Feingold: 'Standing Up to the Unholy Alliance Between Washington and Wall Street'

[Zenlitened]

Statement by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI)
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/06/30-9

(snip)

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.

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

[slipslidingaway]

1. "False security is no security at all." knr nt

[BeyondGeography]

2. "Rather than discussing with ME ways to strengthen the bill..."

Fucking diva.

[Zenlitened]

3. I don't understand, why does that make him a diva?

:shrug:

Sounds like he's trying to be a firm negotiator, only to discover that negotiation is a one-way street, towards weakening the bill.

If they want his vote, shouldn't they try to win it, rather than simply insisting that he hand it over for nothing in return?

In practical terms, isn't that how negotiation is supposed to work?

[BeyondGeography]

4. Nothing in return?

Who does he think he is? Ben Nelson?

[Mass]

10. Why? Because wants as much attention as Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe?

They reopened the conference report to address my idiotic senator's concerns, and he still wont commit to vote for the bill. But they cant even try to address Feingold (and others) concerns?

[Hawkowl]

26. Do you mean Obama?

Who discusses nothing with his base and merely rolls over like an obsequious dog for the robber barons and banksters to throw him some table scraps?

Obama actually believes his own hyperbole; that to me is the definition of diva.

[BeyondGeography]

27. That's funny

Thanks.

[sabrina 1]

44. Excuse me, but who gave the executive branch of our

government more power than the legislative branch? I think you need some civic lessons on the equal powers held by all three branches of our government.

Feingold is DOING HIS JOB! And I sincerely wish people would learn why the Constitution granted equal powers to Congress and the WH.

Fyi, a U.S. Senator not only has the same power as a president regarding legislation, s/he does NOT work for the president, s/he works WITH the President and that Senator is ENTITLED to be consulted on legislation, not told how to vote.

This is so disturbing as we seemed to understand the balance of powers when Bush was trying to be king, and now, Democrats on this board, appear to be suffering from amnesia and have completely gone over to the rightwing view that the president doesn't have to bother with Congress at all. Disgraceful to call a U.S. Senator, one of the best we have, a 'Diva' for doing his job.

[geek tragedy]

5. Shorter Russ Feingold:

I am certain that Speaker Boehner will produce better legislation next year.

[DCBob]

6. Doesnt matter.. the bill was weakened to get others to support it..

but at least Russ has kept his reputation in tact.

[ProSense]

7. "Economist Dean Baker called this bill a 'fig leaf'" Here is what Baker said recently

On the positive side, the creation of a strong independent consumer financial products protection bureau stands out as an important accomplishment. Such an agency would have prevented some of the worst lending practices that contributed to the housing bubble. It will be important President Obama choose a strong and effective person, such as Elizabeth Warren, as the first head of the Bureau to establish its independence.

The requirement that most derivatives be either exchange traded or passed through clearinghouses is also an important improvement in regulation. However, important exceptions remain, which the industry will no doubt exploit to their limit.

The creation of resolution authority for large non-bank financial institutions is also a positive step, although the fact that no pre-funding mechanism was put in place is a serious problem. Also, the audit of the Fed’s special lending facilities, as well as the ongoing audits of its open market operations discount window loans, is a big step towards increased Fed openness.

link

In fact, the consumer protections in this bill are some of the strongest ever.

Feingold:

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."

Yes, the repeal of Glass-Steagall exacerbated the problem, but I don't buy his claim that the current bill doesn't address these issue. In fact, the current bill reinstates Glass-Steagall provisions and others that it did not address.

[Zenlitened]

12. Overall, Baker does not seem to be a fan, no?

From the link:

The Financial Reform Bill: A Very Limited Step Forward

FinReg bill falls short, especially in not ending Too Big to Fail.

The final compromise bill approved by the conference committee on Friday will improve regulation in the financial sector. However, given the severity of the economic crisis caused by past regulatory failures, the public had the right to expect much more extensive reform.

(snip)

...there is little in this legislation that will fundamentally change the way that Wall Street does business. The rules on derivative trading will still leave the bulk of derivatives to be traded directly out of banks rather than separately capitalized divisions of the holding company. The Volcker rule was substantially weakened by a provision that will still allow banks to risk substantial sums in proprietary trading.

More importantly, there is probably no economist who believes that this bill will end too big to fail. The six largest banks will still enjoy the enormous implicit subsidy that results from the expectation that the federal government will bail them out in the event of a crisis.

