home

What's Next?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:19:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Now that health care issues are basically tabled for the next decade (What? You think there will be more legislation like the Grayson Medicare for all bill? Dream on), what is next on the agenda? Let's hope some good old fashioned economic populism from the Dems. The best vehicle is financial regulation:

Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., unveiled a bill Monday to overhaul the U.S. financial system, proposing new powers for the Federal Reserve to oversee the nation's largest financial firms; a consumer protection agency housed within the Fed; and a new systemic risk council headed by the Treasury Secretary to identify and monitor complex firms that could pose a threat to the country's financial stability.

Dodd's bill is entirely inadequate. Both on substance and politically. A lot of work needs to be done on this.

Speaking for me only

< Progressives At St. Helena | Monday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What's Next? | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I am afraid the finance (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:26:16 AM EST
    legislation is where we will find out who owns the democrats.

    I hope not.  but . . .

    I think we already know (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:39:16 AM EST
    who owns the democrats . . . .

    Parent
    And the Republicans. (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:44:15 AM EST
    And anyone else "they" can get their claws into.

    Parent
    According to Luke Russert (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:31:53 PM EST
    of MSNBC, iirc, Pelosi has told the Dems that there will be no more tough votes this year; so, no votes on immigration reform, financial regulatory reform or apparently DADT.

    Health Care was the one shot she was taking this year....

    Parent

    Gee, why am I NOT surprised? (1.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    The wimps just don't have it in them.  After November they won't have the votes!  They need to get things done NOW, but they won't.  Sigh................

    Parent
    But who knows if that is true (none / 0) (#62)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:02:09 PM EST
    It may be they take a run at financial reform.....

    The tea leaves say DADT and immigration reform are off the table....

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#64)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:07:06 PM EST
    How can that be?  Just what do they intend to do for the next 8 months?  Nothing?

    Parent
    Routine stuff (none / 0) (#67)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:14:19 PM EST
    Budgets....hearings on other, less high profile stuff....

    And I have no idea what they will really do--and I suspect they don't either.....So much of what is happening seems ad hoc.....I never thought there would be a health care bill after Scott Brown was elected.....

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 03:00:01 PM EST
    They pass lots of bills that do things like name bridges and post offices and such.

    But again - it's an election year - it would be highly unusual to have more substantive bills comes down the pike.

    Parent

    DADT? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:49:05 PM EST
    Obama can do that with an executive order but I'm not surprised he's passed the buck.

    Parent
    O could have nuked DADT at 9:01am first day in (none / 0) (#75)
    by Ellie on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:53:31 PM EST
    ... with a swipe of his pen. He's a wartime President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

    Parent
    You mean a stop loss Executive Order? (none / 0) (#84)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 05:39:06 PM EST
    Maybe....But there is the sodomy statute in the UCMJ....and that is what needs to be changed...

    Parent
    No, no he couldn't (none / 0) (#87)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 06:34:21 PM EST
    if it was a simple EO deal Clinton probably would have repealed on his way out of office when he was signing pardons- Congress has to repeal DADT.

    Parent
    Actually, ... (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 07:32:20 PM EST
    ... according to a blue-ribbon panel of military law experts, Obama has (and has had) the authority to suspend homosexual conduct discharges immediately by EO, while a legislative remedy is pursued.  Well, ya know ...

    ... if he still remembers his campaign promise of placing "the weight of my administration behind (repeal) ...  That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office. America is ready to get rid of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy. All that is required is leadership."

    Parent

    Suspend yes but not repeal (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:56:29 AM EST
    and suspending enforcement of laws by executive fiat seems a bit much.

    Parent
    Ya think so? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:09:54 AM EST
    "Executive "fiat""?  Substitute "judicial", and you've nailed the neocon argument against Roe v. Wade, US v Miranda, Brown v. Board of Ed, Loving v. Virginia, etc, etc.

    Somehow, I think the people being discharged from the military would disagree that it's a "bit much".

