How did Scott Brown get to be the financial reform "decider"?

Salon asks the "duh" rhetorical question column of the week, and never even mentions the Obama-Dodd-Schumer troika's refusal to deal with Russ Feingold. (Which is, of course, the non-rhetorical answer to the rhetorical question.)

NYT a bit confused about Obama's "financial reform"

First, contrary to its claim that he has a lot to offer Europe on financial reform, vs. their not listening to him on fiscal stimulus issues, he actually has bupkis to offer.

First, let's look at Senate dealings. Bottom line is, top Senate Democrat money-market-lusters Chris Dodd and Chuck Schumer had their choice: Deal with progressive Democratic Russ Feingold to get something more reformative, or deal with faux Tea Bagger, new GOP Sen. Scott Brown.

And, they chose Brown.

And, they chose Brown with the benign, silent blessing of Obama, who claims what's coming out of House-Senate conference has most of what he wants.

If that's true, that's the clearest sign yet of his neoliberalism on fiscal policy.

If it's false, that's the clearest sign yet of his Kumbayahism on fiscal policy.

Second, because of Reason No. 1, there is not real financial reform. Bankers' taxes and other ideas like that are mainly coming from the other side of the pond, not here.

is the Dodd fix in on gutting financial reform? Maybe ...

It certainly looks like it, as Sen. Jesus Chris Dodd offers a gut the fish amendment on the financial regulatory reform bill that would put Sen. Blanche Lincoln's Ag Committee amendment on derivatives on ice.

But, Lincoln's Democratic primary going to a runoff may put Dodd's amendment on ice. Stay tuned?

If Wall Street is a casino, it's incestuous

It's a casino that's rigged, with algorithmic trading on computer the Securities and Exchange Commission still doesn't understand, with the incestuousness of paying ratings agencies for their ratings of sheiss. And, more and worse, as Salon's Andrew Leonard makes clear.

The incestuous part? EU member states know this, too, especially the incestuousness between ratings agencies and the investment banks like Goldman Sucks who sold drossy schlock as alleged 24-K gold.

(So, Lloyd Blankfein, was Moody's helping you do "God's work"?)

Oh, a few Democrats (from the party that outpaced the GOP 2-1 in 2008 election cycle campaign receipts from Wall Street, per Open Secrets) have blathered about reforming this incestuous relationship, but the financial reform bill from Chris Dodd (D-Conn. Man) never did address this.

Compare the EU, which is implementing a new regulatory system for ratings agencies, which goes into effect near the end of this year.

In fact, the concern has been so bad in the Eurozone, politicians are saying, why don't we have a European-based ratings agency?

There have been repeated calls from European policymakers in recent years for a home-grown agency to compete in the U.S. dominated sector but with little progress. Users of ratings, such as investment banks, said policymakers are aiming at the wrong target.

"They should be focusing on getting stability back to the market and a European ratings agency is not going to do that," said Mark Austen, acting chief executive of the Association for Financial Markets in Europe.

The new EU rules being phased in from September will include requiring them to undergo direct supervision if they want to issue ratings in the 27-nation bloc, and two have at least two "independent" members of their boards of directors.

Chris Dodd contines to sell out consumers

I don't know what Dodd continues to vainly chase Senate GOP votes by watering down his consumer protection bill again and again.

To me, if a bill creates a new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, even if it's housed inside the Fed, it needs to provide funding for that agency, right? Well, isn't that the angle to use Senate reconciliation procedures?

And, if not, is The One ready to go crusading for this bill after health care? Make Republicans defend not wanting to protect consumers?

That said, even a bill that has a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, if it's inside the Fed, is too weak. The Fed's charge is, above all, monetary policy. To the degree it's a regulatory agency, it's supposed to focus on larger banks and related financial institutions. It's not designed to focus on mortgage brokers who peddled many of the subprime loans in the first place.

Anyway, read the whole analysis piece; it looks at several main areas, including derivatives, consumer abuses, executive compensation, legal authority and the "too big to fail" issue.

On most of these issues, not just what I mentioned above, it's too weak.

