Tweet
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expressed frustration last night that there had been, at that time, no unanimous consent agreements on any amendment to Wall Street reform. “We had amendments that their Senators offered yesterday that we were willing to accept, but they refused to let us do that,” he said on the Senate floor. “I understand that the Republicans have made a decision that they’re going to be the party of no, and you would think after they established that, that would be good enough for them. But I guess they want to underscore and underline it and have a big exclamation mark so no one will ever miss the fact that the Republican Party in this Congress has been the party of no.”
This morning, there was a minor breakthrough, emphasis on minor. Senators Chris Dodd and Richard Shelby, who are managing the bill, agreed to vote on the Boxer amendment, a non-controversial piece that just explicitly says “no taxpayer money for bailouts of failing companies,” at 11:30am, with a vote on Richard Shelby’s amendment, which codifies the deal on resolution authority made, with Democrats conceding the $50 billion dollar “pre-fund” paid for by the banks, at 12:30. Under the new deal, the Treasury would loan the resolution funds to the FDIC, which it would have to cover through the sale of assets, and failing that, a fee on financial firms. If it sounds all that different, well, it isn’t.
I suppose this movement on amendments represents progress, but we’re two days and a half into this debate, and we’re finally getting a vote on 2 amendments out of around 155. That doesn’t bode well for the plan by Sen. Reid to wrap this up by the end of next week. There are other priorities for this legislative period, like finishing work with a conference report on the “extenders” bill (which would extend a variety of expiring tax credits as well as keep unemployment insurance and the COBRA subsidy going until the end of the year), about 100 Presidential nominations, a firefighter collective bargaining bill, a food safety bill, a supplemental for war funding for Afghanistan, a small business jobs package, a potential budget resolution, and more. Whether the Republican disagreement on amendments reflects a stall tactic or a way to force 60-vote thresholds for amendments so they get a say on some of them or whatever, I don’t see it resolving itself, and getting in all the votes, before the end of next week.
This gives more time for some amendments to build support, but it also gives those who want to kill popular amendments, like the audit the Fed bill, more time. Claire McCaskill and Richard Burr are already backing away from the “audit the Fed” amendment by Sen. Sanders, after both of them voted for a similar resolution last spring. Burr is, in fact, a co-sponsor of the bill with identical language on Fed transparency.
11 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Belly flop, like health insurance reform.
It’s the deals we don’t know about that worry me.
Reid knew exactly what course support for auditing Wall Street would take in the Senate. He is unlikely to be surprised, especially in light of the White House’s concern that donations from the Street to the Democrats might dwindle if it lets the public, by way of a Fed audit, find out what it really did with all that taxpayer’s money.
I must not understand things very well because this strikes me as being entirely too broad and a huge mistake.
The “secret” is the identity of each asset accept by the Fed for collateral or sale to the Fed when the banking system froze and the Fed had to provide liquidity to the system to restart banking in this country.
I’m not sure what that info would accomplish beyond embarrassing the Fed for accepting shitty assets.
Hard to see the policy goal those that want the audit provision are shooting for (GAO already has audit responsibility for the Fed but God knows what they audit if anything). “Transparency” is usual a goal our political types shoot for only when it will advantage a political donor (small banks?) or is obviously needed as in derivatives (where they under Blanche Lincoln’s amendment would exempt 70% of derivatives from that transparency)!
You understand perfectly well, but this “explicit language” probably wouldn’t mean much of anything if push came to shove.
The link John R. Talbott: The trillion-dollar fraud: Why is the Fed so opposed to being audited, and what does it have to hide http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/05/01/trillion_dollar_fraud is excellent – and as the author states “he suspects” that the assets on the Fed books are toxic and of little value – masking the cost of the bank bailout (despite Bernanke stating that the expect to resell them into the market at their cost).
Under the link’s author’s assumption that the sales were made to the Fed with an agreement that the extra “good” reserves could not be used for operations, there is no flood of “usable” reserves – and therefore no worry about inflation. I think he is correct in his assumption. So the audit would expose just how big a gift to the banks – and to the billion dollar bonus pools for CEO’s and VP’s – that was made.
Oh heck – folks get bored – and seeing the real numbers – which we can do nothing now about – would get the blood flowing – and maybe we could get into law salary control the next time this happens. Let’s have an Audit!
I’m confused and in need of an education, and don’t mind if it be given publicly.
1. The Senate finance bill included a bank-funded $50B fund to be used to in lieu of taxpayer money in the dissolution of large failed banks, analogous to the similar fund administered by the FDIC for reasonably-sized banks.
2. McConnell took Luntz’s advice and characterized this–completely falsely–as institutionalizing taxpayer-funded bailouts.
3. The Democrats, ever so ready to show their true corporatist colors in the name of bipartisanship, conceded to get rid of the fund.
4. Without a bank-funded fund, future governments will have the choice between letting a failed large bank take down the financial system and put the nation’s economy in chaos, impacting citizens in reliably significant but partially unpredictable ways, or bailing the bank out using taxpayer funds.
What part of this did I get wrong? Does this make as little sense to every other reality-based observer as it does to me?
I think the GOPers learned from the HCR non-reform bill that the longer they can hold a piece of legislation in the Senate while the lobbyists work their magic behind the scenes, the better the result will be for them and the worse the result will be for the Dems and the legislation itself. I see them holding it up as long as possible. Once again, Harry Reid twiddles his thumbs and bemoans his fate as McConnell outmaneuvers him. My guess is this legislation will pass only after the GOPers and the lobbyists have gutted the best provisions; and the WH will cheer the gutting once again just to get something, anything, passed so they can claim a “win”.
What’s the point of taking banking and the federal accounts seriously if we’re screened from the Fed’s activities. Might as well assume their resources are limitless. The usual argument for the Fed’s opacity is that it allows financial institutions to leverage without imposition. No idea what that means.
Kabuki.