll find out who stands with the big moneyed "Wall Street" interests and who really stands with "Main Street" working people in an "up and down" vote. Only 7 Senators stood with Senator Feingold in 1999 when he opposed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall law. Learning the lessons of the economic collapse, how many Senators will join Senator Feingold eleven years later? BBI

[Oregone]

1. Wow. Good for him.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mimosa]

3. I admire Feingold. n/t

[amborin]

4. kudos to Feingold!

[scarletwoman]

5. Good for him. It sure would be nice if more Dems followed suit. K&r. nt

[ProSense]

6. The bill passed in the House. Kucinich voted for it

Roll call

[scarletwoman]

So?

Oooo, Kucinich! Well that's alright, then!

I can only speak for myself, of course. The thing is, since I'm dead set against the politics of personality, invoking Kucinich means nothing to me.

I know where I stand, I know what I think, and my principles are not dependent on what any given politician does or does not do.

sw

[Catherina]

39. So? Are we supposed to bow down, worship and follow suite or something? n/t

[Greyhound]

63. Did you have a point?

Oh wait...

just noticed who I was responding to.

Never mind.

[TheKentuckian]

95. Name dropping doesn't have the same impact with all people as it may with you

Many of us aren't waiting to be advised of our positions from on high. I find no human worthy of worship or unquestioning loyalty.

Kucinich is quoted because he often is caught telling the truth, not because he is the voice of the Lord or something.

[ProSense]

97. "Kucinich is quoted because he often is caught telling the truth"

So sometimes he doesn't tell the truth?

Who knew?

[ima_sinnic]

130. he is often CAUGHT telling the truth

the rest of the time, nobody noticed.

[TheKentuckian]

134. He's a pol.

:shrug:

[Dinger]

7. Kick & Rec #5 Fro Me!

Thank you Senator Feingold!!:patriot:

[BzaDem]

8. Uh huh. The status quo is better than this bill, which includes the CFPA and other regulation.

:sarcasm:

I wonder what the up-is-down caucus will think of next. (Though I fully expect Feingold will see reason on the fourth or fifth future vote if his vote is needed.)

[dflprincess]

12. And if this faux reform passes the Democrats will declare the issue closed

and move on to their next dog and pony show.

Until the next melt down happens - but then it will be too late to do anything.

If there had been any interest in real reform they would have at least reinstated Glass-Steagall - with some tweaks to take care of "too big to fail" and other scams that Wall Street has come up with since its repeal.

[Robeson]

16. Yes, but there will be a great signing ceramony in the White House Rose Garden...

...and plenty of pens handed out for all! No matter that the bill won't stave off the next collapse - or get us out of this one - they'll still be pens for all.

[jp11]

27. Indeed and we will be told that it will protect us from the kind of things that

caused the recesion in the first place, this is huge america look at us see what we have done for you and remember this press conference where we said 'done' along with all our other 'done' moments in november.

[BzaDem]

43. That is utterly laughable. What makes you think it won't BE closed regardless of who declares what?

Do you seriously think that a better bill will pass in 2011 when it will require MORE Republican support?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[jgraz]

47. Once again: name one reform in the bill that actually changes anything

Just one.

[BzaDem]

51. Consumer Financial Protection Agency, endorsed by Elizabeth Warren.

Done.

[jgraz]

52. Wrong again, Bob.

What happens if Tim Geithner doesn't approve of something the CFPA does?

[BzaDem]

54. Tim Geithner has no power by himself over the CFPA. So the answer to your question is nothing.

It takes a 2/3 vote of the FSOC to override anything.

Nice try though. :hi:

[jgraz]

55. Uh huh. Watch what happens.

I guarantee you: anything that threatens a penny of bankster profit will be vetoed. If the FSOC is anything like Obama's deficit commission, it will be overloaded with "pragmatists".

[BzaDem]

57. So you admit that your example was crap.

Of course, only on DU would someone say "having ALL consumer regulations vetoed because there is no CFPA is MUCH better than setting up a CFPA with a 2/3 veto of the FSOC! :woohoo:"

Up is indeed down, and war is indeed peace.

[jgraz]

59. Nope. The bill is crap. My example stands.

You seem to have too much invested in "winning" this little debate and too little invested in arriving at the truth.

Warren has a lot invested in the CFPA because it was initially her proposal. She isn't happy with the final outcome, but she doesn't think the carveouts merit scrapping the entire proposal. I disagree. I think the CFPA is about to get steamrolled.

