House Dems pass sweeping Wall Street regulatory overhaul

[babylonsister]

House passes broad Wall Street regulatory overhaul


WASHINGTON (AP) -- The House has passed a sweeping overhaul of financial regulations that would govern Wall Street and reconfigure the power of the agencies overseeing the nation's banking system. The vote was 223-202.

The legislation is a priority of President Barack Obama's. It is designed to address the shortfalls that led to last year's calamitous financial meltdown.

New powers would give the federal government the right to break up big risky companies. It also would create a consumer agency to police lenders.

Obama did not get everything he wanted. The legislation diluted some of his administration proposals. The legislative activity now moves to the Senate, which is not expected to act on a regulation bill until early next year.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats headed into the final stretch on a long-awaited Wall Street regulation bill Friday after fending off an effort to kill a proposed consumer agency that is a central feature of the legislation.

The sweeping regulatory overhaul aims to address the myriad conditions that led to last year's financial crisis.

Test votes during two days of debate indicate that Democratic support for the underlying legislation will hold in final passage.

more...

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FINANCIAL_OVERHAUL?SITE=CONGRA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[spanone]

1. k&r

[CaliforniaPeggy]

2. Excellent news, and I thank you!

This reform is sorely needed.

K&R

[bluestateguy]

3. And now, the bill moves to that other chamber...

[pleah]

4. Won't get all happy about it until I know what they passed and if

it actually does something.

to add: Doesn't sound that great so far. Will have to read more about it.

[spanone]

5. link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102754.html?hpid=topnews

[bluestateguy]

6. And Kucninich voted no again

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll968.xml

The little elf is acquiring quite a conservative voting record, there. No on health care reform. By voting with John Boehner and Eric Cantor Roll Call magazine will rate Kucinich as voting the conservative line, regardless of the little crybaby's twisted logic.

[pampango]

9. How did the rest of the Progressive Caucus vote? Perhaps most of them opposed this bill.

On edit, I also need to check how many republican votes it got.

[mullard12ax7]

13. It's a weak, worthless bill for pubic show, it does nothing

It's a headline in the propaganda press, a feel-good story that makes politicians appear as if they're doing something other than whoring themselves. Goldman, JP Morgan and others are in the markets every second, manipulating and stealing from anyone who dares enter the "free markets". Derivatives are already well known and understood to everyone in the financial industry, no "light" needs to be shed on the fraudulent instruments.

More criminals walk, nobody is held accountable. Business as usual in our failed capitalist system.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Then why'd all the republicans vote against it?

[AllentownJake]

15. Other than war

The GOP will vote against anything the President supports.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

20. So, you're saying big business didn't have any say about this reform.

They weren't lobbying the Republicans about it at all.

[AllentownJake]

21. Why would they lobby the GOP in the House?

I think you might be surprised to learn this, but people who were GOP related lobbyist are now collecting unemployment, due to the fact, the GOP no longer controls any branch of government.

When they want something they'll send Bob Rubin, John Corzine (next year) Tom Daschle, Bill Clinton, or Dick Gephardt, friendly old faces that have long since sold out any principles they once held.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. My, what an interesting imagination you have.

[AllentownJake]

28. What an interesting world you live in

Tell me when you picture politicians do rainbows shoot out of their ass?

Daschle is a lobbyist, Gephardt is a lobbyist, Clinton takes money for speeches and foundations than decides what he supports.

Hell Gpehardt even went from proposing resolutions to condemn the Armenian genocide to lobbying against resolutions..Turkey wrote him a check :rofl:

The only clean living former democratic leader is probably Jimmy Carter and he gets shit on the most.

[emulatorloo]

29. Wow, I thought this was parody for a minute.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. lulz

[clear eye]

39. It does nothing to prevent speculation. It DOES help consumers

with more regulation over credit cards, mortgages, etc., which is why the wholly bought opposed it. And it sets a precedent for Congress intervening on bank regulation.

Progressives opposed it because it w/o restoring the pre-Reagan separation between banks and brokerages it leaves the path wide open for the financial institutions to again dig themselves into a hole and need another massive bailout. Another words, as soon as we re-establish some borrowing power they can break us again and destroy our hope for our hard-earned taxes to be used for critical social needs.

