Why are you even wasting time on this story? It’s all meaningless kabuki.

Who gives a fuck if the bill passes? Obama has already vowed to veto it, and over-riding a veto takes 2/3 (67 votes).

The only thing a vote on this amendment does is determine whether Congress takes Obankerahma off the hook for the veto.

Anybody who thinks the real rulers of this country are going to get audited is fucking delusional. Short of an armed revolution, will never happen.

Do you have a source for

Obama has already vowed to veto it

?

there is no such source. And the President absolutely won’t veto this bill over a side issue like the Fed audit. He has threatened to veto it, but only if it isn’t strong on derivatives reform or the CFPA, for example.

Obama would absolutely veto an honest audit of the Fed. He might sign it if the audit were to be done by Goldman five years from now and the result would remain secret until the year 2090. Obama HATES transparency. He also hates drama. Imagine how upset people would be if they learned that all the gold went the way of the Social Security Trust Fund.

Although a veto seems unlikely, no way does the Sanders amendment get 60 votes with both the administration and the FDIC providing cover for senators to vote no.

He has threatened to veto it, but only if it isn’t strong on derivatives reform or the CFPA, for example.

Give me a break.

The Fed Audit amendment is not a side issue. The whole system will be at stake if the Fed’s books are uncovered, and all the Fed’s transactions are shown the light of day. The Fed, Wall St, and the White House will fight with all hands on deck to kill the amendment.

I’ve seen the report several times, but failed to copy down a link. (It was months ago, kinda ran under the radar while HCR debate was still going on. Mentioned in context of what would be coming up next after HCR.)I think Glenn Greenwald has mentioned it. But trust me, I didn’t pull it out of the air. (More I think about it, the more I think the first mention was after the House passed the Ron Paul bill by about a hundred vote margin.)

The Fed, Wall St, and the White House will fight with all hands on deck to kill the amendment.

Will fight? Are fighting. Another FDL front page post has reports that Bernie Sanders is being pummeled by the Rahminator.

Went googling for the Obama veto threat and couldn’t find what I was looking for but I did find plenty of references to Ron Paul’s bill gaining enough votes to “veto proof”. Also, there is conjecture that if all people who supported the previous “Audit the Fed” bill in the Senate come on board this one, the result would be a 69 vote margin, also veto proof.

HuffPo as an article listing all the names of the senators.

I’ve said this before, but let me try it this way:

The rules and regular order of the Senate provide for simple-majority passage of amendments on the floor.

Therefore – quoting Ryan Grim’s article – for this (“60-vote” decision) to occur…:

Democratic leadership has yet to decide if an amendment will need 51 or 60 votes for passage, but Sanders said he thought the decision would be made to go with 60.

…the rules first have to be waived by unanimous consent.

So…, therefore…, by definition, Bernie Sanders, “Independent”/”Socialist” can, on his own, prevent that scenario and ensure a 51-majority vote threshold for his amendment, by simply saying “I object” to the “Democratic leadership.” No other “thinking” required. [As could every, or any, other Senator, who wants their amendment to have a chance of passage on the floor. And there are a lot of worthy, if not vital, amendments to this legislation offered by members of both Parties beyond Audit the Fed that deserve a fair shot at passage, but which won't have 60 votes. Amendments that bill manager Chris Dodd has been earnestly assuring his colleagues would all receive a fair hearing on the floor, if not first incorporated into his manager's amendment.]

We, and particularly Capitol Hill “reporters,” need to stop credulously accepting this type of buck-passing BS from Senators, who damn well know better, that pretends that some immutable 60-vote force is acting upon the Senate, over which they have no control… [This isn't a cloture motion vote situation, where the rules, once the motion is filed, require 60 votes; no cloture motion is at issue here, at least not yet.] Sanders should say three words to Rahm Emanuel to pass along to Barack Obama the next time he’s hounded by him, and then hang up the phone: “separation of powers.”

If 60 votes are required by the Democrats on floor amendments to this legislation, thereby subverting the democratic process and the majority will of the Senate, it’s because every Democratic and Independent Senator agreed to waive regular order and impose supermajority rule on the Senate for this amending process [to protect some "deal" (what was that again, Russ Feingold, about your blocking any such pre-arranged deals??)], in place of the simple-majority threshold of regular Senate order. Full Stop.