Dodd and Conrad knew they had ‘VIP’ mortgages

Sens. Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad knew they had sweetheart mortgage deals, and Countrywide told them that at the time, according to “secret” Congressional testimony by Robert Feinberg, who worked in Countrywide's VIP section, to the Senate Ethics Committee.

On the other hand, Feinberg says it was not because they were senators, but because they were “friends of Angelo,” as in then-CEO of Countrywide Angelo Mozilo.

Guess who’s coming to – the AIG – dinner

It’s true that Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd was the largest Senate receiver of AIG largesse in the 2008 election cycle.

But, who was No. 2?

Why, a certain former junior senator from Illinois. The plot and the shit both thicken.

Ahh, you Obamiacs… having fun today? Is this the change you voted for?

All you people, alleged “liberals,” who attacked me (and people like me), for touting a Green Party vote last year, ready to start eating the MASSIVE plate of crow on your dinner table?

Dodd falling on sword, or being pushed off the plank?

And, if you ask me which metaphor is true, it’s clearly No. 2

Senator Chris Dodd admits HE inserted the retroactive bonus donning provision … BUT …

At the request of Team Obama, as he made clear in a follow-up statement:

“I did not want to make any changes to my original Senate-passed amendment but I did so at the request of Administration officials, who gave us no indication that this was in any way related to AIG. Let me be clear – I was completely unaware of these AIG bonuses until I learned of them last week.

Dodd added that the alternative was losing his amendment on bonuses in the stimulus bill, entirely.

Tis true that Dodd was the largest Senate receiver of AIG largesse in the 2008 election cycle.

But, who was No. 2?

Why, a certain former junior senator from Illinois. The plot and the shit both thicken.

Plus, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner knew the basics of the AIG bonuses 10 days before he claimed he did. And, his old place of work, the New York Fed, even warned about retention bonuses.

The phrase “fucking douche bag” comes to mind.

Team Obama starts crapping on Chris Dodd

What else can you call the clusterfuck of fingerpointing by the Obama Administration against the Connecticut Senator over AIG bonuses, even as President Barack Obama himself says Geither has his full confidence.

How’d we get here? Ask Geithner why he pushed to REMOVE retroactivity on bonus checks from the final version of the 2009 lenders’ bailout bill; a provision Dodd inserted in the Senate version.

And now, Obama completes the crapping with more bullshit, this time over the alleged need for a new financial regulatory agency.

Or ask this head up his ass Kossack why he doesn’t get it, even as I laugh in schadenfreude at the other Kossacks posting there telling him his “greatest president in history” needs to do something to earn the honor.

I’m laughing in schadenfreude because, three or so years ago, people like that helped get me banned.

Beyond that is the issue of the transparency of Team Obama lies. It must be something else it picked up from BushCo and decided to keep.

I mean, this one is a couple of steps short, even, of “the dog ate my homework.”

Remember when Obama said he wasn’t worried about conservative attacks because he’d been through Chicago politics? Well, shamefully, he’s showing just how much he learned.

The economic crack-up WAS bipartisan

In vetting the claims in President Obama’s State of the Union address, the Washington Post takes him to the fact-checking woodshed on a couple of issues.

One of them was his subtle, or not-so-subtle dig at the GOP, attempting to lay all the blame for the current economic situation at its feet.

Guess B.O. didn’t want to throw the name of his own “economic czar,” Larry Summers, into that mix now, did he?

The Larry Summers who, as Bill Clinton’s Treasury Secretary, pushed so hard for financial dereg in general? Or the folks like Sen.-Banking, Chris Dodd, or Sen-MBNA, now Veep-Stanford Investments, Joe Biden, who were okey-dokey with loosening the reins of federal regulatory oversight, right?

I’ve said in the past and will say again, my rule-of-thumb blame-assigning on this issue is 2/3 Republican, 1/3 Democratic.

Campbell Brown nails bipartisan cause of financial troubles

I’m glad somebody with a much bigger pulpit than me is pointing out the hand that people like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank had in getting us to this point.

