The Art of the Possible: Dodd's Banking 'Reform' Will Have Republican Input.
I think it's pretty obvious that we need to change the procedural rules in the Senate, and hopefully get around obstructionist tactics while still allowing honest debate and compromise. We can't have a system where senators from sparsely-populated states maintain such disproportionate power (and that's not even getting into the reality of a Congress corrupted by K Street):
WASHINGTON - Senate Banking Committee chairman Christopher Dodd, who one month ago proposed an overhaul of financial regulations that was hailed by many consumer activists, has all but jettisoned that proposal following Republican objections and has initiated talks for a new approach designed to satisfy some of his fiercest GOP critics.
Dodd’s strategy has raised concerns among consumer activists who were counting on him to come up with a tougher bill than the one recently passed by the House, and now worry that the entire measure will be weakened.
But the Connecticut Democrat, in an interview in which he laid out his strategy, said it would be too risky to launch another legislative effort that might repeat the Senate’s experience with in the health care debate, in which single senators have forced major rewrites or threaten to defeat the measure.
Dodd’s new approach began last week when he paired four Republicans and four Democrats on the Banking Committee to work together to come up with suggestions on reshaping the legislation. The process has not produced any details and is expected to continue through January, but participants have said they are hopeful of brokering a compromise bill that could get a Senate vote next year.
Asked what has become of his initial proposal, Dodd replied: “I laid down a bill that is as much a reflection of where I am on this as to plant a flag. I did what I wanted to do. I provoked people.’’
The strategy contrasts with the method employed by his legislative counterpart, House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank, who oversaw passage of a bill that would transform the regulatory landscape for banks and many businesses - while failing to gain a single Republican vote. Unlike in the House, where bills can pass by a single vote, Dodd needs 60 of 100 senators to avoid a filibuster.
will help them electorally. Rolling over and allowing the industry to write the bill hurts their chances down the road.
I know Washington is a different world than that the rest of us live in. I'm starting to think it's an entirely different galaxy than the one the rest of us live in.
Put forward good rules & regulations and fight for them. If republicans object, as they will, use that to campaign against them in the next elections. How hard is that?
"Dodd needs 60 of 100 senators to avoid a filibuster"
This has to change. Sooner or later people will figure out the constitution doesn't have a filibuster section. It is a construct of the senate. Now they have created a rule then choose to follow a rule that brings the senate to its knees and allows minority rule.
Enough is enough.
I hope the voters are engaged and understanding this debacle.
Time to return to majority rules.
"I know that there are people who do not love their fellow
man, and I hate people like that! " ~ Tom Lehrer (1928 - )
The 60 vote requirement is bullshit. Our entire system is based on majority rule, except in the Senate. Every piece of legislation is being watered down in an effort to appease the minority.
Democrats should change the rules before the mid term elections and push through their agenda. If they don't, when the Republicans once again become the majority (which is where we are headed) every Democrat needs to remember how obstructionist the Republicans have been. We'll simply return the favor when they propose massive tax cuts for the wealthy, and try to wage new 'wars on terror'.
Remember that the next time the repubs are in the majority and they want to ram through some wackjob legislation by one vote.
What we really need is publicly financed campaigns to get politicians off the corporate payroll. Plus, if politicians weren't so anxious to attend fundraisers they could wait out a filibuster.
Alot of us agree that the Senate is broken. These obstructionist republican scum set a record for filibusters in the last Congress. They'll do it again in this Congress too if we let them. Will the Senate Democrats continue to feign surprise at the repugs' obstructionism?
Why is that? Our country was never set up to be a democracy, it was set up to be a constitutional republic. Remember Benjamin Franklins response to the lady that asked him what kind of government do we have after the Constitutional Convention? His response was "A Republic madam, if you can keep it." Are you really sure you want majority rule?
If so I'm sure you have no problem with the states that have banned gay marriage with a popular vote by the people. Which last I checked in every state that gay marriage has came up for a popular vote it was voted down. Or with loosening of gun control which polls show that the majority of the people want. Or...
Just need to make some minor revisions:
Of course, that's just the preamble. We'll also have to get rid of that pesky 17th Amendment, and re-write most of the others.
Since "the people" are now irrelevant, however, it also appears that the Second Amendment really did limit the right to bear arms to the states. Oops.
But most importantly, we'll have to re-write the definition of "constitutional republic" so that it excludes anything "democratic."
"We don't have an apple; we have a piece of fruit. Since there is a quote by a famous person calling it a piece of fruit, it can't possibly be an apple."
Maybe the evangelicals should stick to science.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
is just fine, because we the people elected our representatives who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
Although I should of been a more clear when I wrote constitutional republic, to be exact it was set up to be a constitutional democratic republic, the people vote for who they want to govern, under the regulation of the Constitution. Even by repealing the 17th, the people of the state still influence who would become Senator by who they elect to the states legislature. Kinda like how we still elect the President, you do realize you don't actually vote for the President right? You vote for who votes for him. And honestly I wouldn't mind if they repealed the 17th, although I would much rather have the 11th changed by amendment. P.S. about half the states at the time the 17th was ratified allowed the populace to directly vote for their Senators.
But how do you feel about what I asked, is it okay for the people to democratically forbid gays to marriage? Why not? Majority rules remember. Which is precisely the reason the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution the way it is, to prevent tyranny by the majority and the minority. The House has amount of members by state according to the population of the state to prevent all the small population states from running roughshod over the few high population states, and in the Senate the states all have equal power to prevent the few high population states from running roughshod over the more numerous smaller states. What is it something like the 9 most populated states have over 50% of the populace of the US?
... is not the same as tyranny of the majority. There are some things that the majority is simply forbidden to do. These are found in both The Bill of Rights as well as the limited form of government described in the Constitution.
It has nothing to do with the Senate (whose make up was a compromise) and certainly has nothing to do with the false requirement of a super-majority in the Senate (which was the "majority rules" point that Handypants was originally making).
Corruption favors the wealthy.
requirement, was done by guess what? Yep majority rule, the Senate regulations were passed by a majority of the Senate which is allowed by the Constitution.
Art 1 Sec 5 Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
Personally I would love it if they made it that a 75% majority was required to pass any law in Congress, but a simple 51% majority was all that was required to repeal any. I would be orgasmic if in addition to that they placed a 10 yr moratorium on any new law.
Thomas Dewey
The Democrats have commandeered the representation of the rich and powerful from the Republicans who previously had that ignominious distinction.
Why do they now want to involve the Republicans?
The rich and the powerful DO NOT want regulation, except that regulation which favors them.
When the system blows up again, as it certainly will, because nothing fundamental is being repaired. The Too-Big-To-Fail Banks, which were too big to investigate and too big to prosecute will be back for more bailouts. It has already been granted that they are too big to fail.
This is called the doom loop, or moral hazard.
When that happens, the politicians will say the previous actions were BIPARTISAN, don't blame us.
Keeping the 60/40 filibuster rule is a smoke screen, it is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.
There should be serious investigations and prosecutions of the Wall Street crooks.
Unfortunately that appears not in the cards. The Wall Street crooks are recycling the bailout money in campaign contributions, less than pennies on the dollar. What a bargain buying Washington politicians.
A double bargain when the money comes from taxpayers themselves, who then foolishly vote the politicians back into office after being hypnotized by their their glitzy Madison Avenue campaign ads.
This system will collapse from its complete and shameful corruption.
The Democrats and the Republicans will both come out of this looking like the captured shills that they are. At least to anyone who is not themselves an adherent of the truly trite melodrama of the Ds and the Rs, two ends of the same snake.
In the parallel world of the 'health care reform' bill Glenn Greenwald in
writes in conclusion:
[emphasis added]
here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
hahahaha right
some . . . . . . . . . DaY
"The Fed" is an offshore private banking cartel that decides just how much bogus currency can be printed and circulated profitably for bankers without wrecking their Ponzi schemes.
I assume it was us people living away from your precious shores, who forced you Americans to dump your industry, create a society based solely around financial products and services, where some people live in utter poverty with little in terms of social safety net, and millions lack such basic rights as health care (while every other industrialised nation on earth has the decency to at least provide some sort of coverage to their citizens)...
Because obviously, such noble and decent human beings as you Americans could not possibly be responsible for your own central banks.
Maybe you should do the compassionate American thing and bomb the shit out of some 3rd world country which is unrelated to this mess... I heard that is how ye deal with these types of issues. Because the good lord knows that you Americans are never ever responsible for anything, even the stuff you do, because let's face you are god's chosen people, and the rest of us are here to play supporting roles to your "awesome" lead.
"topped out yet" just give it some more time.
After a year of republican obstructionism Dodd still loves 'em.
Dodd is a republican stooge. We gave him the power to fight the repugs and he invites them to dinner. The republicans in congress shouldn't be able to find a parking space within 25 miles of the Congress. Their washroom should be in Dallas. How many votes does it take to cut ALL off funding for the entire state of Nebraska, or Arkansas, or Montana. Shut their military bases down. 20 per cent of the country is republican. Since he can't seem to operate without abbetting criminals - Chris should be targeted in the Democratic primary. For now he should lose his chairmanship.
repug wing of the democratic party.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
"get 'em and gut 'em!
get the liberals and progressives on board with promises, then gut the legislation for your donors.
I am all for voting out all DLC/DSCC/DCCC. period!
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Holy crap! No Marcy you let the incompetent fail and the smart and sound take over those failed assets, it's far less expensive. IF Capitol Hill had let them fail we would be on our way to a recovery already, but you guys voted to save the banks. Chris Dodd will lose to Peter Schiff because of his role in the economic collapse as he should.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
Then Peter Schiff the Libertarian will seek to take all the reigns off and the system will still blow up.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
and he would put old safeguards back in place that were there. If you listen to what he says you would know he has been more right about this crisis and what should have been done than most. Sorry but the Keyenesian's have been proven wrong in this crisis, the Austrians are being vindicated.
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
As are the Marxists.
I disagree that the Keynesians have been proven wrong.
As does Niall Ferguson, here
I would be interested to hear Schiff say that Glass Steagall should be reinstated.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
He never sounded like he was pro-regulation in any interview I've seen of him. Until I hear him say differently, I doubt he would want to restore Glass Steagall.
As in: the Robber Barons ride again…
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
He would get rid of the FED first and foremost, they and their fractional reserve banking are at the heart of the problem. Get rid of the FED and their is no need for safeguards. This country ran for 200 years without need of these controls, it wasn't until we went on a pseudo gold standard that problems began. Schiff has said that until that is realized then placing reasonable safeguards is the next best thing.
BTW China is now dumping dollars, the print your way out of this mess Keyensian's are in for a very, very rude awakening in the not too distant future.
Harder to buy US Treasuries
http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/print.as...
China's Dumping Of The Dollar Has Begun
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-is-unloa...
Mises is being proven right, in a just a few years the holes in Keynes' ideas will be blatantly obvious. Fiat currency has failed thousands of times in history, in every case fiat currency always returns to it's real value of zero. What makes anyone think they are going to somehow prove otherwise after all this time backed by a probability of zero?
Goodnight, Frau Blücher
dodd will be legalizing the garbage that his bankster friends get away with.
________________
common sense matters as much as truth
Submarines are based or homeported at bases in Groton, CT; Norfolk, VA; Kings Bay, GA; Bangor, WA; San Diego, CA; and Pearl Harbor, HI. I propose that we contact the Representatives of states other than Connecticut and ask if they can help move the Groton facilities to some other location. After all the people of Connecticut don't have single-payer or Medicare. Some sailors could get sick. I'm sure Dodd and Lieberman would oppose it. I'm sure if we look there is a ton of Pentagon money going into the state. We should attempt to slow that to a trickle. At 49 to 1 We do this with 98 Senators on our side. I'm going to call my reps and tell them I want Connecticut defense money re-directed to Florida(My home state) or at the very least away from Connecticut. You should do the same. It would be a good thing for my state and a great message for Joe Lieberman and that closet repug Chris Dodd.
Let's see, so Dodd is starting from a position that has already been drastically compromised and is now going to seek input from the Mighty 40. Hmmm, where have we seen this before?
I predict a heckuva banking "reform" bill. Yup, it'll be good for consumers, no doubt...
**SIGH**
the Dems dont want to be the ones who change them. Theyd rather have the GOP do it. Its too bad Frist and Co didnt change the rules back a few years when they threatened (recall the Nuclear Option). Because then the Dems would've come in 2006 and had that rule change and can you imagine what they could've gotten done. It's too bad they didnt actively encourage Frist to do it. They wouldve been sitting pretty needing only a majority vote for any legislation. And if the Dems change the rules now, the GOP will say hey look at the rule changers/cheaters and win back the House in '010 and then promptly use the rule change to overturn a whole bunch of recent Dem legislation. Thankfully Obama would veto a lot of it, likely.
reform...
Remember this one??
as in this story, by
Jennifer Haberkorn, and Jerry Seper/Washington Times:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/...
Comments are closed on this entry