[ProSense]

17. Baker has been extremely critical of the bill so

it's interesting to see him acknowledge that it has many good things while qualifying it as a limited step forward.

Still, he always wanted a perfect bill.

The fact is that given the things that Baker points to as positive, why vote against the bill?

[hulka38]

41. "Still, he always wanted a perfect bill. "

Statements like this are the stuff cartoons are made of. What is at issue here? Is it whether or not a bill has some good stuff in it? Or is it, will this bill give us protection against the big banks? We know what the ingredients are for true structural reform. They are known. Put them in. No flour, no eggs - no cake.

[Zenlitened]

58. Maybe he's hoping for an opportunity to vote for a better bill?

:shrug:

[slipslidingaway]

8. Despite changes, Brown still noncommital on financial reform bill

They'll meet for Brown, but not to make the bill stronger.

:(


http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2010/06/despite_changes.html

"Senator Scott Brown is assiduously avoiding any commitments on the financial overhaul legislation, despite repeated efforts by top House and Senate lawmakers to win his vote.

The 43-member House and Senate conference committee met for two hours late yesterday afternoon to scrap a $19 billion tax, after Brown threatened to vote against the bill unless it was removed.

This morning, Brown continued to hold out, saying he would not make a decision on the bill for at least another week, after the Senate returns from a weeklong recess. The House is planning to take up the issue this afternoon, but Senate Democrats say they won't have time and won't vote until the week of July 12..."


From the original article ...

"...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...

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."

[BeyondGeography]

9. Come back to us with the magic potion that makes Russ and the mushy Republican middle feel good

thereby producing a filibuster-proof majority.

[dflprincess]

11. Did you read Feingold's statement?

He makes his reasons for voting against this farce pretty clear.

[msongs]

13. standing on principle is a shock to the administration & its fans lol nt

[treestar]

16. You do understand that means nothing would happen at all

Right wingers and left wingers could all stand on their principles at all times.

Why did Feingold "cave" on health care but not this?

[dflprincess]

20. Perhaps he learned his lesson after the insurance bill scam

or he thought the funding for community health clinics (which should have been a separate bill) made the sell out on Health Insurance Profit Protection Act worthwhile. From what he says in his statement, it sounds like there is nothing in this bill that really protects the public from the bankers and Wall Street.

If this bill passes, nothing will happen but the Democrats will once again spend a great deal of time patting themselves on the back for passing "reform" and consider the issue closed.

[ProSense]

22. Doubt it:

Each year, I travel to all of Wisconsin's 72 counties and hold an open, town hall-style meeting. In the 18 years I've held these listening sessions, health care has consistently been one of the top issues raised. And after listening to the people of Wisconsin on this issue, it is clear that they didn’t want us to walk away from the challenge of reforming our health care system. Thanks to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we are now one step closer to providing more insurance choices and lower costs for families and small businesses, more accountability for health insurance companies, and lower deficits for taxpayers.

link

FEINGOLD ANNOUNCES REBATE CHECKS HEADING TO WISCONSIN SENIORS FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS

[dflprincess]

30. It's an election year and even Feingold can't avoid exaggerating

But that $250 rebate check won't make much of a dent in the "donut hole" for many seniors. If it were that good a deal he'd be advertising that the insurance bill is going to take 10 years to close the hole.

You would think they the least that could have been done is that a stupid mistake from Medicare D bill could have been corrected immediately rather than dragging it out so people continue to be hurt. Doesn't give me much hope for them fixing problems with the Insurance Profit Protection Act.

[Catherina]

21. +1 n/t

[BeyondGeography]

15. Leaving things as is: an exponentially bigger farce

They'll be kissing his photograph on Wall Street if his opposition proves fatal.

[Nite Owl]

24. You aren't getting it

what would satisfy the middle GOP/dems is not what Russ wants. He wants a real reform not a show.

[sabrina 1]

54. Exactly, but with so much money going to members of Congress

from Wall St. he probably knows it's futile to expect real regulation, but he's making the point for the record. I'm sure in the end, he will be forced to give in. I wonder why, since they are so good at forcing those with principles to give in, they do not use that power to actually get real reform.

[Zenlitened]

55. Excellent post, IMO.

...he probably knows it's futile to expect real regulation, but he's making the point for the record. I'm sure in the end, he will be forced to give in. I wonder why, since they are so good at forcing those with principles to give in, they do not use that power to actually get real reform.

:applause:

[DCBob]

14. He's just not saying publicly but privately I suspect he and the Maine gals have agreed...

to support the revised bill. Snowe and Collins are doing the same thing. Its just smart politics to say they are still reviewing it and studying it as if they are putting a great deal of thought and effort into it and not just being bought off with a single modification.