Bipartisan hypocrites pop out of the Immunity 2.0 woodwoork

At least some of them are arising like Punxsatawny Phil to see if they cast a shadow from the past, or can now don the mantle of reform:

"We're going to demand, as a coequal branch of government, accountability," Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, told reporters.

This is the same Chris Dodd who was a Senate cosponsor of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America-promised “tort reform” legislation. Thanks to people like Dodd, this was one of only two Clinton vetoes to be overridden; you can’t even blame this bit of “neoliberalism” on the Slickster!

Meanwhile, here’s his GOP counterpart, Richard Shelby:

Shelby, ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, blamed “greed and lack of regulatory oversight” for the financial mess.

Also appearing on “Face the Nation,” Shelby predicted there would be more such problems unless there is “tough regulatory reform in the next Congress.”

Point me to one bill, or even one amendment, you’ve sponsored or been a primary cosponsor on, that has been about tighter financial regulation, Sen. John McCain Jr.

And, Greider is well worth a read:

The United States is ill equipped to deal with it smartly, not to mention wisely. We have a brain-dead lame duck in the White House. The two presidential candidates are trapped by events, trying to say something relevant without getting blamed for the disaster.

Meanwhile, though I’m not in the same political world as Mish, he’s been on top of the whole subprime issue for three years or more, and I agree with him on Barney Frank.

There’s no easy way to do a home mortgage bailout on this, or as a standalone.

Why you should NOT trust Dems in ‘Immunity 2.0’ bailout

Think “tort reform” in 1995; think GLB in 1999

Not only did 2/3 of House Dems for FOR Gramm-Leach-Bliley in 1999 (many Democratic cover-ups will point ONLY to the party-line Senate vote, while ignoring the House vote and the fact that the House reported it out of committee before the Senate, but also …

A narrow majority of Dems voted FOR The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 in the House, with a substantial minority of Senate Dems going along — 69-30 overall, with a 26-16 split against by Democrats. However, such “stalwarts” as Reid, Dodd, Kerry and even Harkin and Kennedy all voted yes; Leahy, Feingold and (surprisingly) Joe Biden were among top no votes.

Hell, Dodd was even a cosponsor!

(On GLB, other House yes votes include Rangel, Patrick Kennedy, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Ackerman, David Bonior, both Udalls, Sandy Levin, Murtha, Oberstar and others. House roll call here)

In the House, supposedly progressive minority Democrats such as Shelia Jackson-Lee and Eddie Bernice Johnson were among the yes voters, along with Big Bill Richardson and Chuck Schumer (shock me again) among others.

And, you know who — Passive Pelosi™ of course voted yes.

And, you can’t even blame the Slickster for this one. He vetoed it and got overridden.

This was a fulcrum piece of legislation from Newt Gingrich’s Contract with America and the start of the conservative “tort reform” battle at the federal level, and Democrats couldn’t muster enough numbers to uphold a Clinton veto — one of just two vetoes of his that were overridden.

So, on Uncle Henry’s Used Derivatives Bailout, Passive Pelosi™ and Land-Swap Harry Reid will bit a bit, then roll over and play dead.

Andy, you know what?

So will about 98 percent of registered Democratic voters who are politically active.

Even where they have Green (or Socialist/Social Democratic) alternatives on the ballot for president, or even local Congressional races, you'll listen to Democrats' fear-mongering.

“What’s the Matter with Kansas” has nothing on this.

Sidebar: It’s “interesting” that Uncle Harry made his immunity request the same day Attorney General Mike Mukasey officially played the immunity card in the FISA/telecom fight.

Will Obama support the Feingold-Dodd filibuster on FISA?

A 2005 diary of his on The Orange Pseudoliberal Monster may provide some clues. It’s about his decision not to filibuster the nomination of John Roberts as Chief Justice. (Sidebar: Feingold was among Democrats who voted FOR Roberts’ nomination, a reminder that while some Democratic Congressmen are purer than others, none is as pure as Caesar’s wife allegedly was.)

