Dodd Financial Bill Delayed

For a few days, anyways.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) explicitly told reporters this evening he's not committed to voting for the legislation, citing a handful of measures, and concern about potential future directors of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

"You don't know who's going to be head of the consumer protection bureau," Nelson said after a vote. "You can't just send a rogue agency out on its own."

The suggestion is that Nelson wants input behind the scenes on who the White House might nominate to run the new agency.

Between the death of Robert Byrd, and the opposition of Sen. Russ Feingold, Democrats had been down to 57 votes for the bill within their own party. But by winning votes from Republicans Snowe, Scott Brown, and Susan Collins, they would have been at 60. Nelson once again leaves them a vote shy. If he remains undecided for more than a few days, Dems will have to wait on Manchin, who said he's likely to appoint a new senator by the beginning of next week.

Maybe next week.

Senate To Vote On Frank-Dodd Financial Bill This Week?

According to Bytestyle TV (Who got it from Downsize DC):

The Senate will vote on the Frank-Dodd financial (non)reform bill (H.R. 4173) this week and possibly as soon as today. Although it has the votes to pass, it doesn't yet have the 60 votes needed to break a filuster.

This bill will only strangle our already-ailing economy, and will do nothing to prevent future financial collapses or bailouts. Please tell your Senators to support the filibuster and oppose Frank-Dodd through our Reduce Regulations campaign.

You may borrow or copy from this letter . . .

Reducing regulations would actually be the best reform of the financial system. The fraudulent Dodd-Frank bill will only create powerful new armies of regulators who won't actually reform anything.

As David C. John and James L. Gattuso of the Heritage Foundation point out:

* At 2,300 pages, none of you will have read the bill or know what, exactly, is in it
* The bill empowers regulators to seize private property and "wind down" firms they, and they alone, judge to be "failing."
* A Committee to guard against "systemic risk" won't possibly possess all the knowledge to do their job, and will only discourage and stifle innovation
* The Consumer Protection bureau will reduce the number of options and choices of informed, responsible customers
* The new bureau will also issue supposedly "consumer-friendly" regulations that will conflict with the goal of other regulators of protecting the safety and soundness of financial firms
* By abolishing retail debit card fees (a practice that had nothing to do with the crisis), banks will be forced to raise revenue other ways such as eliminating free checking (and some banks have already begun to do this)
* The bill does nothing to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, two firms that played a huge role in causing the financial crises - which makes future bailouts probable

It gets worse . . .

* A provision to audit the Federal Reserve was gutted in the final bill
* Section 342 seems to require quotas for women and minorities for government agencies and contractors, as if current laws and current departmental civil rights enforcers weren't enough http://tinyurl.com/3997jfu

I don't see how this bill provides ANY benefit to me or to the nation. Instead of reforming our financial system, it just empowers politicians and bureaucrats to reward your friends and punish your enenemies.

A REAL reform bill would . . .

* require greater accountability in the market by forcing even large firms to face the threat of bankruptcy
* abolish "government sponsored enterprises" like Fannie and Freddie
* provide a real and thorough audit of the Fed, whose decisions did so much to cause the crisis.

5 of 10 Top Recipients Of Goldman Sachs Money Were Senators

During 2008, Goldman Sachs gave millions to politicians, especially Senators:

1. Sen. Barack Obama (presidential candidate) $996,595

2. Sen. Hillary Clinton (presidential candidate) $411,150

3. Mitt Romney (presidential candidate) $234,275

4. Sen. John McCain (presidential candidate) $230,095

5. Rep. Jim Himes (D.-Conn.) $155,098

6. Sen. Chris Dodd (D.-Conn.) $112,500

7. Rudy Giuliani (presidential candidate) $111,750

8. John Edwards (presidential candidate) $66,450

9. Sen. Arlen Specter (R.-Pa.) $47,600

10. Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D.-Ill.) $37,750

If Senators were appointed by their state legislatures as the Constitution originally designed, we'd see a lot less of this. With 2 Republicans and 3 Democrats, it's clear that corruption is a bipartisan affair.

Repeal the 17th Amendment, and you significantly reduce the ability of people to buy influence in the federal government.

The Dodd Bill Weakens Federalism

As Justice Brandeis pointed out many years ago, “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous State may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of country.” So long as state legislation is limited to regulation of firms incorporated within the state, as it generally is, there is no risk of conflicting rules applying to the same corporation. Experimentation thus does not result in confusion, but instead may lead to more efficient corporate law rules.

In contrast, the uniformity imposed by [the Dodd Bill] will preclude experimentation with differing modes of regulation. As such, there will be no opportunity for new and better regulatory ideas to be developed—no “laboratory” of federalism. Instead, we will be stuck with rules that may well be wrong from the outset and, in any case, may quickly become obsolete.

... Competitive federalism promotes liberty as well as shareholder wealth. When firms may freely select among multiple competing regulators, oppressive regulation becomes impractical. if one regulator overreaches, firms will exit its jurisdiction and move to one that is more laissez-faire. In contrast, when there is but a single regulator, such that exit by the regulated is no longer an option, an essential check on excessive regulation is lost.

Worse than that, the Dodd bill will actually unleash the worst elements of corporate law on the federal government, and therefore the entire country. States that would otherwise successfully inhibit corporate corruption will be unable to. As a result, corporations will actually be even more incentivized to corrupt the federal government in their favor, especially when the prevailing view is for the federal government to give tons of goodies and freebies to its backers. The congressional-corporate complex will fit the very definition of fascism: rule by the wealthy.