But, even if the CFPA turns out to be as good as Warren's wildest dreams, this bill will do nothing to prevent another collapse. Nothing. If you believe differently, explain how.

[BzaDem]

62. "This bill will do nothing to prevent another collapse"

Let's assume (for the sake of argument) that this is 100% true.

SO WHAT?

Seriously! When did it become a legitimate argument against a bill that it DIDN'T do something?

A bill should be passed if its positives outweigh its negatives (relative to the status quo). Whether or not a bill DOESN'T do something else doesn't even address that question! You have yet to spout a SINGLE policy negative of this bill relative to the status quo. There are obviously positive elements (such as the CFPA). Instead of trying to identify negatives relative to the status quo, and then making an argument that these negatives outweigh the positives, you are

1. Saying that passing a weak bill is a negative in and of itself (without identifying any actual negative policy implications), because this will somehow "close" the issue. This is wrong logic in all cases and all bills, not just this bill.

2. Changing the subject to what the bill doesn't do.

[jgraz]

65. Let me rephrase: this bill will guarantee another collapse

This is already being touted by Repugs as a "nuclear weapon". As far as financial reform is concerned, this is IT for the Obama presidency, unless the collapse catches him as it did Bush.

Once Obama signs this, we'll hear the same "thank God it passed" nonsense that we got with HCR, and everyone will pretend that they produced actual reform. It will become politically suicidal to raise this issue again among Democrats.

Meanwhile, the iceberg is still out there, and we haven't changed course one degree.

[BzaDem]

67. "As far as financial reform is concerned, this is IT for the Obama presidency"

I have a question.

Why in the WORLD do you think that if the bill fails, it won't be IT for the Obama presidency in terms of financial reform?

This logical falacy is becoming more and more frequent. People say things like

If X passes, it is it for X

without realizing that, regardless of the truth or falsity of the above,

If X fails, it is ALSO it for X.

[jgraz]

70. The healthcare bill failed once, and Obama tried again.

Unfortunately, it didn't make the bill any better. But we have an existence proof against your claim.

[BzaDem]

72. It actually never failed at all. It got 220 votes in the House, 60 votes in the Senate, and 219

in the House round 2.

Sure, there was a lot of public hand-wringing while Reid and Pelosi tried for 2 months to figure out a way procedurally without 60 votes in the Senate on the second round. But it never failed in a vote.

In fact, this example is proof in support of my claim that you can't substitute 60 votes for "leadership." You need 60 votes at least once in the Senate. "Leadership" got us out of the second 60 vote hurdle, but it could NEVER have gotten us out of the first 60 vote hurdle for the initial Senate bill.

In 1994, HCR never even succeeded in a vote. They had 56 Democratic votes in the Senate, and that was it. The end. It never advanced, because Republicans were not going to help Democrats pass HCR no matter what the bill contained or what support the public had for the bill.

Any other attempts?

[jgraz]

74. Hairsplitting. It was declared dead more times than Abe Vigoda.

If this bill was stalled or blocked by progressives, Obama would try again. Perhaps the next time, we could add some actual *reform* to the reform package.

[BzaDem]

76. What does that tell you, that people from Kucinich to Sanders think you are full of it?

If they thought their no vote would actually have made the bill more progressive and still pass, they would have done so.

What does it tell you when the ENTIRE progressive caucus in the House and all progressives in the Senate see reality in the exact opposite way relative to you? Are they ALL wrong, simultaneously? Or perhaps you are wrong and need to re-examine your premises?

Hmm. The entire Democratic congressional caucus in both houses is wrong? Or the person who is saying that is wrong? Which could it be? What a hard question.

[jgraz]

80. I think they were wrong in this particular case, but Obama left them very bad choices.

Actual leadership from the President was what we needed. We didn't get it.

[BzaDem]

81. What bad choices? If Kucinich thought what you were saying had ANY merrit

he could have worked to defeat the bill and tried for a better bill. If Sanders thought what you said was the slightest bit true, he could have killed the bill SINGLE-HANDEDLY.

Either a bill is going to pass (with Joe Lieberman's and Ben Nelson's vote) or it isn't. Bernie Sanders isn't stupid. He knows the extent of what can pass given any amount of "leadership" by Obama, and he could have used that knowledge to get the best bill that could have passed. (In fact, he did, notwithstanding your comments that say otherwise.)