    Parent

    No surprise there (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:49:26 PM EST
    They'll be off for a week over Easter, then it's only a few weeks until Memorial Day.  It's an election year, so summertime is campaign season. And they would never have any kind of big votes in the fall - right when voters are actually paying attention.  That time will be reserved for going on the teevee and talking about how great they are and how bad the other side is.

    Parent
    doesnt it just warm (none / 0) (#51)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:40:31 PM EST
    you heart to see some young person making it good all on their own?

    Parent
    Life is unfair (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:44:17 PM EST
    Clearly an "in" because of name....but will have to carry own weight and may be doing that....

    Parent
    true (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:50:17 PM EST
    he didnt do a bad job.  but does anyone think he would have been doing that with another last name?

    that kind of stuff just rubs my Rhubarb a little.
    I have competed with those guys often enough.


    Parent

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:51:37 PM EST


    Parent
    You would think that Dodd (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by tworivers on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    would be less beholden to Wall Street given that he's not running for reelection.  Unless he's angling for some sweetheart post-Senate gig working on Wall St./lobbying Congress on behalf of Wall St.?

    I had the same thought (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:33:21 AM EST
    this is his chance to go out in a blaze of glory.

    to much to hope for I guess.

    Parent

    He won't. (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:43:16 AM EST
    He's already had his wrist slapped for trying to exclude the payday lenders from any meaningful oversight.  He said his decision was in the interest of bipartisanship.  In the end, you should prepare yourself to see the payday lenders go largely unregulated.

    Parent
    Pretty scary they want (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Makarov on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:50:40 AM EST
    to give more power and authority to the FED, considering they are directly responsible for the ongoing decline in credit and economic malaise:

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/03/m1-money-multiplier-still-crashing-each.html

    Read further in the above post if you're not familiar with terms like "M1" and "money multiplier" - it explains things very well.

    Shouldn't creating jobs be the next priority? (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:27:05 PM EST


    Jobs should have been the FIRST priority! (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    What the heck is wrong with these people?!  

    Parent
    Been there (none / 0) (#31)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:37:17 PM EST
    done that.  Twice, even.  First the stimulus bill, ARRA, and then the $15 billion jobs bill.

    The motto of this administration is "there's only so much we can do!" and they've done all of that already with regards to jobs.

    Parent

    Trying to figure out how this all will effect (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:53:48 PM EST
    an unemployed adult offspring w/no assets except an inexpensive car.  Won't probably have a job.  Will have mandate.  Is probably currently eligible for both MediCal and food stamps but hasn't been able to obtain either.  

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#98)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:49:25 PM EST
    With the the mandate, health care and debt are now one issue, not two.

    Parent
    The mandate only applies if he's (none / 0) (#106)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:57:33 AM EST
    above 133% of FPL and thus not eligible for medicaid as expanded.

    Parent
    The jobs bill did not create jobs (none / 0) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:57:52 PM EST
    directly.  It's structured too much like the trickle-down stimulus bill that didn't trickle down.

    It's really more a small-business bill, as the stimulus bill was a big-business bill.  The trouble is that it will take seriously improving the economy to convince a lot of small businesses; I know several such owners, and they are just too leery to do much about the so-called jobs bill.

    Parent

    stimulus bill (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CST on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:14:45 PM EST
    did create some jobs.  Just not enough.

    Parent
    My GOP Rep. mailer sd. 85 jobs (none / 0) (#42)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:19:34 PM EST
    created by stimulus funds in my county.  That seems low, but he did cite a website, which I haven't checked.

    Parent
    i work in the industry (none / 0) (#46)
    by CST on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:23:52 PM EST
    that benefitted the most from the stimulus bill - transportation.

    Everyone I know who got laid off when things crashed is now employed.  All of the companies that hired have work from the state/feds directly related to the stimulus.

    Those are "some jobs".  Obviously hiring in transportation is not enough to fix the entire economy.

    Parent

    This was my reaction to the mailer. (none / 0) (#80)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:15:17 PM EST
    Lots of road work happening here, with stimulus fund sign boards posted.

    Parent
    Yes, the stimulus bill -- (none / 0) (#48)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:36:27 PM EST
    stated separately in the initial comment from the jobs bill; I was responding to the latter, just passed, but it's not looking like anywhere near enough again.  And again, neither really is a jobs bill, as the term historically is used for the bills that did directly create jobs in past.