[pampango]

18. I'll answer one of my own questions.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30497.html

"Friday’s 223 to 202 vote was a major victory for the Obama administration, which has made Wall Street reform a policy and political imperative, second only to health care on its agenda. But like so much of the White House’s other legislative agenda, this too, was a partisan win, as not a single Republican voted for the bill."

"President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats have put considerable emphasis on the so-called Consumer Financial Protection Agency that the legislation would create. The provision was the object of some of the most intense lobbying of the entire package up until the very end. Hated by the financial industry and big business, the CFPA became the cause célèbre of liberals and consumer advocates. Ahead of the vote, House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.), who crafted much of the legislation with the Treasury and shepherded through the House, described the package as the most significant increase of financial regulation since Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal."

"The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Financial Services Roundtable and other industry groups lobbied members to support Minnick’s (ID-D) amendment; the Chamber – which has run a multimillion-dollar campaign against the CFPA — made it a key vote. In the end, Minnick’s amendment was defeated, 223-208, with 33 Democrats supporting it and eight Democrats not voting. CFPA’s opponents still embraced the close vote as a sign of progress, and certainly the fate of the provision is cloudy when it comes to the more conservative Senate."

"To many experts, the real meat of the package is the so-called dissolution authority it would grant federal regulators to put failing massive financial institutions to death without the need of taxpayer bailouts. Administration officials have said that the absence of such authority is what forced them to seek taxpayer money to deal with firms such as Lehman Brothers or the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending powers to rescue mega-insurer AIG."

[girl gone mad]

52. Unfortunately, the CFPA was completely gutted by uber-corporatist Melissa Bean.

"Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) and other moderate and business-friendly Democrats threatened earlier this week to stall the bill if Bean's preemption amendment did not get a hearing on the House floor. After a flurry of meetings between top House Democrats and Treasury Department officials, the groups reached a deal: A modified form of Bean's amendment could proceed. In addition, it would be folded into a broader amendment put forward by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee.

"It's clearly a victory for the banks," said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/10/AR2009121003992.html

Bean got her way.

"Big bank defenders, led by Melissa Bean (D-IL), got language into the bill that would allow federal laws governing consumer protection to preempt many of those set by individual states and make it harder for state Attorneys General to enforce consumer protections."

Worse than pathetic.

[clear eye]

54. Oh crap. I live in a better regulated state.

Now everything will be reduced to the lowest common denominator.

[pampango]

61. The CPFA was indeed "modified". Progressives didn't get everything, still voted for the bill 70-3.

While the repubs opposed it 175-0.

If this was indeed an "industry" bill, I imagine the percentages would have been reversed (unless the repubs are playing 3-D chess with us and voting against bill they really support and forcing us to vote for bill we really oppose). ;)

[pampango]

35. Repubs 175-0 opposed. Progressive Caucus 70-3 in favor. Take that Boehner. n/t

[Telly Savalas]

56. Here are the lists

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2009/roll968.xml

Zero Republicans voted for it.

Here's the progressive caucus membership:

http://cpc.grijalva.house.gov/index.cfm?ContentID=166&ParentID=0&SectionID=4&SectionTree=4&lnk=b&ItemID=164

I'm too lazy to cross check all the names, but it looks like the co-chairs Woolsey and Grijalva voted for it. Only 27 Democrats voted against it, so it's not mathematically possible for a large chunk of the progressive caucus voted for it.

[clear eye]

58. At least 8 Dem members didn't vote for it b/c they thought it was inadequate.

These 3 members of the Progressive caucus voted against it: Marcy Kaptur, Dennis Kucinich, & Eric Massa.

Tom Perriello, D-VA I know for sure voted against it b/c he felt its financial institution regulations were inadequate, not because he wanted to protect banks from the few included consumer regulations. This was on his website about his position on the 2nd TARP installment, "Breaking from Democratic leadership, Congressman Tom Perriello today voted against releasing the second $350 billion of the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) that was approved by Congress last fall. In addition, he sent a letter to President Obama reiterating his opposition to the fall bailout and requesting that the President approve new accountability measures for the TARP funds."

These 4 members of the Progressive caucus abstained: Charlie Rangel, Louise Slaughter, Tammy Baldwin, & Jim Moran.