Corruption is the result of centralization of power. Put that much power in one place, and it draws corruption like moths to a flame. The only way to limit it is to decentralize our government by repealing the 17th Amendment, so the Senate would once again serve its original Constitutional function.

Senate To Vote On New Financial Regulations

Emboldened by public anger at Wall Street, Democrats set the first key vote for Monday on a bill to rein in the financial industry — even though Reid lacks a bipartisan deal or any guarantee that he’ll get the crucial 60th vote needed to break a filibuster.

And if no Republican cracks, and the bill goes down, Reid is calculating that would be politically devastating for the GOP, because the party would appear to be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Wall Street bankers many Americans blame for the recession.

“We have the upper hand,” said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, a member of the Senate Democratic leadership.

The problem is that this bill does not "rein in" the financial industry. What does it do? Well...

At the top of the list is the $50 billion fund that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp could use to pay off creditors of firms identified as systemically risky -- i.e., "too big to fail."

"The Dodd bill," writes Democratic Rep. Brad Sherman, "has unlimited executive bailout authority. That's something Wall Street desperately wants but doesn't dare ask for."

Politically connected creditors would have every reason to assume they'd get favorable treatment. The Dodd bill specifically authorizes the FDIC to treat "creditors similarly situated" differently.

Second, as former Bush administration economist Larry Lindsey points out, the Dodd bill gives the Treasury and the FDIC authority to grant an unlimited number of loan guarantees to "too big to fail" firms. CEOs might want to have receipts for their contributions to Sen. Charles Schumer and the Obama campaign in hand when they apply.

Lindsey ticks off other special favors. "Labor gets 'proxy access' to bring its agenda items before shareholders as well as annual 'say on pay' for executives. Consumer activists get a brand new agency funded directly out of the seniorage the Fed earns. No oversight by the Federal Reserve Board or by Congress on how the money is spent."

Then there are carve-out provisions provided for particular interests. "Obtaining a carve-out isn't rocket science," one Republican K Street lobbyist told the Huffington Post. "Just give Chairman Dodd and Chuck Schumer a s---load of money."

More bailouts for billionaires:

But, as critics led by Kentucky's Sen. Mitch McConnell, have pointed out, the bill, sponsored by Sen. Chris Dodd, doesn't end "too big to fail" -- under any fair reading.

It says that failed financial firms must repay taxpayer money "unless the United States agrees or consents otherwise." It says, too, that Washington can bail out bondholders to financial firms as long as officialdom "determines that such payments or credits are necessary or appropriate to minimize losses."

This bill puts all taxpayers on the hook for billions of dollars for politically-connected businesses. This is crony capitalism at its worst.

The only way to restore sanity to the federal government is to repeal the 17th Amendment.

Sen. Dodd: Health Care Bill Hanging By A Thread

Dodd: Health Care Overhaul Bill Is 'Hanging by a Thread'
by burghnews

We can only hope.

Dodd Retires; Senator Blumenthal?

Dodd (D-CT) announces his retirement.

Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is expcted to get the Democrat nomination. Peter Schiff slams this maneuver. Replacing Dodd with a Dodd-clone will do no good.

As for Chris Dodd, well... his political allies are making sure that he gets taken care of. Politicians always take care of their own.

Peter Schiff for Senate.

Via Minnesota Chris - Peter Schiff on why he should be Senator:

The Most Corrupt Senators

Judicial Watch put out a list of the ten most corrupt politicians. The two most prominent Senators on the list are:

1. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-CT): This marks two years in a row for Senator Dodd, who made the 2008 “Ten Most Corrupt” list for his corrupt relationship with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and for accepting preferential treatment and loan terms from Countrywide Financial, a scandal which still dogs him. In 2009, the scandals kept coming for the Connecticut Democrat. In 2009, Judicial Watch filed a Senate ethics complaint against Dodd for undervaluing a property he owns in Ireland on his Senate Financial Disclosure forms. Judicial Watch’s complaint forced Dodd to amend the forms. However, press reports suggest the property to this day remains undervalued. Judicial Watch also alleges in the complaint that Dodd obtained a sweetheart deal for the property in exchange for his assistance in obtaining a presidential pardon (during the Clinton administration) and other favors for a long-time friend and business associate. The false financial disclosure forms were part of the cover-up. Dodd remains the head the Senate Banking Committee.

2. Senator John Ensign (R-NV): A number of scandals popped up in 2009 involving public officials who conducted illicit affairs, and then attempted to cover them up with hush payments and favors, an obvious abuse of power. The year’s worst offender might just be Nevada Republican Senator John Ensign. Ensign admitted in June to an extramarital affair with the wife of one of his staff members, who then allegedly obtained special favors from the Nevada Republican in exchange for his silence. According to The New York Times: “The Justice Department and the Senate Ethics Committee are expected to conduct preliminary inquiries into whether Senator John Ensign violated federal law or ethics rules as part of an effort to conceal an affair with the wife of an aide…” The former staffer, Douglas Hampton, began to lobby Mr. Ensign’s office immediately upon leaving his congressional job, despite the fact that he was subject to a one-year lobbying ban. Ensign seems to have ignored the law and allowed Hampton lobbying access to his office as a payment for his silence about the affair. (These are potentially criminal offenses.) It looks as if Ensign misused his public office (and taxpayer resources) to cover up his sexual shenanigans.

And that's just the stuff that we know.

Hat tip: Hot Air