[slipslidingaway]

18. That would be my bet as well, but it is revealing that they would...

meet again to obtain Brown's vote and not to try and strengthen the bill.

:shrug:

"...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..."

[DCBob]

19. If they strengthen the bill they would lose more votes then they would gain..

Its a numbers game.

[Dinger]

23. Thank You Russ,

again!:patriot:

[Dinger]

25. And He Won't Let His Arm Get Twisted By Anyone,

ever.

[ProSense]

29. He voted for health care reform and is responsible for

McCain-Feingold, which is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the law McCain kept ignoring throughout the 2008 campaign.

It's really good legislation, but no bill is perfect.

[ClassWarrior]

35. So you're saying that a principled Senator would have to have his arm twisted...

...to vote for Romneycare?

:rofl:

NGU.

[ProSense]

38. "principled Senator would have to have his arm twisted to vote for Romneycare"

Think about what you are saying: principled Senator votes for "Romneycare"

If that is the reality of the situation as you see it, that's not very principled, is it?

[ClassWarrior]

39. So you admit it's Romneycare and it only passed with arm twisting?

:rofl:

NGU.

[ProSense]

40. Do you know what quotation marks are for? n/t

[ClassWarrior]

42. For you to overuse??

:shrug:

NGU.

[SunsetDreams]

56. actually it's to prevent plagiarism

:shrug:

[ProSense]

61. Obviously, you got that one wrong. n/t

[ClassWarrior]

62. I'd be getting that one wrong all the way to the bank if I had a penny for...

...every time you used a quotation mark.

:rofl:

NGU.

[impik]

28. The selective purist has spoken

Whatever.

[jefferson_dem]

33. That's "Saint Russ the Purist"...

Get it right.

[ClassWarrior]

36. I guess some of us aren't lucky enough to be tainted like you.

:rofl:

NGU.

[BlueIdaho]

31. Regardless, the net value of his no vote protects the status quo

And puts him shoulder to shoulder with the republican party.

[Zenlitened]

51. His "no" vote?

What "no" vote?

:shrug:

[jefferson_dem]

32. Teabaggers Heart Feingold.

Is it too late to primary him?

[NorthCarolina]

59. So, you want to kick yet another Progressive from the Senate? Aren't

there too few of them already? Or are ANY Progressives simply too many for you?

[jefferson_dem]

60. "Progressive"? Ha.

Is that what you call progressive -- saddling up with the teabagging republicans to try to obstruct financial reform? :crazy:

I don't want to kick anybody out, at least no Dem, who is interested in *actual* progress, rather than petty posturing (a la Feingold).

Anyway, I thought that's what we do here -- rant about sending out primary challengers against Dems we might disagree with a time or two.

[NorthCarolina]

63. Funny thing,

I have seen you rant against Kucinich and Feingold in virtually every thread with their names in it, but don't recall ever seeing you calling for the ouster of a dyed in the wool conservative like Ben Nelson who votes with the GOP far more often than the liberal Dems you exhaustively rail against. Just an observation is all.

[jefferson_dem]

64. Actually, I give major props to Kooch when he does the right thing...

such as vote in support of health care reforml. I will do the same when (and if) Feingold steps up.

I have no use for Ben Nelson. We all know he's too often a GOP enabler. Watch out, though. Your hero Feingold is not far behind.

http://progressivepunch.org/members.jsp?chamber=Senate&sort=overall-current&order=down&party=D

[flpoljunkie]

34. I share his concerns. However, something is better than nothing.

Particularly the consumer financial protection agency-minus, of course, the lousy exemption for car dealers!

[Greyhound]

43. Most often "something" is far worse than nothing. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

37. Or just obstructing a vote. n/t

[sabrina 1]

45. Oh yes, rec'd and kicked

I do not understand why Feingold is being unrec'd for fighting for proper regulation of Wall St. to protect this country from another greedy takeover and eventual meltdown like the one we just had.

It makes zero sense, particularly considering how right he is about this bill.

[slipslidingaway]

48. All depends on the forum n/t

[geek tragedy]

49. He's siding with the Republicans to kill tougher reform measures.

That's not progressive, it's just stupid.

[slipslidingaway]

52. He is siding with the people, the BS is that he is siding with the Repubs...

when the truth is, most of the Dems are.

[geek tragedy]

67. So, Mitch McConnell is right and Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich

are wrong?