    Parent
    oh (none / 0) (#50)
    by CST on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    you mean the "tax-cut bill"

    calling it a jobs bill is a sad joke.

    Parent

    Jobs bill doesn't = creating jobs (none / 0) (#38)
    by Emma on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:12:02 PM EST
    I said they already did jobs creation.  I didn't say it worked.  :)

    Parent
    I was discussing (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:37:16 PM EST
    the more recent bill.

    Parent
    End marijuana prohibition... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:15:30 PM EST
    save some money and create some jobs, green ones too...money trees in every spare bedroom, garage, and basement!

    Parent
    One solution fits all!. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:19:57 PM EST


    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:22:39 PM EST
    No one would go to work then! (At least, I HOPE they wouldn't if they were operating heaving machinery or driving or flying a plane!)

    Parent
    You don't get stoned... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:54:48 PM EST
    from growing it jb, you silly goose....you get paid handsomely, and caged if you get caught.

    If we get rid of the cages, more will grow, and the price will come down...then maybe I stop going to work:)

    Parent

    You Have No Idea (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:46:42 PM EST
    Must have seen too many films like Reefer Madness.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#93)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 07:25:56 PM EST
    Never seen it, and I have no need to use chemicals to get through the day.

    Parent
    Obviously (2.33 / 3) (#96)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:26:24 PM EST
    You have never smoked weed or done LSD. The revelation that you have an imagination would probably kill you.

    Parent
    Hey (none / 0) (#65)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:09:40 PM EST
    You are being too tough on the Dems. They just passed $15 billion in tax cuts to create jobs. :-)

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by lentinel on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:35:19 PM EST
    Let's hope some good old fashioned economic populism from the Dems.

    That "hope" thing hasn't gotten us very far.

    Patriot Act renewed.
    Rendition continuing.
    Iraq still ongoing.
    Detention without charge or trial
    Backing away from civilian trial for KSM.
    And -- Afghanistan. Not even a subject for discussion these days.

    And this healthcare bill - the way it was handled by Obama - giving absolutely everything to the hospital lobby and the for-profit insurance industry...

    What I'm getting to is that I have yet to see anything resembling populism from this administration. Obama can still play the part - taking off the jacket and that stuff - but he does it as if he was doing one of his greatest hits from the campaign. No real feeling.

    And I will not feel that we are a whole nation again until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are ended.
    I have read how we can't just get out.
    But they said the same thing about Vietnam for umpteen years and then they did just that - got out.

    But I digress.
    Economic populism? From the Obama administration?
    Not very likely, imho.

    I expect the (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:18:02 PM EST
    "good old fashioned economic populism" in the finacial reform bill to be the equivalent of the robust public option in the HCR that the Dems just passed.

    Parent
    You got to love these guys (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by SOS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:16:56 PM EST
    like Dodd now that their "set up" for life and beyond after looking the other way while all these financial rackets we're going on now he wants Financial Regulation.

    Gee thanks buddy!

    I cannot support this bill (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:05:26 PM EST
    because we all know that men are so much more careless with their money.  They are budget-killers!

    Therefore, there must be an amendment that would require an extra fee for every man in the stock market, with a credit card -- and separate, extra coverage required for FDIC, for the insurance for every savings account or checking account in every bank.

    Now, I could be persuaded to settle for an executive order.  But only after months of lots of face time for me on the teevee.  Talk to me.

    I wonder why the women's groups (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 05:45:22 PM EST
    such as NOW and others, and the pro-choice women in Congress said nada about the Nelson amendment....

    And, even when it was clear the White House was negotiating with Stupak, nothing....Not until after the Executive Order came out did the memos get issued....

    One can only assume that they went along with it, but wanted to tell Obama, "no more."  A shot across the bow in time for the next Supreme Court nominee, which will probably be this Summer....Boxer signed off on the Nelson language....

