Reasons to vote no on Wall Street reform don’t hold up

Wall Street reform looks to be in as much trouble as the energy bill. Though the bill was passed out of conference, it’s actually now losing votes on the Senate floor despite the addition of Maria Cantwell. Robert Byrd’s death is one and Repub Scott Brown is two, and four others are threatening to walk.The original vote was 59-39 with Specter and Byrd not voting. Factor them in, and we can only afford to lose two votes after gaining Cantwell's. If Russ Feingold continues to filibuster, then we need all four of the remaining waverers lest the 2007-8 status quo stands and Wall Street brings down the economy again.

Brown is opposing the bill and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and the Maine twins are threatening to oppose it because of a $17.9 billion fee on big banks from the House version. Democrat Evan Bayh has also grown wishy-washy.

This is ridiculous. Big financial firms and banks have caused trillions of dollars worth of damage to this country - $700 in TARP funds, $787 billion in the stimulus, two consecutive quarters of 6% decline in US GDP, 10% unemployment – yet Repubs would risk it happening all over again rather than tax these crooks a paltry $18 billion? Puh-leaze! It's even more hypocritical when one considers the anti-bailout bleating of most of these Repubs. Here’s our chance for another Main Street bailout, and yet just as with the stimulus and unemployment extension, they’re saying no. Any good will Brown generated by introducing Elena Kagan to the Judiciary Committee yesterday is gone now.

Dodd and Franks have made some small changes to address these petty concerns, but that won't solve all the bill's political woes - and not just because Brown is still playing coy. Democratic Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin is also planning to vote against the legislation, as he did before conference. Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) also voted against it in May, but her concerns about derivatives seem to have been addressed. Feingold, however, is almost taking the position that unless we end too-big-to-fail (and it is too bad that the bill doesn't), then we should leave the current system in place exactly as it its.

I truly admire Feingold and am happy to fundraise for his re-election campaign, but I think he's making a terrible mistake here. If the bill’s strength is already losing it votes, holding out for something better will lose even more. Give Feingold what he wants and not only do the four Republicans firm up their opposition, perhaps we lose not only Bayh but Ben Nelson as well, who voted against an initial procedural motion. That takes us from a possible 61 and passage to a ceiling of 56-57 and failure.

It made sense to filibuster in May when there was still a chance to strengthen the bill, but we’re in the end game now. Either we pass this bill or one very close to it, or we don’t pass a bill at all. This wasn’t the case before conference when the August recess was still far away, but it is the case now. If Feingold and others want to register discontent, they should vote for cloture and against the bill, but a vote against cloture is a vote for Jamie Dimon and a vote for the 2007-8 status quo.

Eliminate Filibuster Now: A "First 100 Days" of Year 2, Avoid Supreme Court Fight, Win 2010 Elections.

Police Lt.: Well, Denham, the airplanes got him.
Denham: No, it wasn't the airplanes. It was beauty killed the beast (King Kong, 1933)

The filibuster will be eliminated this year. One, and possibly two, Justices will retire at the end of the term in June. There is a 100% guarantee that Republicans will filibuster anyone President Obama appoints, claiming approval should await the outcome of the November elections. The President has shown a belief, unsupported by events, to try to be acceptable at least to some Republicans so they will vote for him, in this case, his nominee.

They won't.

So, we will get a lukewarm nominee, and no Supreme Court Justice. The Republicans know theatre very well--that situation will be perceived as the pathetic end of a dysfunctional government.

At that point, Democrats will truly be in a no-win position. If they eliminate the filibuster at that time, for that single purpose, Republicans will have a couple of months right before the election to denounce the 'trickery' to get 'activist' Justices seated. Nonetheless, they will have to eliminate the filibuster then because not to do so would alienate all their constituencies, and guarantee a shellacking in the 2010 elections.

More importantly, Democrats will be in a no-win position because the government will have been dysfunctional for another year and, despite it being Republicans' fault, the Democrats will be blamed because they are in control. And, they have 59 votes, more than Republicans ever had when they rammed through their agenda, and ran the country into the ground.