I don't know enough about the remaining Dems who voted against the bill or abstained to know whether they were opposing it from a pro- or anti- regulatory stance.

[amborin]

50. b/c it's such a weak bill:

<http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/12/11-8>


" The bill does very little to address industry structure. Wall Street and the big banks engaged in reckless betting under the belief that they were too big to fail - that they were protected by a federal backstop. The biggest banks are now bigger than they were before the crisis. The solution to the too-big-to-fail problem is to break up the big banks so that the system can absorb their failure.

The bill fails to impose limits on bank size. A related problem is the intermixing of commercial and investment banking in single firms and resultant excessive risk taking by federal insurance-backed commercial banks. The bill fails to separate commercial and investment banking, and otherwise address this problem. Financial derivatives and other exotic instruments - labeled by Warren Buffett as weapons of financial mass destruction - fueled the crisis. The bill contains very modest regulations over financial derivatives but leaves more than a quarter of the market free from regulation and contains loopholes to enable another substantial chunk to escape regulatory control. Even for derivatives covered by the bill, the new rules are very limited. The bill does not establish a regulated exchange for derivatives trades. It does not ban financial instruments that do little other than enable high-stakes gambling. And it does not require the purveyors of derivative instruments to prove that the benefits of their new products outweigh the costs and risks to the financial system.

The bill also fails to tackle seriously the problem of executive and high-level pay. Wall Street mocks the Congress - and the American people - by preparing to pay tens of billions of dollars in bonuses in the shadow of a vote on financial regulation and while the financial sector continues to benefit from trillions of dollars of public support. At a minimum, we need binding rules to mandate that bonus pay be tied to long-term performance."

[mullard12ax7]

7. Read the story "Late Thursday, scores of Democrats voted with Republicans on amendments...

---Late Thursday, scores of Democrats voted with Republicans on amendments that eroded the reach of proposed regulations on complex derivatives trades.
Democratic attempts to toughen the legislation failed.---

Also:

---A Democratic effort to make more companies subject to derivatives regulation failed 279-150.

For Democrats, the votes split along turf lines. All but a few of the Democrats on the House Agriculture Committee voted for the broader exception. The Agriculture Committee oversees commodities trading and had recommended less restrictive derivatives rules, but the final bill did not include them.

On Wednesday, pro-business Democrats succeeded in making it harder for states to enforce their own consumer protection rules on national banks. Under a compromise struck with Democratic leaders and Treasury officials, states would not be able to pre-empt federal consumer laws if the state law "materially" interferes with the business of banks.---


So a public appearance was created that something was going to happen but corruption rules the day. That's what happens when criminal banks and their criminal leaders enter into politics in high positions such as Secretary of the Treasury.

[spanone]

34. not all public appearances...sorry

The 1,279-page bill creates a new federal agency dedicated to consumer protection, establishes a council of regulators to police the financial landscape for systemic risks, initiates oversight of the vast derivatives market and gives the government power to wind down large, troubled firms whose collapse could endanger the entire financial system. The legislation also gives shareholders an advisory say on executive compensation, increases transparency of credit ratings agencies and sets aside billions in government funds to aid unemployed homeowners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102754_pf.html

[AllentownJake]

8. Can't wait to read the loop holes that were passed to give the appearence of reform

This fight was way, way, way too easy.

[Telly Savalas]

57. Not way way too easy.

It's generally a lot easier to get decent legislation through the House. It tends to be more liberal and there are fewer procedural roadblocks. If something made it through the Senate this easily, I'd be a bit more skeptical.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. Thanks, Congress.

Thanks, Obama administration, particularly Tim Geithner who was championing reform in his testimony to Congress the other week.

[Sebastian Doyle]

17. Tim Geithner championing reform?

Yeah, about as much as you champion organic farming. ;)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

19. You can go read the news yourself.

While you were busy reading tea leaves and praying to your healing crystals, Tim Geithner was testifying before Congress and promoting these reforms.

[AllentownJake]

22. I'm glad you trust the elf. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

24. Actually, Dennis Kucinich voted against Wall Street reforms.

I wouldn't trust him any more than Lieberman.

[AllentownJake]

26. How's that public option going nt.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

27. Public option looks like it's dead.

Thanks to a handful of traitor dems.