    Parent

    NOW's statement (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 07:24:52 PM EST
    "The National Organization for Women is incensed that President Barack Obama agreed today to issue an executive order designed to appease a handful of anti-choice Democrats who have held up health care reform in an effort to restrict women's access to abortion. Through this order, the president has announced he will lend the weight of his office and the entire executive branch to the anti-abortion measures included in the Senate bill, which the House is now prepared to pass.

    "President Obama campaigned as a pro-choice president, but his actions today suggest that his commitment to reproductive health care is shaky at best. Contrary to language in the draft of the executive order and repeated assertions in the news, the Hyde Amendment is not settled law - it is an illegitimate tack-on to an annual must-pass appropriations bill. NOW has a longstanding objection to Hyde and, in fact, was looking forward to working with this president and Congress to bring an end to these restrictions. We see now that we have our work cut out for us far beyond what we ever anticipated. The message we have received today is that it is acceptable to negotiate health care on the backs of women, and we couldn't disagree more."

    Link

    Parent

    So Are You Buying? (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:22:22 PM EST
    Clearly you are the part of the target fundraising group here?

    Cash registers ringing....  making up for lost revenue.

    Parent

    So NOW is doing this for fundraising ... (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Yman on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:19:13 PM EST
    ... purposes, as opposed to genuine outrage that the WH is willing to sacrifice women's reproductive rights for the sake of passing a health insurance bill?

    And your evidence for this is ...???

    Parent

    Ask Yourself This: (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 10:15:44 PM EST
    Do you think of giving them some cash?

    Parent
    Because of this? (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:21:09 AM EST
    No.

    That was easy.  Guess they weren't doing it for fundraising purposes.

    Ask yourself this.  Why would someone impugn the motives and integrity of a respected, civil rights organization with zero evidence, in order to deflect any criticism of Obama?

    Ohhhhh ..... Hey!

    That is easy!

    Parent

    the EO simply codifies the status (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:02:25 AM EST
    quo. It doesn't go beyond that to any significant degree.

    Parent
    Really? Is THAT all? (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:43:43 AM EST
    You really think it "doesn't go beyond that to any significant degree"?  I guess the ratification of Hyde in an EO is no big deal after all.  I guess expanding Hyde to the newly created insurance exchanges that will cover millions of poor women is not really so bad.  I guess giving the Republican claim that Hyde is established law further credibility - rather than making them renew it annually as part of the appropriations bill - is not really that "significant".  Maybe NOW and NARAL really shouldn't feel so outrages and betrayed.

    On the other hand, ...

    I guess it depends on your definition of "significant", huh?

    Parent

    I think you've (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:27:27 AM EST
    got it

    Parent
    Phew! When the Capt. weighs in ... (none / 0) (#117)
    by Yman on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 08:53:39 AM EST
    ... with an insightful endorsement, everyone rests easier.

    Parent
    NOW cleaned house and got rid of the Obama fans (1.00 / 1) (#99)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:51:45 PM EST
    And so we get sensible statements like this. Well done!

    Parent
    Right? (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:54:54 PM EST
    They will take money from anyone who shells it out. But, now that you think it is a clean house, are you sending them a big pot of $$$?

    Parent
    You still here? (1.00 / 1) (#118)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:04:47 AM EST
    Well done.

    Parent
    The world's most passive aggressive commenter... (none / 0) (#121)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 01:18:59 PM EST
    ... strikes again!

    Parent
    WTF? (none / 0) (#122)
    by squeaky on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 11:53:52 PM EST
    Passive aggressive? Whoever is troll rating you is plain old agressive, not passive-aggessive. Just because someone is not returing your aggressive insults with insults back does not mean that they are not aggressive. They just do not think your are worth wasting words on. A troll rating is more succinct.

    Passive aggressive behavior is very different:

    Signs of passive-aggressive behavior

    The book Living with the Passive-Aggressive Man lists 11 responses that may help identify passive-aggressive behavior. [2]

    Ambiguity or speaking cryptically: a means of engendering a feeling of insecurity in others
    Chronically being late and forgetting things: another way to exert control or to punish.
    Fear of competition
    Fear of dependency
    Fear of intimacy as a means to act out anger: The passive aggressive often cannot trust. Because of this, they guard themselves against becoming intimately attached to someone.
    Making chaotic situations
    Making excuses for non-performance in work teams
    Obstructionism
    Sulking
    Victimization response: instead of recognizing one's own weaknesses, tendency to blame others for own failures.
    A passive-aggressive person may not have all of these behaviors, and may have other non-passive-aggressive traits.



    Parent
    squeaky FAIL (none / 0) (#123)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:05:09 PM EST
    You don't need to ask "Whoever"; you can look at the listing and see.

    FAIL!

    In this case, the commenter consistently, as others have noted, downrates to 1, and never gives a reason.

    Even in your own terms, that's passive-aggressive behavior: "Ambiguity or speaking cryptically".

    FAIL!

    * * *

    To be clear, I don't write for ratings, having been through the trenches at The Obama 527 Formerly Known As Daily Kos.

    Parent

    Well You Are Blind (none / 0) (#124)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 02:28:29 PM EST
    In this case, the commenter consistently, as others have noted, downrates to 1, and never gives a reason.

    The joke must be on you, because the reason for downrating is obvious to most here.

    If you need to feed your ego, feel lucky that your comments are at least being read.

    Parent

    FAIL (none / 0) (#125)
    by lambert on Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 04:55:40 PM EST
    Hey, squeaky? Whatever.

    Parent
    Would you explain what you mean (none / 0) (#109)
    by observed on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 06:50:38 AM EST
    by this statement? Did NOW recently  change leadership?

    Parent
    Yes... (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:15:50 AM EST
    When Kim Gandy left she wanted her replacement to be a young Obama enthusiast, but old timer Terry O'Neill ran against Gandy's pick and won.

    Parent
    thanks! (none / 0) (#114)
    by observed on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:24:43 AM EST


    Parent
    See here (5.00 / 0) (#120)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:06:59 AM EST
    Violet.

    Parent
    Not true. (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 07:18:59 PM EST
    But not surprising that you must not be on their email lists.

    Of course, you could go to their websites and see their statements at the time, before you post this.

    Parent

    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 07:24:58 PM EST
    I did not know that....their opposition did not get much attention....

    I do get e-mails from Boxer, though....

    Parent

    That's the orgs. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Cream City on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 07:21:09 PM EST
    As for Boxer, yes, she and others have some explaining to do.

    But so will a lot of the "Dem" men who have made statements of support for women's issues.


    Parent

    We'll get banking reform (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by dkmich on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:57:25 PM EST
    right after we get Medicare for all.  

    Question (none / 0) (#1)
    by CST on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:23:38 AM EST
    I'm not super familiar with the details of all this yet - but in terms of what we need - what is the key to financial reform?  If in health care the end-goal was a public option, what is the end-goal for financial reform?

    Other than knowing the current system is not sustainable (2008 showed us that) I don't really know what might actually work to "fix" this problem.

    A Good Summary (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by The Maven on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:03:46 PM EST
    Barry Ritholtz, of The Big Picture, has a post up summarizing what he feels would be the key elements of a true financial reform package.  I think he basically gets the essence of it pretty much right.  Boiling down his summary into even more condensed bullet points:

    1. Overhaul of Ratings Agencies which continually gave triple-A ratings to dubious financial instruments.

    2. Derivatives must be regulated like all financial products and traded on open exchanges.

    3. Regulate non-banks lenders like banks.

    4. Reinstate net cap leverage rules (i.e., no more 37-1 ratios of notional values to liquid assets).

    5. Eliminate Too Big To Fail.

    6. Do not give the Federal Reserve MORE authority.

    7. Stop regulatory forum shopping.

    8. Overhaul the SEC.

    9. Reform executive and trader compensation.

    And I might also add prohibiting any entities within bank holding companies (institutions that are eligible for effectively zero-interest borrowing from the Fed) from engaging in proprietary trading for their own accounts.

    Of course, the Dodd proposal claims to deal with just about all of these, but the devil is in the details, and the current plan is weak tea, indeed.


    Parent

    It would be very good (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:39:28 AM EST
    to hear the Speaker say just that about Dodd's bill.