That said, here’s a few selected comments by Obama:

I am not arguing that the Democrats should trim their sails and be more “centrist.” In fact, I think the whole “centrist” versus “liberal” labels that continue to characterize the debate within the Democratic Party misses the mark. Too often, the “centrist” label seems to mean compromise for compromise sake, whereas on issues like health care, energy, education and tackling poverty, I don’t think Democrats have been bold enough. But I do think that being bold involves more than just putting more money into existing programs and will instead require us to admit that some existing programs and policies don't work very well. And further, it will require us to innovate and experiment with whatever ideas hold promise (including market- or faith-based ideas that originate from Republicans).

First, a sidebar: I’ll be tackling this “faith-based” issue in another blog post tomorrow.

Beyond that, several points.

First, even with Karl Rove, it’s arguable that modern politics is still less nasty than that of the 19th century.

Second, Obama doesn’t explain HOW he will sell “Kumbaya.” Nor does he distinguish selling it to the voting public from selling it to Senate Republicans who keep threatening filibusters.

The bottom line is that our job is harder than the conservatives’ job. After all, it’s easy to articulate a belligerent foreign policy based solely on unilateral military action, a policy that sounds tough and acts dumb; it’s harder to craft a foreign policy that's tough and smart. It’s easy to dismantle government safety nets; it's harder to transform those safety nets so that they work for people and can be paid for. It’s easy to embrace a theological absolutism; it's harder to find the right balance between the legitimate role of faith in our lives and the demands of our civic religion. But that’s our job.

But the hardest part, again unmentioned, is redefining the “job” of liberalism away from how Republicans have defined it, and that gets to the heart of “Kumbaya.”
Finally, you have this bit boatload of irony:

Our goal should be to stick to our guns on those core values that make this country great.

So, back to the main question — would that include the basket warrants part of the new FISA bill?

Probably not.

Don’t believe my analysis? Then read Obama’s lips:

“I think what is clear is that the way the program operated broke the law that was existing at the time,” Obama said Monday at a news conference in Jacksonville, Fla. “On the other hand, what I’ve also seen and learned is the degree to which the underlying program itself is, in fact, necessary to help prevent terrorist attacks.”

Sounds like he is definitely down with the infringement of civil liberties.

Oh, and he hasn’t tried to explain himself on this issue since that comment.

Countrywide Senate buddies pile up lies

Kent Conrad says it was “serendipity” to wind up on the phone with Countrywide Financial CEO Angelo Mozilo. I guess it was “serendipity” to get into Countrywide’s VIP loan program, too.

In the same story, Chris Dodd said he assumed it was a “courtesy” when told he was in the same program. And, Countrywide folks never said another word to you about anything? Like mortgage-related legislation, Chris? Just a “courtesy” because you’re such a wonderful senator?

Well, scratch Dodd from the Obama VP list, if he was on it. And, probably, from any Obama Cabinet position.

As I said before, in today’s Net-driven instant journalism era, to riff on Watergate:

It’s not the impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety, that gets you.

A couple of senators haven’t learned that yet.

Chris Dodd refuses to mouth the Conrad Burns confessional

Unlike his fellow senator, Chris Dodd refuses to fess up to at least the appearance of impropriety on the sweetheart loan he got from Countrywide Financial.

Again, though, Dodd continues to parse his words carefully. He still only says that he refused to seek preferential treatment without addressing the more substantive issues of whether or not he got preferential treatment (unsolicited) and, if so, did it affect any votes of his related to mortgages, etc.?

Parallel to the old Watergate saying, “It’s not the impropriety, but the appearance of impropriety, that gets you.”

Jim Johnson, meet Chris Dodd

The Connecticut Senator reportedly joins the former Barack Obama VP vetter as among people receiving special “friends and family” loans from Countrywide Financial, one of the country’s main subprime mortgage companies.

Dodd’s staff is, of course, denying it:

“The Dodds received a competitive rate on their loans,” spokesman Bryan DeAngelis said in a statement. “They did not seek or anticipate any special treatment and they were not aware of any.”