[AllentownJake]

30. Was right on that nt.

[AllentownJake]

47. Cute edit

Originally said, you have never been right about anything.

:rofl:

[clear eye]

59. Citation? n/t

[spanone]

11. again---NOT A SINGLE FUCKING REPUBLICAN VOTED FOR THE BILL

27 so called democrats voted nay

[Hubert Flottz]

12. It won't make it through the Senate without being gutted.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Why do they need "new" regulation?

Why don't they just restore the OLD regulations that FDR established? You know, the ones that worked for over 40 years??

The above article doesn't specify one way or the other, but I remember seeing something a few months back that the regulation proposal was to hand the regulatory powers over to the "federal" reserve, and seeing Timmy the Elf's name attached to this, being a "federal" reserve flunkie himself, doesn't make me feel very good about it.

The "federal" reserve regulating the corrupt industry that they are themselves a part of makes about as much sense as a vegan owning a butcher shop.

[BeHereNow]

25. Exactly, what happened to The Sherman Act? Why not just ENFORCE the existing LAWS?

The Sherman Antitrust Act (1890)

Section 1. Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Back to the top Section 2. Monopolizing trade a felony; penalty

Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Back to the top Section 3. Trusts in Territories or District of Columbia illegal; combination a felony

Every contract, combination in form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce in any Territory of the United States or of the District of Columbia, or in restraint of trade or commerce between any such Territory and another, or between any such Territory or Territories and any State or States or the District of Columbia, or with foreign nations, or between the District of Columbia and any State or States or foreign nations, is declared illegal. Every person who shall make any such contract or engage in any such combination or conspiracy, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
Back to the top Section 4. Jurisdiction of courts; duty of United States attorneys; procedure

The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of the Attorney General, to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of the case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises.
Back to the top Section 5. Bringing in additional parties

Whenever it shall appear to the court before which any proceeding under section 4 of this title may be pending, that the ends of justice require that other parties should be brought before the court, the court may cause them to be summoned, whether they reside in the district in which the court is held or not; and subpoenas to that end may be served in any district by the marshal thereof.
Back to the top Section 6. Forfeiture of property in transit

Any property owned under any contract or by any combination, or pursuant to any conspiracy (and being the subject thereof) mentioned in section 1 of this title, and being in the course of transportation from one State to another, or to a foreign country, shall be forfeited to the United States, and may be seized and condemned by like proceedings as those provided by law for the forfeiture, seizure, and condemnation of property imported into the United States contrary to law.
Back to the top Section 6a. Conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations

Sections 1 to 7 of this title shall not apply to conduct involving trade or commerce (other than import trade or import commerce) with foreign nations unless -

* (1) such conduct has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect -
o (A) on trade or commerce which is not trade or commerce with foreign nations, or on import trade or import commerce with foreign nations; or
o (B) on export trade or export commerce with foreign nations, of a person engaged in such trade or commerce in the United States; and
* (2) such effect gives rise to a claim under the provisions of sections 1 to 7 of this title, other than this section.

If sections 1 to 7 of this title apply to such conduct only because of the operation of paragraph (1)(B), then sections 1 to 7 of this title shall apply to such conduct only for injury to export business in the United States.
Back to the top Section 7. ''Person'' or ''persons'' defined

The word ''person'', or ''persons'', wherever used in sections 1 to 7 of this title shall be deemed to include corporations and associations existing under or authorized by the laws of either the United States, the laws of any of the Territories, the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign country.

http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html

BHN

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

31. Thanks, can't wait to see the details

[mullard12ax7]

33. Here's some, it ain't pretty

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/house-votes-against-letting-judges-alter-mortgages-2009-12-11

[spanone]

36. here's more...prettier

The 1,279-page bill creates a new federal agency dedicated to consumer protection, establishes a council of regulators to police the financial landscape for systemic risks, initiates oversight of the vast derivatives market and gives the government power to wind down large, troubled firms whose collapse could endanger the entire financial system. The legislation also gives shareholders an advisory say on executive compensation, increases transparency of credit ratings agencies and sets aside billions in government funds to aid unemployed homeowners.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121102754_pf.html

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

60. Nice! Thanks for that. Now all we have to do is...

...lockout the Senate and throw away the key. That would cure so many ills.