    Her stock is way up after yesterday.

    Meh (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:52:18 AM EST
    There is one power in DC, he resides in the White House.

    Parent
    Nancy did a lot more (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:58:15 AM EST
    to get healthcare passed then he did

    Parent
    Aw, come on, you have to admit (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:01:49 PM EST
    that it's hard work looking Presidential everyday.

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#19)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:03:22 PM EST


    Parent
    Especially (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:05:16 PM EST
    When your pick to win the National Championship gets blown out in the second round.

    Parent
    Including telling Obama he had to (none / 0) (#23)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:07:56 PM EST
    get more involved himself, according to an interview with a WH staffer on CSpan yesterday morning. I tuned in too late to      catch his name. She knew he had to do the selling. Of course it did not take a genius to see that, but it was news to the WH.


    Parent
    that is my hope (none / 0) (#10)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:46:21 AM EST
    and you are right.  her stock and her influence went up.

    Parent
    Wait I was just told (none / 0) (#9)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:45:34 AM EST
    for months that regulation doesn't work shouldn't we introduce government run banks after all anything sort of that is a sellout to the GOP right?

    The one area (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:51:38 AM EST
    regulation APPEARED to work was in the financial markets.

    They were gutted and went unenforced.

    The problem with the government bank solution is that it does not address the systemic risk.

    Unfortunately, when it comes to financial markets, regulation is the only answer short of letting them fail, which we now know does not work.

    And I caught your snark, but find it to be typical know nothingism.

    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#16)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:00:38 PM EST
    as a real question why couldn't federal or state run banks work for private credit in the way the Fed does for major commercial credit (I know why it would never be implemented but structurally is there any reason it wouldn't work)

    Parent
    I don't want the government (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    to run the banks.  I think that would be problematic for a whole host of reasons, not the least of which would be the political foolishness that would be injected.  But regulating them makes a lot of sense to me - in fact, regulating them worked really well for the banks, consumers and this country for a whole lot of years.  One reason why everyone in the world put some or all of their money here was that our system was perceived to be well-regulated.  America was a safe place to keep your money.

    Somewhere along the line, politicians were convinced that we needed to compete with countries that did not provide the kind of structural integrity through regulation for their financial enterprises.  And they were convinced that we could make much, much more money if we were allowed to take greater risk.  That second point was basically "true", but no one considered the downside which is that with greater risk comes greater potetial to fail on an epic scale.  What goes up, must come down and all of that.  All our system ever did in the past was to keep failures to a manageable size - which in turn kept the system fairly stable for decades.

    Parent

    You don't see trillions in bailouts... (none / 0) (#100)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:53:36 PM EST
    ... and one bubble after another as "political foolishness"? Why not?

    Parent
    Not just in terms (none / 0) (#20)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:03:38 PM EST
    of home loans but for all loans- like we're trying to do now with Student loans.

    Parent
    Executive Compensation? (none / 0) (#11)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 11:48:45 AM EST
    Is this where he proposes as the only control/regulation, a non binding board of directors vote on the compensation?  If we are talking populist, lets start here.  

    I'm not sure legally how we can (none / 0) (#18)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:02:28 PM EST
    control executive compensation on firms not being bailed out- any suggestions from anyone (the only answer I can think of is an across the board tax on very high incomes- say the establishment of a superhigh tax bracket on incomes over 10 million).

    Parent
    There are ways of restructuring (none / 0) (#26)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:24:06 PM EST
    the payoffs - whether they be compensation or bonuses - to focus the executives and managers more on the health and growth of a company rather than just on the short-term quarter numbers.  Defered compensation, for instance, might mean that a CEO would be earning a certain portion of their salary in a payment of stock that would be granted five years down the road.  That way, if a CEO or the Board Members wanted to sell the company, they would take a greater interest in ensuring that the new owners would continue to preserve and grow the company.  The last few decades have been frought with deals that have been nothing more than "golden parachutes" for a handful of participants who basically get in and take the money and run.  For the day-to-day operations, this approach might also encourage the executive committee to be more invested in looking at the long-term health of a company when making decisions rather than ingnoring long-term consequences.  The temptation to run a risk thinking that they can get out before the hammer comes down is somewhat decreased.

