Just to remind folks, Barney Frank’s “reform” bill sucks. So while the CBC is using their boycott as leverage for their own agenda it is actually not being used to make this a substantially better bill, at least as far as real reform is concerned.

please enlighten me. I’ve been focused on HCR. I know this is in the pipeline, but don’tknow particulars. If it’s not too much trouble. Is it faux reform with lots of loopholes?

My money is on faux reform with lots of loopholes. The A holes that craft this legislation have one constituency and it’s not the “people.”

riiight. a newer commenter came up with a great term: the civilian sector. I wish more elected officials and economists would think about the civilian sector.

I really like Barney Frank when he’s pounding publicly on republican’ts, but his flaws are glaring these days.

The flaws in the entire system are glaring these days.

I think that the real answer is probably Door Number Three: The CBC can’t count.

wry *g*. right you are.

Incidentally, the bill passed by the HFSC today would audit the Fed, would limit the leverage ratio for big banks, and would do a lot of other things that nobody ever, ever expected. Like all legislation in Congress, it’s not perfect, but it’s much better than anybody had a right to believe given this group of lawmakers.

All the money is gone folks, the pentagon got it. We just spent enough to take care of the health care needs for everyone, and the profit is going to the 1%. The coup is over, the silence is deafening, the point is moot.

From the opensecrets.org Congressional watchdog site:

This committee, formerly known as the Banking Committee, has long been considered a “big money” panel, with jurisdiction over commercial banks and savings and loans that traditionally have been very generous with their campaign contributions to committee members. That trend has continued with the addition of two cash-rich industries to the committee’s portfolio: insurance and securities. Look for the giant financial sector, which includes banks, insurance companies, and securities firms, to continue its robust giving to committee members.

george:

In the 2008 election cycle, the finance/insurance/real estate sectors of the economy contributed over $25,000,000 to members of this committee.

Indeed, here are the top 5 contributors to Chairman Barney Frank’s political career:

Real Estate $659,408
Securities & Investment $636,855
Insurance $585,481
Lawyers/Law Firms $563,056
Commercial Banks $505,550

So far, for the 2010 cycle, these sectors have already contributed over $9,000,000.

If, as noted, this committee just passed a “major bill to regulate risk in the finance industry”, what does this really mean? Is it analogous to, say, the “major reform” of the health care industry now being “debated” in the Senate?

Excuse me for being cynical, but how “major” can this really be given that virtually nothing has changed regarding the revolving doors between New York and Washington?

Jon Walker has a fresh cross-post up: “The $149 Billion Medicare Advantage Boondoggle”

One thing tho; things are getting clearer.

http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts12022009.html

This is the last I think of 3 major pieces on financial reform. One portion was on derivatives and proposed exchanges run and monitored by banks who are also the biggest holders of these instruments. The really noxious stuff would remain outside of the exchanges. The second portion has as its centerpiece the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) which was gutted. All kinds of businesses were exempted from its purview and a requirement for institutions to provide plain vanilla alternatives was removed. The last portion is what we see today. The audit the Fed amendment is the one really worthwhile piece of it. This is some of what it contains with my notations:

Establish a government regulatory council, led by the Treasury Department, to regulate the financial services industry [bogus]

Authorize the Government Accountability Office to audit the Federal Reserve
Empower the government to dissolve large financial companies in danger of failing [excellent]

Require financial secured creditors to accept up to a 20 percent “haircut” if the government bails out a financial firm [in the weeds but if what I have read is right this is actually good, again from what I have read it is a way to force bondholders to deal or try their luck in bankruptcy]

Establish an industry-financed fund to pay for FDIC losses related to the failure of financial companies with at least $10 billion in assets [way too small]

Limit large financial companies’ holdings of certain kinds of credit [unsure if this is the part about limiting leveraging it probably can be gamed]

Fold the Office of Thrift Supervision into the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency [minor but not sure why this didn't go to FDIC]

Replace the OTS director on the FDIC’s board with the Fed chairman or a Fed governor [I don't like giving the Fed more power,period]

http://industry.bnet.com/financial-services/10005234/house-lawmakers-approve-broad-financial-reform-bill/

Yeah, Roberts has been so ‘on target’ about things it’s scary but expected given his background.

And Hugh is right.