[jgraz]

36. Pop quiz: what happens if the CFPA passes a rule that Tim Geithner doesn't like?

:shrug:

[Catherina]

40. Once the ingredients are baked into a cake, that's it. So no thank you to bad eggs. n/t

[jgraz]

46. It's really more of a pie than a cake

[Greyhound]

64. It's trying to build the pie higher.

:rofl:

[DCBob]

9. That's fine but if he continues to filibutster with the GOP he wont...

even have a chance to vote against the bill.

[Johonny]

13. I agree

All this fake filibuster bluffing is why we don't get stronger legislation. Legislatures use to let things get to votes...

[Better Believe It]

21. Feingold isn't filibustering! Did you see him filibuster on C-Span?

In fact, I don't see any filibusters happening on the Senate floor.

Do you have better cable reception than me?

[DCBob]

23. Hehe.. funny. I guess you missed the memo..

Actual Mr Smith-type filibustering does not happen anymore. Feingold is "filibustering" just by cooperating with the GOP.

[Better Believe It]

87. I guess you missed the Senate rules on filibustering.

"Actual Mr Smith-type filibustering does not happen anymore" only because Senator Reid doesn't require them.

He has the power to force traditional filibusters but refuses to use that power.

Would you like some credible links to verify that?

[DCBob]

89. The Myth of the Filibuster...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

[Better Believe It]

10. Some are urging Feingold and others to vote against the bill only if those votes don't stop passage!

But, if their Senate votes against the bill would stop the bill they are being urged to vote for it!

So vote against something you oppose only if your vote won't stop it and vote for something you're against in order to get it!

Now that sends a powerful message to Wall Street!

And the message is "you own Congress".

[BzaDem]

11. Ya wanna know what would really show Wall Street that they own Congress?

By defeating the bill. They would MUCH rather have no regulation than the regulation you call meager in this bill.

[Better Believe It]

17. Let me guess. Getting their "financial reform" bill passed?

I didn't call the bill meager as you claimed. Describing the bill as "meager" is being far to kind and charitable to Wall Street financial interests and their benefactors in Congress. It's far worse than that, according to Senator Feingold.

But, if you think there's "lots of really good stuff" in the bill as some 'moderates" claim I just have to disagree with you.

[BzaDem]

44. What part of the bill does he say will make it WORSE than the status quo?

Enough sanctimonious whining about how it isn't good enough. What part of the bill does Feingold think will actually make it worse?

Crickets.

[jgraz]

48. The part where we pass a status quo bill and call it "reform"

That won't just make it worse, it will be disastrous.


Or are you saying we should pass ANY bill, just to pass something? (Fair warning: if you say NO, be prepared to name a specific policy in the bill that improves the status quo.)

[BzaDem]

53. ANY bill that's the best bill possible and better than the status quo. Absolutely, without a doubt.

We should pass as many bills better than the status quo as possible, that are as progressive as possible. This bill has the CFPA (endorsed by Elizabeth Warren in its final form), which would be a huge accomplishment by itself. There are plenty of other programs in the bill that would be huge differences from the status quo, but that is besides the point, because the CFPA itself makes it worth passing.

Your flawed assumption is that it is somehow "bad" to pass a bill because it will prevent future bills from passing. This is wrong as a general matter in basically all cases. In reality, NOT passing a bill is what prevents a future bill from passing. NOT passing a bill results in no attempts to fix the problem for years or more (not the other way around). This is so mind-numbingly obvious that it should go without saying to any thinking person.

[jgraz]

56. How many healthcare reform bills will be passed in the next decade?

My guess? Zero.

Even with the disastrous news today about pre-existing conditions, the Democrats will point at that healthcare "reform", and the media will bow their heads and follow along.

[BzaDem]

58. What happened after 1994?

Its pretty hilarious that you are citing your imaginary future, when you could just look at the recent past for an exmaple of what happens when we go your preferred route.

[jgraz]

60. What happened is we had a weak centrist as a leader.

How's that working out for us now?

[BzaDem]

61. Way to change the subject. Again, you are looking at an imaginary future

where (in your imagination) we don't pass any other HCR bills. However, you could instead decide to look at a real past (i.e. 1994), where we didn't pass a bill, and passed nothing of consequence for 16 YEARS after that.

It is telling when one has to defend their position by making up a future and ignoring the past.

[jgraz]

66. You fail to connect the dots.

The 1994 fiasco (93, actually) was a failure of leadership. The same is true this time, although Obama did manage to get the political window-dressing of a bill signing ceremony.

Unless we have a leader with real strength and the courage of his/her convictions, we won't see real healthcare reform in our lifetimes. Same goes for financial reform.