Purists.

[slipslidingaway]

46. Banks `Dodged a Bullet' as U.S. Congress Dilutes Trading Rules

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-06-25/banks-dodged-a-bullet-as-congress-dilutes-u-s-trading-rules-in-overhaul.html

Legislation to overhaul financial regulation will help curb risk-taking and boost capital buffers. What it won’t do is fundamentally reshape Wall Street’s biggest banks or prevent another crisis, analysts said...

...The overhaul, which still requires approval from the full Congress, won’t shrink banks deemed “too big to fail,” leaving largely intact a U.S. financial industry dominated by six companies with a combined $9.4 trillion of assets. The changes also do little to solve the danger posed by leveraged companies reliant on fickle markets for funding, which can evaporate in a panic like the one that spread in late 2008.

‘Fig Leaf’

The Standard & Poor’s 500 Financials Index, whose 79 companies include JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., rose 1.4 percent at 1:02 p.m. in New York.

The legislation is “largely a fig leaf,” said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. “Given where we were when this got started, I’d have to imagine the Wall Street firms are pretty happy.”

[geek tragedy]

47. Defeating the bill means losing the good AND keeping the bad parts.

Feingold is being an idiot.

[slipslidingaway]

50. Nobody wants to keep the bad parts, when this bills passes ...

financial reform will be forgotten, while 6 banks control over 50% of our economy.

:wtf:

When the bailout was sold to the American people I posted on DU that this consolidated more and more power into fewer hands, this bill cements what happened in 2008.

Feingold and others are right, when the 2008 bailout was proposed we should have insisted that additional protections be put into place.

Please do not tell me that nobody saw this coming before the fall of 2008 as was stated by people in our own party, that is an insult and the people who fell into that trap are either stupid or complicit.

[sabrina 1]

57. If the effort to get real reform was there, defeating THIS bill

would mean replacing it with some really tough regulatory legislation. If this was a Republican Bill the same people defending it would be slamming it. Which is why it is best not to listen to partisans of either party when it comes to reforming the Corporations that have taken over our government.

This is a horrible bill, with a few crumbs to give the apologists something to cling to. Same as the HI bill.

Sometimes you just have to call something what it is. Derivatives should have been made illegal but they weren't, aren't in this bill.

Thank you Sen. Feingold for trying. But he is outnumbered, for now. The public would have been behind real regulation of Wall St. a real Health Care reform bill, but the public is not being represented here.

Wall St. stocks rose once the final version of this bill was made public. Same with the Health Insurance bail-out bill.

But we'll keep working to get real Democrats and Progressives elected so that people like Feingold, and Dorgan are not so lonely in standing up for the people in the future.

Enjoy the mediocrity but don't call it progressive, we are not that stupid.

[Aramchek]

65. he's got an election to win!

[LWolf]

53. k&r

[golfguru]

66. Feingold is a huge asset in the senate n/t

[bvar22]

68. K&R for Feingold....

This is NOT a "good beginning".
This is a bad ending...Reform in Name Only,

so that the "Democrats" can pose for the cameras,
pat each other on the back,
declare "Mission Accomplished",
without actually having to do ANYTHING
that makes the Big Banks uncomfortable.

Thank You, Russ,
for pointing out that the Emperor Class wears no clothes.


"If we don't fight hard enough for the things we stand for,
at some point we have to recognize that we don't really stand for them."
--- Paul Wellstone

[Sebastian Doyle]

69. Thank you Senator Feingold!

No more false "reform". No further empowering of private banking cabals. Expecting the "federal" reserve to regulate the financial industry makes as much sense as expecting the Catholic church to regulate pedophiles.

We don't need new "reform". We need to roll back all the fucking bullshit deregulation & corporate enabling of the last 30 years, and go back to the REAL reforms that actually kept these criminals in line.

[Armstead]

70. I have mixed feelings about this......

Finegold is absolutely correct. The problem with the whole damn Democratic Party is there are not more like him.
If there were, maybe the party would actually stand for something.

Like Russ, I too am fucking sick of the Democratic Party caring more about placating the right wing and their corporate donors than the "base" (and the good of the country).


But something is better than nothing and we certainly need at least steps in the right direction.

[Zenlitened]

71. Me too, though I'm less convinced in this case that something is better than nothing.

He might simply be making a point, and expects to relent when the vote is held later this month.

Or, then again, maybe he sees some possibilities in forcing a do-over of sorts?

I dunno. I make no predictions as to how this will turn out. :D