[clear eye]

37. Umm, no. It does no such thing.

It in no way addresses the banks' ability to speculate w/ investors' money, which is what led to the need for a bailout. It helps consumers by increasing regulations on credit cards, mortgages, etc.

It says nothing about restoring the pre-Reagan prohibitions against using savings for other purposes like CDS's. It does not restore the separation between brokerages and savings banks or investment banks. This leaves the road wide open for a repeat of the hole the financial institutions dug themselves into.

What, did you expect us to just take your (or the AP's) word for it?

[spanone]

38. did you write the legislation?

if not, please post a link to your source, or should we take your word for it?

[clear eye]

40. Been following this on Bill Moyers Journal

last week and 3 weeks ago.

If you want to read the bill, go to the usual sites for reading summaries of House bills. Or Google for the statements of the progressives who opposed it.

I don't see why I have to do research for someone whose first remark is snark about my not having "written the bill".

[spanone]

41. you say don't take a source's word, but i should take yours?

[clear eye]

45. No, I said "Look it up your ownself." n/t

[pampango]

42. "Google for the statements of the progressives who opposed it."-Which of the 3.

70 progressives voted for the bill. Do their statements count for as much as the 3 who voted against it?

[WI_DEM]

43. But I thougtht Obama was a Wall Street lackey.

[Hidden Stillness]

44. This Bill is a Fraud that "Regulates" Nothing, and Marcy Kaptur Spoke Against It

This whole thing is yet another Geithner-Obama-Bernancke scam (and I don't know what the hell has heppened to Barney Frank; I think Barney Frank has Dodd-Baucus disease). This covers over the problem and pretends to have solved it by imposing more Executive-controlled agencies, appointed by Obama, to look over Geithner and Treasury, appointed by Obama; not Congress. Good. Right.

This bill was blasted last night by the great Ohio Repr. Marcy Kaptur, during a five minute speech on the floor after hours, and posted on her U.S. House website:

http://www.kaptur.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=517&Itemid=1

"Real reform means breaking up the big banks. Real reform means empowering community banks and local capital accumulation. Real reform means separating speculation and investment. Real reform means restoring prudent lending. Real reform means restructuring troubled housing mortgages. Real reform means rewarding institutions that play by the rules and don't over-leverage. Real reform means prosecuting financial white-collar criminals and keeping them out of finance permanently.

"Real reform means directly connecting executive pay and bonuses to the performance of the company and recouping the $145 billion in unwarranted bonuses for the American taxpayer. Real reform means regulating all derivatives openly and clearly. Real reform means limiting interconnectedness between large financial institutions. Real reform means independent supervisory and regulatory agencies that do their job--independent supervisory and regulatory agencies.

"The bill that will be considered tomorrow, as it was today, merely bunts at wrestling casino capitalism to the ground. This bill, like so many before it, will simply lead to more abuse, more risky behavior, and more reward for the most hazardous and imprudent characters."

Then after explaining how this bill will not do any of this or solve anything, Kaptur continued:

"The bills passed by Congress today protect Wall Street and their shareholders. Main Street pays the price. Is this bill a reform bill? No. It will not break up the big banks. It will not create a strong, independent financial institution regulatory agency. It will not separate speculation from investment activity. It will not require loan workouts to stem rising foreclosures. It will not recoup undeserved Wall Street bonuses to help pay for this economic mess and put America back to work. In fact, the bill merely asks for nonbinding votes of shareholders.

"It will not rein in nonbanking firms, but instead provide them with a golden sandbox. It will not rein in the power of the Federal Reserve. It will not regulate all over-the-counter derivatives. It will not provide the requisite number of FBI agents and prosecutors to put behind bars the financial world's white-collar criminals whose fraudulent behavior caused this mess. It will not bring to justice the wrongdoers at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. There are bills in this House to do that; they're not included in this bill.

"And it places the Treasury Department, a politically appointed superstructure, so much a part of the problem, in charge of the Finance Services Oversight Council. Importantly, it fails to institute and strengthen independent financial regulatory and supervisory agencies. The political appointees on this oversight council are surely clapping in the wings. This bill gives more power to the opaque Federal Reserve."

Kaptur then urged a "No" vote on this thing that barely passed today, and makes everything now harder. Yay, Obama, Corporate Fraud!

[clear eye]

46. Thanks for posting Kaptur's reasons.

It clarifies much. I'd never trust the AP's assessment of a political issue.

[clear eye]

49. Can you just imagine how eagerly the next Republican President will apply the oversight

that this law has provided and who he/she will appoint?

[amborin]

51. exactly

" The bill does very little to address industry structure. Wall Street and the big banks engaged in reckless betting under the belief that they were too big to fail - that they were protected by a federal backstop. The biggest banks are now bigger than they were before the crisis. The solution to the too-big-to-fail problem is to break up the big banks so that the system can absorb their failure.

The bill fails to impose limits on bank size. A related problem is the intermixing of commercial and investment banking in single firms and resultant excessive risk taking by federal insurance-backed commercial banks. The bill fails to separate commercial and investment banking, and otherwise address this problem. Financial derivatives and other exotic instruments - labeled by Warren Buffett as weapons of financial mass destruction - fueled the crisis. The bill contains very modest regulations over financial derivatives but leaves more than a quarter of the market free from regulation and contains loopholes to enable another substantial chunk to escape regulatory control. Even for derivatives covered by the bill, the new rules are very limited. The bill does not establish a regulated exchange for derivatives trades. It does not ban financial instruments that do little other than enable high-stakes gambling. And it does not require the purveyors of derivative instruments to prove that the benefits of their new products outweigh the costs and risks to the financial system.

The bill also fails to tackle seriously the problem of executive and high-level pay. Wall Street mocks the Congress - and the American people - by preparing to pay tens of billions of dollars in bonuses in the shadow of a vote on financial regulation and while the financial sector continues to benefit from trillions of dollars of public support. At a minimum, we need binding rules to mandate that bonus pay be tied to long-term performance."

<http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/12/11-8>

[girl gone mad]

53. Kaptur has been a hero on this issue, from the beginning.

I trust her judgment here. If she says his reform is worthless, then it is worthless.

[clear eye]

55. She was also one of two members to reveal Cheney's martial law threat

during the debate on the first bailout. The other was Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA.

[pampango]

62. Kaptur and 2 other progressives voted against it, while 70 progressives voted for it.

Voting against it were 3 progressives, 24 Blue Dogs, and 175 (unanimous) republicans.

Do the 70 members of the Progressive Caucus who voted for the bill not deserve equal hearing to the 3 who voted against it? Obviously everyone chooses whom to believe, but at least show a little respect to the Progressive Caucus when it votes overwhelmingly one way and is opposed by a unanimous republican vote the other way.

[amborin]

48. yes, but, it accomplishes little, according to this:

" The bill does very little to address industry structure. Wall Street and the big banks engaged in reckless betting under the belief that they were too big to fail - that they were protected by a federal backstop. The biggest banks are now bigger than they were before the crisis. The solution to the too-big-to-fail problem is to break up the big banks so that the system can absorb their failure.

The bill fails to impose limits on bank size. A related problem is the intermixing of commercial and investment banking in single firms and resultant excessive risk taking by federal insurance-backed commercial banks. The bill fails to separate commercial and investment banking, and otherwise address this problem. Financial derivatives and other exotic instruments - labeled by Warren Buffett as weapons of financial mass destruction - fueled the crisis. The bill contains very modest regulations over financial derivatives but leaves more than a quarter of the market free from regulation and contains loopholes to enable another substantial chunk to escape regulatory control. Even for derivatives covered by the bill, the new rules are very limited. The bill does not establish a regulated exchange for derivatives trades. It does not ban financial instruments that do little other than enable high-stakes gambling. And it does not require the purveyors of derivative instruments to prove that the benefits of their new products outweigh the costs and risks to the financial system.

The bill also fails to tackle seriously the problem of executive and high-level pay. Wall Street mocks the Congress - and the American people - by preparing to pay tens of billions of dollars in bonuses in the shadow of a vote on financial regulation and while the financial sector continues to benefit from trillions of dollars of public support. At a minimum, we need binding rules to mandate that bonus pay be tied to long-term performance."

<http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2009/12/11-8>