[BzaDem]

68. Why do you think that "leadership" matters AT ALL as to whether HCR passed in 1994?

I mean in the SLIGHTEST bit. The teensiest, tiniest, bit. Do you have even a CRUMB of evidence that "leadership" would have changed ANYTHING in 1994, when we had 56 Senate votes? People need to stop throwing buzzwords around when they have NO IDEA what they are talking about.

Are you going to whine about the "make them filibuster" canard that so many ignorant people whine about? I would hope not, since in reality, the majority leader has the power to force one single Republican to make a quorum call ever 15 minutes while forcing 51 Democrats to just stand there.

That's it. If only 49 Democrats are there, the quorum call will fail and the Senate will be in recess. So 51 Democrats have to stand there while a single Republican repeatedly calls for a quorum call every 15 minutes or so (or some other such BS motion). They can alternate a different Republican in whever they want (every few hours if they want), and the other 39 don't even need to be in the building.

If you think doing that would actually affect the passage or failure of any bill (let alone HCR in 1994, when we only had 56 Democrats), it explains a lot about your other posts.

[jgraz]

71. I was there. I was paying attention.

Just like with this bill, the President tried to appease far too many corporate interests. He lost popular support for the bill and he didn't have the political will to ram it through.

Even back in 94, a simple, Canadian-style single-payer system would have had overwhelming popular support. Democrats voting against it would have been run out of town on a rail. The problem then, as now, was a lack of spine and a lack of focus on the public interest.

[BzaDem]

73. Even if every single Democrat voted for it (as opposed to the 10 or so that would have in reality)

that wouldn't have passed the bill. If you thought that 4 Republicans in the Senate would have voted for cloture on a single payer bill, you are crazy. In fact, they wouldn't even vote for cloture on a bill that you purport appeased "far too many corporate interests."

[jgraz]

75. Perhaps, but then we might have gained seats in the midterms.

People respect strong, ambitious leaders. Even when they lose. The Democrats never seem to understand that.

[BzaDem]

77. Bush was an ambitious leader. He never backed down from his policies and wars.

Luckily, the people didn't respect him (by the end) in the slightest.

It is very convenient that when you don't get what you want, it is the ENTIRE Democratic congressional delegations' fault, and that if they only tried doing exactly what you want we would gain seats. Very convenient that reality always hews to your point of view so closely.

:rofl:

[jgraz]

78. And Bush got almost everything he wanted

Which part of that is so hard for you centrists to comprehend?

[BzaDem]

79. The fact that it isn't true in the slightest?

He got what he could get passed through reconciliation (his tax cuts for the rich). In fact, he couldn't even get them to NOT expire after 10 years (because of reconciliation), which is why they are going to expire after 10 years. Poof. Gone.

He failed at Social Security privatization, ANWR drilling, and immigration reform. There were long debates and spectacular failures.

Only you would call that "getting almost everything he wanted."

[jgraz]

82. Yes, missing three issues while looting the country is "almost everything"

Two wars
Tax cuts
Massive encroachment on civil liberties
Huge increase in executive power

Just to name his greatest hits.


He didn't get his hands on the last piggybank, Social Security. Luckily, Obama going to do that for him.

[BzaDem]

83. What is so hard to understand about the president having executive power, not legislative power?

Wars, encroachment on civil liberties, and increases in executive power, were all, well, increases in executive power. They were not examples of legislative power.

He got his tax cuts because they could go through reconciliation (and they are going to expire this year because they did go through reconciliation).

You are not making a very persuasive case that Bush got whatever he wanted from a legislative standpoint. SS privatization and immigration reform was his ENTIRE second term agenda, and it ALL failed in flames.

I sometimes wonder if the problem is our civics education in this country. It is really not that hard to comprehend that the President is the head of the executive branch, not the legislative branch.

[jgraz]

103. You act as if the President were some anonymous functionary

The President has enormous powers of persuasion and -- more importantly -- is the HEAD OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. He has almost absolute power over who gets support in their re-election bids. If he truly wanted to use that power, we wouldn't see Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln pulling the shit they do.

[BzaDem]

124. What makes you think that someone like Ben Nelson would even WANT his support?

They would rather campaign saying they defied Obama.

[jgraz]

128. Ben Nelson wants DSCC money

Obama could prevent him from getting it.

[DCBob]

84. Bush only got what he wanted if it related to wars and national security..

And even then he had to pull the signing statement non-sense several times to "clarify" the law. Bush was a complete idiot and ineffectual leader. Most of the stuff he was credited with getting done was actually due to the evil antics of Dick Cheney.