So, why not recognize the inevitable? Eliminate the filibuster right now. Then, the Republicans' pompous posturing will dissipate after a couple of months now, not near the election, and the Democrats will have a chance to do a "First Hundred Days" of year 2, to pass a robust agenda that will indeed have brought about change:

1) A jobs bill that actually creates jobs;
2) Approve all the President's appointments, together, one vote.
3) A financial reform bill that incorporates Elizabeth Warren's consumer protection agency and (my hope) reinstitution of Glass-Steagall.
4) Healthcare reform incorporating Joe Lieberman's former love, buy-in to medicare for those 55 and older; and a public option; and a combination of taxing high-end plans + a surtax on the wealthy (House + Senate version).
5) Student loan reform
6) Energy tax and rebate (Senator Cantwell's proposal).

While the Republicans bellyache about being steamrollered, Democrats can pass the agenda for which the nation voted in 2008, but soured because of the dithering and dealmaking the existence of the filibuster created. Without the filibuster, no one would have had to talk to Joe Lieberman or Blanche Lincoln or Ben Nelson. [And, since no one would have had to talk to them, I bet they would have been more supportive!].

Without a filibuster, when the summer arrives, and the 1-2 Justices announce their retirements, the President can nominate really good people to the bench. One might suspect that the caliber of those people would be significantly higher than whom he might choose in the vain attempt to get Republican support.

Today, the world is disintegrating. Republicans fear the President's success, both at home and abroad. So does al-Qaeda and Ahmadinejad. They are all reveling in his troubles, because his capacity to force change abroad is limited by his inability to do it at home.

I am late to the "end the filibuster" movement because I worry about what Bush et al. might have done if there were no filibuster then. Social security would have been privatized--and decimated by the financial collapse. Stem cell research would have been totally outlawed (passed twice by the House).

But, I am willing to take those future chances, because the country and the world cannot await an even greater than 60-vote majority that Lyndon Johnson had in the 1960s that will never happen. Eliminating the filibuster means we have to deliver for the American people, and maintain constant vigilance against another radical rightwing takeover.

Although the President is not himself a "boomer", those who control the Congress are. Many of them had their hopes and dreams for a better America, and a safer and more just world, dashed when Robert Kennedy was assassinated. It was then hijacked by George W Bush.

This is their last chance. It starts with eliminating the filibuster.

Now.

 

Sen. Cantwell Endorses Hillary Clinton

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Washington) announced today that she is endorsing Hillary Clinton.

That makes 10 U.S. Senators who have endorsed Hillary, as follows:

*       Indiana Senator Evan Bayh

  •       Washington Senator Maria Cantwell
  •       California Senator Dianne Feinstein
  •       Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye
  •       New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez
  •       Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski
  •       Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor
  •       New York Senator Charles Schumer
  •       Michigan Senator Debbie Stabenow
  •       Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse

There's more...

Around the 'Net: Katrina Posts of Note

Cross-posted from The Wayward Episcopalian: Nathan on New Orleans.

I'm trying to keep tabs on a few of the other New Orleans blogs that are out there. There are far too many for me to look at on a regular basis, so I've selected just a few to slip into my blog reader (I use My Yahoo - how boring and mainstream, I know).

Here are a few posts of note I've seen in the last few days, dealing with YOUR personal Congressman and Senators, the state of the city and why it needs to be saved, FEMA trailers and cottages, and - fun fun - zydeco music. Enjoy!

There's more...

Open Letter to Howard Dean

Dear Dr. Chair Governor Dean,

Thanks for sticking to your guns with the 50 State Strategy that resulted in new business cards being printed for Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Majority Leader Harry Reid.

I am writing today to join with Harry Reid, Max Baucus, Jon Tester, Jeff Bingaman, Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad, Maria Cantwell, Tim Johnson, Ben Nelson and nearly 50 members of the House of Representatives in respectfully asking you to give Denver the 2008 Democratic Party Convention.

Thanks for your consideration.

There's more...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads