{"id":4093,"date":"2010-05-17T06:00:11","date_gmt":"2010-05-17T10:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=4093"},"modified":"2010-05-17T12:00:28","modified_gmt":"2010-05-17T16:00:28","slug":"cross-finges-and-pray-somethings-working-in-the-senate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/05\/17\/cross-finges-and-pray-somethings-working-in-the-senate\/","title":{"rendered":"cross fingers and pray. something&#8217;s working in the senate&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"<br \/>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><strong><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/rawstory.com\/rs\/2010\/0515\/obama-applauds-finance-reforms-senate-vote-draws\/\">Obama applauds finance reforms as Senate vote draws near<\/a><br \/>     <font color=\"#990000\">Raw Story<\/font><\/strong><br \/>     May 15th,  2010<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">President Barack Obama turned up  the heat Saturday on lawmakers to pass an ambitious Wall Street  regulatory overhaul, as the measure headed for a key vote in the Senate. &quot;The  reform bill being debated in the Senate will not solve every problem in  our financial system: no bill could,&quot; Obama said in his weekly radio  address ahead of what is expected to be an up-or-down vote in the Senate  on Wednesday. &quot;But what this strong bill will do is important,  and I urge the Senate to pass it as soon as possible, so we can secure  America&#8217;s economic future in the 21st century.&quot;<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Obama, aiming to  clamp down on the excesses that led to the near-meltdown of the  financial system in 2008, is promising the most sweeping regulatory  reform drive since the Great Depression of the 1930s. To push that  through, he is trying to build momentum for Democratic efforts in  Congress to overcome the Republicans&#8217; resistance and pass a new Wall  Street reform law.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Republican  leaders have so far been united in opposition to the bill, which seeks  to impose tougher regulations on banks and finance firms, and to set up a  new consumer financial protection agency. They say Obama&#8217;s  reforms would push the heavy hand of government deeper into the US free  enterprise system, leading to a culture of financial bailouts, a charge  that the Democrats deny.<\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Obama argued that the proposed reform  would help level the playing field in the financial industry by ensuring  that all lenders, not just community banks, were subject to tough  oversight. He said the bill under consideration will prevent banks  from taking too much risk and will give shareholders more say on  executive pay.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">&quot;The Wall Street reform bill in Congress represents  the strongest consumer financial protections in history,&quot; the president  pointed out. &quot;You&#8217;ll be empowered with the clear and concise  information you need to make the choices that are best for you. We&#8217;ll  help stop predatory practices, and curb unscrupulous lenders, helping  secure your family&#8217;s financial future.&quot;<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">Once the senators finish  offering amendments, they will have to come to an agreement on ending  the debate. And if that is achieved, the reform proposal could be  brought to a final vote as early as Wednesday&#8230;<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"214\" hspace=\"4\" height=\"28\" border=\"1\" align=\"right\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/frbill.jpg\" \/>The Financial Reform Bill is opaque to me. As much as I&#8217;d like to give it a thorough vetting, there was a block to my plan [shown on the right]. It&#8217;s kind of long. I wonder if anyone has read the whole thing. Here&#8217;s a brief summary from the Wall Street Journal before the debate:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">\n<div class=\"insetCol3wide\">\n<div class=\"insetContent\">\n<h3 class=\"first\"><a href=\"http:\/\/online.wsj.com\/article\/SB10001424052748703457104575122023705041834.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories\" target=\"_blank\">Bill&#8217;s Highlights<\/a><\/h3>\n<p>Dodd&#8217;s proposal  touches on several areas. Key points:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>                         <strong>Consumers<\/strong>: A consumer-protection  division would be created within the Federal Reserve, with the ability  to write new rules governing the way companies offer financial products  such as mortgages and credit cards. It would have authority over any  bank with more than $10 billion of assets, and certain nonbank lenders.<\/li>\n<li>                         <strong>Banks<\/strong>: The Fed would oversee  bank holding companies with more than $50 billion of assets. Regulators  would have the discretion to force banks to reduce their risk or halt  certain speculative trading practices.<\/li>\n<li>                         <strong>Failing companies<\/strong>: The government would be  able to seize and break up large failing financial companies. Big  companies would have to pay into a $50 billion fund to finance the  dissolution of a failing firm.<\/li>\n<li>                         <strong>Systemic risk<\/strong>: A new council of regulators would be  created to monitor broader risks to the economy. The council could  strongly urge individual agencies to take specific actions to curb risk.<\/li>\n<li>                         <strong>Corporate governance<\/strong>: The  Securities and Exchange Commission would have authority to write rules  giving proxy access to shareholders who own a certain amount of stock.  Shareholders would have a nonbinding vote on compensation packages for  top executives.<\/li>\n<li>                        <strong>Hedge  funds<\/strong>: Large funds would have to register with the government.<\/li>\n<\/ul><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">And you can read an up-to-date summary by Robert Kuttner [<a href=\"http:\/\/www.huffingtonpost.com\/robert-kuttner\/the-week-wall-street-beca_b_577995.html\" target=\"_blank\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">The Week Wall Street Became Politically Radioactive&hellip;<\/font><\/strong><\/a>] that discusses the current state of the debate &#8211; including the important issue of <strong><font color=\"#200020\">financial derivatives<\/font><\/strong>. <strong><font color=\"#200020\">I&#8217;m not going to summarize what Kuttner says, but it&#8217;s remarkably positive &#8211; almost hard to believe after the last fourteen months of Congressional wrangling. Read it yourself. It will make you feel good&#8230;<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<hr size=\"1\" \/>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Update<\/font><\/strong>:<\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/www.washingtonpost.com\/wp-dyn\/content\/article\/2010\/05\/16\/AR2010051603122.html?hpid=topnews\" target=\"_blank\">Obama&#8217;s terms for financial overhaul  remain mostly intact<\/a><br \/> Washington Post<\/strong><br \/> By Brady Dennis<br \/>  May 17, 2010<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\"> The Senate this week could hand President  Obama his second major legislative victory of the year, both on  administration priorities that seemed in doubt not long ago. Passage of a 1,400-page bill to overhaul the nation&#8217;s financial  regulations would come just two months after Obama signed a landmark  health-care overhaul. But in the case of financial regulation, much more  so than with health care, the Senate bill largely reflects the  administration&#8217;s initial blueprint, despite the fervent efforts of lobbyists and lawmakers of all stripes to alter it.  <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"> Democratic leaders and administration officials have been careful not to  boast about their success in keeping the legislation mostly intact,  with some provisions growing even tougher during the Senate debate. &quot;I&#8217;m hesitant to talk about it being done, because it&#8217;s not,&quot; Sen.  Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who has shepherded the bill through  the Senate, said in an interview from Connecticut over the weekend. But,  he allowed, &quot;we are on the cusp of doing something pretty significant.&quot; <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"> Republicans acknowledge that passage seems certain and that a handful of  GOP members likely will join Democrats, which would  surpass the 60-vote threshold needed to overcome a filibuster. From the administration&#8217;s viewpoint, &quot;this bill has got to be an  out-of-the-park home run,&quot; said Sen. Bob  Corker [R-TN], who had negotiated with Dodd but doesn&#8217;t support  the current Senate bill, saying it unnecessarily expands government  power and does not address the core causes of the crisis. &quot;I realize  this bill is going to pass. Just policy-wise, it ended up in a different  place than I had hoped.&quot; <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"> The bill would, among other things, create an independent consumer  watchdog aimed at protecting borrowers from lending abuses, establish  oversight of the vast derivatives market and enable the government to  wind down large, failing firms. It has its share of critics &#8211; those who think it goes too far, and  those who say it doesn&#8217;t go far enough. But several senior  administration officials said they are surprised at how many of their  demands have survived. <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"> Administration officials, along with Dodd, who chairs the Senate banking  committee, and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney  Frank [D-MA], have walked a fine line: fending off most  conservative efforts to scale back core elements of the legislation  while resisting most liberal attempts at harsher regulations, including  strict caps on the size of big banks. Senate Democrats also have courted  key Republicans, including Susan  Collins and Olympia  J. Snowe of Maine, by accepting some of their recommendations,  including adding rules tying capital requirements to risk and clarifying  which businesses would be covered by the new consumer agency. <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"> Despite some heated rhetoric, the process has proven far more amiable  than the bitter battle over health care. Republicans have added  amendments to Dodd&#8217;s bill and partnered with Democrats on others&#8230; <\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"150\" hspace=\"4\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/dice.gif\" \/>While my title [<strong>cross fingers and pray. something&#8217;s working in the senate&#8230;<\/strong>] suggests luck or providence.&nbsp; I expect the truth is that Obama and\/or his team are masters of the political universe. The decision to put Health Care before Financial Reform was probably brilliant politicking [though, for the life of me, I can&#8217;t figure out why]. Don&#8217;t argue with success. This week comes the debate about Derivatives &#8211; which, to my mind, is the big one. Derivatives can destroy Capitalism, because they turn it into too much of a game. They detach the financial sector from the actual world of business. <strong><font color=\"#200020\">If we must have Derivatives, they have to be kept in the realm of insurance and risk management for&nbsp; investments in real things <\/font><\/strong><strong><font color=\"#200020\"> [that actually exist]<\/font><\/strong><strong><font color=\"#200020\">, backed by capital [that actually exists]<\/font><\/strong>. But I digress. Bob Corker may be right. This may be Obama and the Democrats knocking it out of the park for our country and shutting down the casino&#8230; <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Obama applauds finance reforms as Senate vote draws near Raw Story May 15th, 2010 President Barack Obama turned up the heat Saturday on lawmakers to pass an ambitious Wall Street regulatory overhaul, as the measure headed for a key vote in the Senate. &quot;The reform bill being debated in the Senate will not solve every [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4093","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4093","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4093"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4093\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4093"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4093"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4093"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}