Conde Nast Portfolio begs to differ:

The magazine first reported Dodd's participation in a special program that awarded preferential rates to people considered “friends” of the company's chairman and chief executive, Angelo Mozilo.

Portfolio reported that Countrywide made two loans at special rates to Dodd in 2003. One was a $503,000 loan to refinance a Washington townhouse. The second was for refinancing a loan on a home in East Haddam, Conn.

Countrywide waived three-eighths of a point, or about $2,000, on the townhouse loan, and one-fourth of a point, about $700, on the second, according to internal documents cited by Portfolio. Both loans were for 30 years, with the first five years at a fixed rate.

Beyond that, Mr. DeAngelis, even if Dodd didn’t ask, he didn’t turn it down. Nor did a number of other “name” people.

The bottom line is, how much did Dodd save? Portfolio estimates as much as $70K, though that's being disputed

This appearance of unsavory behavior is bipartisan, though it’s sad to see the number of Democrats on the list:

The magazine said other participants in the company’s “V.I.P.” program included Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., chairman of the Budget Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and former U.N. ambassador and assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke.

Yet another reason to vote Green or else not vote.

Obama and 20 VP possibilities — first impressions

Barack Obama’s vice presidential search team reportedly has 20-candidate list.

Who’s NOT on there, and who’s most likely not on there, might be a good starting point.

Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland, a favorite of pundits, has said “no, thanks.”

More on Strickland’s ixnaying here.

John Edwards declined some time back. You know Al Gore doesn’t want it, anybody who holds to that idea.

I’ll take an unofficial gander that both Joe Biden and Chris Dodd don’t represent “change” enough.

The CNN article throws out the intriguing name of Michael Bloomberg, but I seriously doubt he would settle for the No. 2 slot, either.

We’ll start learning in a day or two who wasn’t getting serious consideration by the “no, thanks” comments from people who, unlike Strickland, weren’t on the A list in the first place.

RIP freedom from snooping, RIP Democratic conscience — telco immunity passes Senate

Sixteen Democrats, more than a dirty dozen, were in the 67-31 majority to vote down the Senate’s Dodd-Feingold amendment and so give telecommunications companies retroactive immunity from spying on Americans — spying that went on BEFORE 9/11, remember. (Independent Joe Lieberman, I-Neocon, also was in the majority; Obama was on the right side and Clinton failed to show to vote.

Alternatives, such as Sen. Arlen Specter’s amendment to have the government stand in the lawsuit box in place of the telcos, also failed, as did Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Betty Crocker) bill to stipulate FISA is the sole mechanism for wiretapping, and an amendment to increase oversight of wiretapping of American citizens.

Yes, I know the House passed a version of FISA renewal without immunity, but given the margin in the Senate, you know what’s going to ultimately happen to that.

The only way of salvaging a somewhat more favorable impression of Democrats would be if someone like Chris Dodd follows through on his idea of doing an old-fashioned actual filibuster, since he doesn’t have 40 votes to block cloture.

I’m sorry for all you “vote Democratic no matter what” apologists, but if nearly one-third of Senate Dems, including a “bright new face” like Jim Webb, can vote in favor of immunity, there’s even less reason for me to support the “D” lever myself.

Update: There is hope for now. Dodd has indeed promised to filibuster if a House-Senate conference doesn’t strip telco immunity.

Of course, per the “faint hope” of “The Lord of the Rings,” whether any other Democratic Senators will step to the microphone for a real filibuster, as opposed to six-plus years of GOP fake filibusters, remains to be seen.

That said, per the Senate of the 1950s and 1960s, for historical value alone, it would be fun to see a real filibuster.

Five chickenshits on Mukasey?

The four Democratic senatorial presidential candidates — Clinton, Obama, Biden and Dodd — all say they opposed Michael Mukasey’s nomination as attorney general. Yet, none of them could actually be present in the Senate to officially vote no?

That’s pretty much ditto for McCain on the Republican side, who weaseled out of having to vote either for or against Mukasey despite saying he believes waterboarding is torture.