[jgraz]

101. And tax cuts and gun liability and Medicare Part D...

Are you kidding me? Bush got EVERYTHING he wanted. Every. Thing.

[DCBob]

116. Delete..

[DCBob]

117. delete..

[DCBob]

118. delete.. ?????

this keeps posting in the wrong place.. appears to be a bug.

[jgraz]

123. Are you perhaps expecting indentation when we've exceeded the indent limit?

:shrug:

[DCBob]

129. yeah, didnt realize there was limit..

so guess our debate is done due to a techincality.. ;)

[jgraz]

135. That's my general rule

When you run out of indentation, it's time to log off. :D

[scarletwoman]

18. You're operating under the delusion that Wall Street *doesn't* already know that it owns Congress.

That's really rather silly.

[Unvanguard]

14. His vote pushes the bill to the right, making it even less effectual.

Nicely done. :eyes:

[girl gone mad]

15. Actually, that's backward.

Feingold was on board until the bill kept being moved further to the right as Dems in congress and the WH caved to Scott Brown, despite the fact that he was never a guaranteed vote (they actually gave him MORE than he asked for - what does that tell you?).

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[DCBob]

25. We lost the bank tax due to Feingold's noble efforts..

You should be so proud.

[girl gone mad]

29. That's just a lie.

Keep spinning.

[DCBob]

31. Yeah, I guess Byrd dying had something to do with it also..

But Robert couldn't help that.

[girl gone mad]

34. They lost the bank tax because they chose to work with Scott Brown..

who was never going to agree to it in the first place.

Should have worked with Cantwell or Feingold from the beginning, but as you said, they didn't count on losing Byrd. They thought they could just pass some weak, watered down reform with a little help from Brown. Oops. Bad strategy.

[DCBob]

37. If they did what Feingold and Cantwell wanted they would have lost more votes..

Its a very difficult balancing act for Harry.

[Better Believe It]

98. So if Democrats do what Republicans want them to do they'll get more Senate votes!

I'm sure they will.

Now that sounds like a smart winning political strategy to me .... if you're a Republican or conservative Democrat.

[jeanpalmer]

69. The bank tax amounted to almost nothing

$19 billion over a number of years. The FDIC by itself has already spent $100 billion winding down failed banks. TARP cost $700 billion, AIG $187 billion so far. The bank tax was a token, a drop in the bucket.

The real issue in reform, as Finegold points out, was how to keep these financial institutions from causing another meltdown. And the resulting bill doesn't come close to getting it done.

[DCBob]

85. a billion here, a billion there...

who cares... as long as Feingold's reputation stays intact.

[Better Believe It]

19. Republican Browns vote and that of a few more Republicans pushes the bill farther to the right.

Don't leave the Republicans off the hook!

[Robeson]

22. Masterful politics. Republicans push a bill further to the right through concessions...

...then vote against it. They get what they want, but can tell their folks, they voted against it. We should take notes.

[DCBob]

26. Its being pushed to the right to get the votes of the moderate GOPers..

This has been done several times in the past.. I guess you forgot to take notes.

[Robeson]

28. Indeed it has. Brown has punked this administration before...

...I wholeheartedly agree.

[DCBob]

33. Deals are always made with the opposition to get things done.. its been that way for eons..

Brown's a rookie... he will learn.

[girl gone mad]

35. Looks like that rookie punked the White House.

[DCBob]

86. Hardly.. if anyone is punkworthy its Feingold..

You cant trust his vote on any legislation now.

[Better Believe It]

90. You mean Senator Feingold isn't in Wall Streets pocket? I think that's good, not bad.

[Raineyb]

105. Indeed.

Anyone who thinks that having a Senator who ISN'T in Wall Street's pocket is a bad thing ought to come out of the closet and declare themselves a Republican. Seriously, the idea that Democrats are mad because a senator wants to strengthen reform is bizarre.

[Unvanguard]

24. If Feingold voted for it, that would be one less Republican vote needed.

It's not difficult to see the policy implications of that. His approach is transparently counterproductive.

[girl gone mad]

30. Then why didn't the administration concede to Feingold's demands instead of Brown's????

Seems to me they made their bed.

They chose to appease a sleazy, scummy Republican prick and ignore a good, solid progressive Dem. That was their choice.

Now you wanna whine that Feingold isn't rolling over for you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

[Unvanguard]

38. Because they needed sixty votes. n/t

[jgraz]

49. Then why not just pass the "National Puppies are Cute Act"?

It would do the same to improve financial regulation, and it would guarantee 60 votes.

[Unvanguard]

50. Write your Congressperson. n/t

[Better Believe It]

88. Wrong! They only need 51 votes to pass Wall Streets legislation.

[NorthCarolina]

110. Simple, because Brown's demands are consistent with corporate conservative ideals

whereas Feingold wants the type of reform that would actually reign in the banks. While Feingolds demands may be beneficial from a public perspective, they are not exactly acceptable to Wall St.

[Better Believe It]

91. So Republican votes are needed because all Democrats don't do Wall Streets bidding?

Or because Democratic Senators don't control the Senate, Republicans do?

[Raineyb]

93. If they want Feingold to vote for it give him something he can vote for.

They have no qualms whatsoever when it comes to giving the right wing everything they want and more to get them to vote for a piece of legislation and then the Republican doesn't vote for it anyway. So if they want the man's vote give HIM something he can vote for and stop pandering to the right wingers.

This is ridiculous, people on a board who get so pissy when you dare excoriate Democrats for being weak are actually arguing to push a bill even further to the right. The Democratic party is NOT supposed to be Republican light and yet that's exactly what you're demanding. ANd you wonder why there's such a large contingency of people who have been screaming about what's been going on. HELLO! THIS is the bloody problem. How can you expect the vote from people on the left if you don't give them anything to vote for?

[jgraz]

32. K&R. Best Democrat in Washington.

[slipslidingaway]

41. knr nt

[Catherina]

42. Thank you Sen Feingold! You speak for me. n/t

[nilram]

45. I LOVE YOU SENATOR FEINGOLD!!!

There was a "Cantwell-McCain amendment to restore Glass-Steagall safeguards"? ??? Where were you, DU? We should have sent roses to this!

Rec this UP, people!

[Better Believe It]

92. Why Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur voted against the Wall Street bill

Why a bank-bashing populist Democrat opposed the Wall Street ‘reform’ bill
By John Nichols, Capital Times associate editor
July 1,2010

No member of the House has been a harsher critic of the abuses of big banks and Wall Street than Ohio Democrat Marcy Kaptur.

No member of the House has been more on target in her condemnations and her calls for reform.

During the bank bailout fight of 2008, Kaptur became a national folk hero as millions of Americans clicked on YouTube videos of her ripping the bankers who had come to Congress looking for handouts. “The crimes of Wall Street will make Watergate look like penny ante thieves,” she declared.

So how did Kaptur vote on the final version of the optimistically named Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009?

But, while Democrats generally backed the bill, Kaptur cast a “no” vote.

A loud and unapologetic “No!”

Why did the most ardent reformer in the House reject what she dismissed as a “so-called bill”?

Kaptur told the House that the measure often seems to “support the very same big banks (that caused the crisis) and not the American people and the communities in which we live, in the Main Street that all of us are sworn to represent.”

In particular, she complained: “The bill allows financial power to create wealth, the bankers’ awesome power, to be closely held in a few Wall Street and Charlotte-based megabanks. The bill does not address the business model of credit rating agencies or how interwoven these nongovernmental agencies are with the institutions they rate. The bill does not require that all derivatives be traded through transparent exchanges. The bill does not adequately support both agencies dedicated to finding and fighting fraud in our financial system, and it really doesn’t do anything to address the continuing mortgage foreclosure hemorrhage, the crisis going on across our country.”

In other words, this is not reform.

And unlike most members of the House -- Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives -- Marcy Kaptur is serious about reform.

Read the full article at:

http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_06798d20-5afb-535a-baee-b1651ba6205b.html

[geek tragedy]

100. All of the bad stuff she's complaining about will happen

if the bill gets defeated.

Another fauxgressive afraid of Wall Street.

[ProSense]

94. Why we need to pass the Wall Street reform bill

Why we need to pass the Wall Street reform bill

by: Chris Bowers

In the extended entry, you will find a very lengthy description of what victories were won in the Wall Street reform bill, what compromises were made, and what defeats were suffered. It is, on balance, an argument for why we should pass the Wall Street reform bill, and a roadmap of where the fight continues.

Senator Russ Feingold is a personal hero of mine. Today, he posted an editorial explaining why he is opposing this bill. I am not going to pick a fight with Senator Feingold over what he could have done, or should have done on the bill. While this is a rebuttal of sorts, mainly it is to let people know that there is a lot of good in this bill, and it is possible to present that information in an honest, self-aware manner that acknowledges where it falls short.