    On the bonus front, I think that this would be a good solution in part because some of these bonuses are performance-based and while a particular risk taken might temporarily increase the value of a company or inflate profits, sometimes those risks are actually cannibalizing the company.  Paying bonuses out for "performance" that ultimately results in failure of the company seems unfair to shareholders and others to me.

    Parent

    The most important one that we all forget (none / 0) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:18:38 PM EST
    is futures trading. Speculators routinely bid up contracts on oil with no plan of ever taking delivery.

    And make no mistake. $145 oil was the coup de grace of our economic crash.

    Hedging is Insurance (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:27:08 PM EST
    And a necessary part of the system, imo. But, instead of your regressive national sale tax you keep proposing, taxing the sh*t out of crazy wall street profits makes more sense. Taxing the short sellers 50% or more, is a win, win,

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:57:39 PM EST
    So taxing profits will keep oil prices down?

    Who knew?

    Parent

    expectations (none / 0) (#32)
    by par4 on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:47:21 PM EST
    Chomsky is always relevant.

    the first comment (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 12:58:15 PM EST
    Liberals expect their president to do the fighting for them.

    Conservatives fight on behalf of their leadership.

    Look at the discourse over health care reform. The Republican party has no clear leader, it has no clear voice - but its citizenry stands up and fights, its supporters in the media (ie Fox News) have used all tactics at their disposal to demonize the president and all his policies, and have done so with such effect that Obama's overall support has fallen below the 50% point in the polls.

    Liberals, like Chomsky, just sit in their living rooms and go "meh".

    I hold liberal ideas for the most part, but it disgusts me how liberals are all pansies when it comes to standing up for what they think is right.

     



    Parent
    Liberal and Conservative (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Politalkix on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 09:42:21 PM EST
    Conservative citizenry have their President's back when he gets attacked, liberal citizenry pile on and justify attacks on their own President.

    There is also a difference in the way conservatives and liberals perceive "wins". A colleague once told me a joke about a conservative and a liberal who got into a fight. The conservative thought that he won the fight because he was able to pin the liberal to the ground and repeatedly punch his opponent's face. OTOH, the liberal thought that he won the fight because he managed to shout obscenities at the conservative and his own President (for not helping him) while lying on his back and getting punched.

    Parent

    Aren't you forgetting something? (none / 0) (#43)
    by observed on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:19:44 PM EST
    The Senate hasn't voted on the reconciliation package. Obama is scheduled to sign the bill on Tuesday, anyway. Will the Senate do its part?

    yes (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:25:51 PM EST


    Parent
    The WH (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:41:57 PM EST
    Is now calling what just passed "Health Insurance Reform".

    Either they got the message that people weren't fooled that this had anything to do with health CARE, or this is the first step of changing history so they can later say "We ALWAYS were talking about insurance and not care"

    Which do you think it is?

    Obama's been calling it that for months... (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Anne on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:00:05 PM EST
    it was just another clue to me that there would be little that made a difference in improving access to and affordability of care.

    People need to work, and so far, I haven't see where the WH or the Congress have made efforts to address that that are commensurate with the severity of the problem; maybe bland is the new bold?

    I don't see much help coming, and if jobs is anything like health care, it will be the Senate where any good idea will go to die - or be actively killed; dysfunctional doesn't even begin to describe how bad they are at this.

    Parent

    I'm sure Obama doesn't have (3.50 / 2) (#60)
    by observed on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:00:51 PM EST
    a clue there's a problem. Why would he?

    Parent
    I don't think that's true (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by CST on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:16:37 PM EST
    I mean, he did have to deal with it with his mother.

    I think he knows there is a problem.  He's just wrong about how to fix it.

    Parent

    True (none / 0) (#66)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:12:32 PM EST
    He HAS insurance

    Parent
    If Obama can't find a way to get jobs (none / 0) (#63)
    by BrassTacks on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    If the economy continues to be this bad, he's toast in 2012.  Republicans will sweep everything if he doesn't get focused on JOBS!  