Here’s the link to the Ryan Grim HuffPo story about Rahm fighting the bill and listing the 69 potential sponsors of the audit bill:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/03/rahm-working-with-fed-to_n_561505.html

Dday, Simon Johnson is saying there won’t be a vote on Brown-Kaufman–is that what you’re hearing?

Someone please wake me when there’s any kind of reform of anything whatsoever.

The amendment could get its vote as soon as tomorrow.

If the vote does go down, what’s plan B?

thanks – what are the chances that Saunders will play it out with regular order?

And the corrupt slug we elected President wonders why there is so much anger at the government. Could it be the continuing efforts to cover up murder of innocents, torture, and looting of the Treasury? Could it be that it appears as if organized crime runs the Federal government?

No plan B.
Savvy businessmen don’t need no stinkin’ Plan B.

Obama is meeting with the Business Council today to talk about Wall Street.
He’ll follow orders, as usual.

I noticed Lieberman’s name is missing from the above list. If Rahm doesn’t like it and Lieberman isn’t on board then the bill is so dead.

perrylogan @14 sums up the situation perfectly. Reform on anything is just another big Obama lie.

David,

I have a lot of respect for your point of view and your writing, but this is absolutism nonsense:

“And the President absolutely won’t veto this bill over a side issue like the Fed audit. He has threatened to veto it, but only if it isn’t strong on derivatives reform or the CFPA, for example.”

First of all, the audit the fed is not a side issue, the fed is a vehicle in which the treasury plays their shell game and hides the awful truth from the american public: the bailout to wall street is much larger than what we’ve been told. The fed has printed money like mad and gave it to wall street through numerous little opaque schemes like taking all their junk securities off of their hands and paying outrageously inflated prices for them and giving them free money … 0% interest … which allows them to mint money when the banks turn around and charge us much higher interest rates to borrow that money. Second of all, the treasury and the fed have been feeding the public nonsense on how well their investments are going on the junk securities they absorbed. When you filter through all the bs, the fed is robbing the american people via their printing presses and papering over huge financial crimes that the leaders of the banks have pulled off. The fed is an enemy of the american people, the fed is a plutocratic tool that gives control of our financial system to sociopathic lowlife criminals that have done much harm to this country and the american people. THEREFORE THE FED WILL BE PROTECTED. Do you really think that rahm is calling around behind obama’s back in trying to beat back this amendment? NO! He is doing obama’s bidding.

Lastly, obama’s word doesn’t mean SHIT! I know you know that, so don’t cite his empty words as proof that he wouldn’t do something … that’s nonsense. No, obama wouldn’t come out and say that he vetoed a bill due to auditing the fed, he’d do it other ways, like saying that the bill is not tough enough and then dealing away other things to stop the fed audit. This is who obama is and that is what he does … and if for some reason you don’t think so … and you are too smart not to … then all you have to do is take a close look at his conduct during the health care insurance bailout bill process when he said he was for the public option … and a bunch of other things that would favor the public … and then the lowlife snuck around behind our backs and made damn sure that many of those things that he claimed he was for, but the health care industrial complex wasn’t in favor of, never were effectuated in the bill.

Z

Kabuki. [My comment before reading powwow.]

&*$%ing KABUKI. [My comment after reading powwow.]

I’m done with Saunders. He’s reeled me in with this bullshit for the last time.

I’m with you with Sanders … and I wish it wasn’t so becoz I used to have a lot of respect for the man … he’s got his own kabukis and is far from the principled person I thought he was. And you can put Dean and Kucinich in with him.

Z

you can call your senators to get this amendment to floor debate and to get some support — absolutely important.

demint says, “[the fed, big banks] enjoys a monopoly”, we need to get this to debate today, our last chances, please, please call here: http://banksterusa.org/

The only reason this amendment will require 60 votes is if leadership believes it has more than 50. If Sanders gets to 60, I bet the amendment won’t come up at all.

The last resort for O is the signing statement, issued quietly and probably as confidentially as possible, ordering all federal agencies not to perform the audit. And I doubt Congress will have the guts to order the audit done by one of its own committees or commissions. (Although I do love the fantasy that it might end up being done by Elizabeth Warren and her TARP commission.)