There are a lot of victories in this bill. We need to pass those victories into law. If the bill is defeated by pro-Wall Street forces over the next two weeks, the only parts which will be defeated are the victories, while all of its shortcomings will remain in place. If it is defeated, the 1999 financial deregulation package will remain the basic framework under which our financial system operates, and we all know how that worked out. If it is defeated, no one will ever really take on the banks again, as their victory even after a financial meltdown, even at the trough of their popularity, and even during wide Democratic control of Congress, would demonstrate their invincibility.

The list in the extended entry was prepared by numerous people associated with Americans for Financial Reform. It is a work in progress, but I hope you find it to be a useful touchstone.

Pass the bill.

What happened on Wall Street Reform? Battles won, lost and somewhere in between...

<...>

Derivatives Clearing
Clearing requirements will ensure that trades are processed through third-party clearinghouses that guarantee payment in case of default and require parties to have cash to back their bets.

• We won: Despite tremendous pressure from special interest groups claiming they should be exempt from clearing requirements, it is estimated that the conference report will require around 90% of standard derivatives to clear. This means that once the bill is passed large banks, insurance companies, hedge funds and other financial institutions will be required to submit standardized swaps to clearinghouses and post margin to back their bets. The only exemptions from the clearing requirements are for commercial companies like airlines and home heating oil distributors and other small players in the derivatives market who are legitimately hedging risk.

Derivatives Trading
Currently, over-the-counter ('OTC') derivatives are considered private contracts. There is no way for regulators to analyze all the derivatives activity going on in the system and determine whether there is risk to the system. There is also no way for derivatives users to determine whether they are getting a fair price.

• We won:
  
  
  • Derivatives will be traded on an open, regulated exchange or "swap executive facility" much like the New York Stock Exchange.
    
    
  • Regulators will have the information they need to oversee risky activities and prevent fraud.
    
    
  • Market participants will also be able to access a constant feed of real-time pricing data for standard derivatives that will allow them to shop around for the best deals on derivatives so they can manage price fluctuations in products they use in their day-to-day operations.

Derivatives Enforcement:

• We won: Regulators have authority to take action if a clearing house refuses to accept a transaction that regulators have determined must clear.
  
  
• We compromised: The only limit on regulators' authority is that they cannot force a clearinghouse to accept a swap for clearing if it would undermine the financial integrity of the clearinghouse or create systemic risk.

more

[branders seine]

96. Good for Senator Feingold.

Even the Christians needed to win one occasionally in the arena.

[geek tragedy]

99. Russ Feingold (D-Wall Street)

He is acting as Wall Street's water boy here. Doing their dirty work, trying to kill reform while offering a bullshit excuse (doing nothing is better than doing not enough? Fuck you, Russ).

[Raineyb]

104. Asinine conclusion.

Really, trying to get the bill to actually make a difference is carrying Wall Street's water? No wonder people people think any old shit passed is "reform."

[geek tragedy]

108. Feingold is trying to prevent it from getting a vote.

He's trying to kill it at this stage.

[Raineyb]

111. He wants it improved. How is that the same as wanting to do nothing?

What planet do you live on Chuckles?

[geek tragedy]

113. Negotiations phase is over. It's up or down, yes or no now.

The conference report is done. The House has voted on the Conference report. Either the Senate does so as well and it becomes law, or it dies.

Pass it or kill it.

Feingold is voting to kill it.

[Raineyb]

120. Then it dies. It's not that big a loss the bill didn't really do anything anyway.

But I'll always respect the hell out of someone who stands on principle. Merely passing something to say we "won" is bullshit.

[geek tragedy]

133. I have no respect for people who'd rather feel proud than

improve the country.

[Better Believe It]

106. So Russ Feingold is a Wall Street Republican? I guess that would make Senator Sanders a fascist.

And Senator Brown is a left-wing radical.

Black is white.

White is black.

War is peace.

Thanks for the info!

[geek tragedy]

107. Sherrod Brown is a leftwing progressive.

He and Bernie Sanders are doing the right thing.

[Raineyb]

112. Passing a bill that does nearly nothing is NOT doing the right thing.

Thank the deities SOMEONE is standing up for principles. Clearly you don't believe there's ever a time to do so. But capitulation to the right wing is just fine right?

[geek tragedy]

114. Feingold is voting to kill the bill and give Wall Street EVERYTHING

they wanted--Feingold is voting to do nothing.

No regulation of derivatives.

No consumer protection agency.

Nothing.

Russ Feingold is voting to keep everything as it is.


There is no more modifying it. That stage of the legislative process is over.

[Raineyb]

119. He wants them to FIX it. Why the hell would he vote for something he doesn't think

will fix anything while the party is bending over backwards to make the bill even weaker by catering to REPUBLICANS. They can fix it if the WANTED to. The truth is they don't want to because they're as beholden to Wall Street as the Republicans. Not a lick of difference between the two when it comes to financial regulations it would appear.

So in Magicland, where you apparently live, it's perfectly okay for them to weaken the bill to suck up to assholes who still won't fucking vote for it just to have something to vote for despite the fact that it does precious little to actually regulate the banks (because they wouldn't bother to put it up for a vote if it did apparently ) and this is touted as a move toward the left, but God forbid a liberal should withhold his support because he doesn't like it because it doesn't go far enough and that helps the right wing? Bullshit! It's called principles you might want to look into it.

The Republicans are doing all they can to make sure that the legislation will do not a damn thing, and then they'll not vote for it and brag about it meanwhile when the shit hits the fan, and it will because this bill doesn't actually do anything to prevent another catastrophe in the financial sector, guess who's going to be blamed. The Democrats who passed the half-assed bill! Meanwhile, the Republicans keep setting traps by turning the bills into shit and then voting against them and you and the rest of your ilk keep falling for it. People respect someone who takes a principled stand. Feingold is not the problem. People with your mindset are.

[geek tragedy]

132. Since St. Russ refused to vote for it, they had to suck up to

an extra Republican.

Which meant weakening it.

Feingold is behaving like the caricature of an idiot purist.

[Better Believe It]

137. Do you accept Republican claims that 60 votes are needed to pass legislation and

nothing can pass the Senate without the approval of at least a few Republicans?

[Ignis]

122. That's a pretty bold assertion. Have any support for it?

Keep in mind, we're talking about Russ Feingold here--you know, the guy who's made campaign finance reform, fair trade, and opposition to NAFTA essential parts of his politics over the past decade or so.

How exactly is he "Wall Street's water boy?" :shrug:

[blindpig]

102. As though his vote will make any difference

it will pass, the fix is in.

[Better Believe It]

109. If Senator Feingold and other Democrats indicated they will engage in an actual Senate

filibuster that might make a difference and force some significant changes to "the left" in return for their votes. You only need 50 votes to pass a bill in the Senate with Vice-President Biden casting the tie breaker.

[Raineyb]

121. Apparently only Blue dogs and Republicans are allowed to indicate that they will

filibuster because they don't like a bill. Everyone else is supposed to vote for half-assed legislation because the party says so. You never see the type of vitriol levied toward LIEberman, Landreiu, Nelson, and Lincoln do you? Says a lot about where the party is doesn't it?

[AtomicKitten]

115. Feingold is welcome to vote against the bill. He's NOT entitled to join the GOP in a filibuster.

[Better Believe It]

126. What filibuster? Do you see a filibuster on C-Span? I must have a bad cable connection.

Or are you writing about the "let's pretend we're filibustering" filibusters?

Now any Senator who wishes to stop Wall Streets bill from becoming law is not only entitled but should be encouraged to oppose this weak bill by any means necessary.

Why do some always demand that liberal Senators support legislation that is supported by so-called "moderate" Wall Street Republican whores?

I think some Republicans will and are opposing this bill because they believe it will not stop a deeper economic crash within the next several months. Given that outcome, the "anti" Republicans will of course claim they had nothing to do with passing this legislation and unlike those who vote for the bill are not mere puppets of Wall Street. They will magically convert themselves into bogus "populists"!

Is that really so difficult for any astute political person to understand?

[AtomicKitten]

127. Reality: The imposition of a 60-vote threshold is indeed a filibuster. nt

[Better Believe It]

136. Why is Senator Reid sanctioning this bogus invisible filibuster?

He has the power to immediately end this "procedural" stalling tactic used by Republicans under Senate Rule 22.

[gulfcoastliberal]

125. Thank you Se. Feingold for speaking the truth. Huge K&R!

Not reinstating the Glass-Steagal standards is unacceptable. Feingold is doing the morally corect thing.

[sendero]

131. I was nominally for this bill..

... until I found out that a lot of the restrictions on derivative trading for banks could take as long as 12 years to kick in.


WHAT A FUCKING JOKE. I hope Feingold scuttles this piece of shit.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

138. So if Russ votes against the bill, along with Republicans (who do so on "principal"),

will Russ be demonized as being a Republican sympathizer ala Dennis Kucinich?