    Parent
    Obama's been saying HIR forever. (none / 0) (#56)
    by observed on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 01:53:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Not yesterday when he (none / 0) (#78)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:02:18 PM EST
    gave the pep talk to congress. It was Care, Care, Care, Care, Care.....

    Parent
    He goes back and forth (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by nycstray on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 04:39:15 PM EST
    The rally up to the vote needed to stress "care" etc. Perhaps he still has some left over HIR signs and banners that he'll be using  for the next round of rallies :)

    Parent
    Refreshing to see anyone admit health care (none / 0) (#70)
    by masslib on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:34:01 PM EST
    won't be touched for a very long time.  

    Barney Frank passed a good bill already and it is a damn shame that the Senate is such a corporate institution it can't pass that Bill(and some 130 others the House passed).  Again, real reform of this magnitude, as with health care, needs Presidential leadership.

    However, if I were Obama I would focus my efforts on getting the Senate to agree to a substantial jobs bill.  Perhaps the jokers in the Senate might consider a tax holiday on payroll taxes for the employee, which would go along way to stimulating the economy.

    Jobs (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:40:45 PM EST
    bill? Naw, they've done that twice already and they don't want to do any more votes other than routine ones until the election.

    Parent
    Well, that would be really stupid... (none / 0) (#74)
    by masslib on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:46:54 PM EST
    It's always jobs.

    Parent
    Well, good news (none / 0) (#71)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:36:34 PM EST
    With things at home being so awful, isn't it nice to know that we are doing so well on foreign policy?

    Covert troops who killed two pregnant women and a teenage girl in eastern Afghanistan went on to inflict "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" on the survivors of a botched night raid, a report by the UN said.

    The family of the victims in Paktiya province have accused Nato of trying to cover up the atrocity after an investigation by The Times revealed that two men, who were also killed, were not the intended targets of the raid. One was a police commander and his brother was a district-attorney.

    ...The report, written in the aftermath of the February 12 attack, states: "As a result of the operation, five people were killed, two men and three women, all belonging to the same family." There were about 25 guests and three musicians at the house on the night of the raid. They had gathered to celebrate the naming of a newborn child. It was only when a musician stepped outside to go to the lavatory at about 3.30am, that someone flashed a light in his eyes and he ran back inside shouting "Taleban".

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/afghanistan/article7063184.ece

    It's wonderful. Flawless, even.

    HCR 1 opens the floodgates (none / 0) (#76)
    by RonK Seattle on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 02:53:40 PM EST
    ... for HCR extensions, including public options and incremental "Medicare for More" (which may overtake the timelines built into HCR 1.

    Chances for financial regulation? Not lookin' so good at the moment.

    Jobs, jobs, jobs (none / 0) (#86)
    by NYShooter on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 05:51:38 PM EST
    After 30 years of neglect and deterioration what product or service can American workers offer the world that would result in self-sustaining jobs?


    Jobs and Financial Regs (none / 0) (#88)
    by Socraticsilence on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 06:39:00 PM EST
    Obviously, the latter should be an easy issue to demagouge on for us, but my Dark Horse is immigration reform if only for its ability to unmask the right's populist movement and destroy their case to indies and hispanics for another election cycle.

    There are not 2 problems, finance and health care (none / 0) (#97)
    by lambert on Mon Mar 22, 2010 at 08:48:31 PM EST
    There is one set of financial interests that controls both policy debates and the outcomes therefrom.

    We are not "tabling" any issue at all. The issues are the same, just in a different guise.

    Okay and barring a massive (none / 0) (#108)
    by Socraticsilence on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 02:06:20 AM EST
    socialist revolution how do you suggest reorganizing American Society so that Healthcare, Financial regulation etc are no longer interlinked.

    Parent
    Publically financed elections... (none / 0) (#112)
    by masslib on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 07:16:42 AM EST
    FAST!

    Parent
    So you agree the factual part is correct? (none / 0) (#119)
    by lambert on Tue Mar 23, 2010 at 09:05:31 AM EST
    Yes?

    Parent
    What's Next? | 125 comments (125 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment