Why The GOP Suddenly Let Up On Financial Reform Within 48 hours, the Republican line on financial regulatory reform went from "filibuster" to "we're very close to a deal." Why the shift? Republicans and Democrats will offer up spin all day, chalking up the progress to their own doggedness, but in the end it comes down to a simple reality. Key Republicans, sincere about passing new rules for Wall Street, but intimidated by the notion of blocking financial regulatory reform, let it be known to their leadership that, at some point, they would side with Democrats to break a filibuster. Maybe not on round one, or even round two. But eventually. "Folks on our side of the aisle want a bill," Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) told TPMDC and a few other reporters Monday night. "I know that. I just [had a] discussion with some of our leadership on the floor. You know, we want a bill." Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) made it equally clear: if top-level negotiations broke down, she and other members would find a solution. "I think it's important to continue between the two principals on the committee, because that's where it's likely to happen," Snowe told reporters yesterday afternoon. "But if not then we'll take things as they come. We'll take the next step." This afternoon, entering a Republican caucus meeting, the Republican Deputy Whip John Thune candidly acknowledged that the politics just aren't playing out for the GOP, and that members don't want to take a tough vote against regulating Wall Street.
Wow. I would be a little miffed at my tax dollars being wasted like this.... http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/23/sec.p*rn/index.html?hpt=T1 SEC staffers watched p*rn as economy crashed CNN) -- As the country was sinking into its worst financial crisis in more than 70 years, Security and Exchange Commission employees and contractors cruised p*rn sites and viewed sexually explicit pictures using government computers, an SEC investigation obtained by CNN showed. "During the past five years, the SEC OIG (Office of Inspector General) substantiated that 33 SEC employees and or contractors violated Commission rules and policies, as well as the government-wide Standards of Ethical Conduct, by viewing pornographic, sexually explicit or sexually suggestive images using government computer resources and official time," said a summary of the investigation by the inspector general's office. More than half of the workers made between $99,000 and $223,000. All the cases took place over the past five years. "It is nothing short of disturbing that high-ranking officials within the SEC were spending more time looking at p*rnography than taking action to help stave off the events that brought our nation's economy to the brink of collapse," said Rep. Darrell Issa. The Republican is a ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. "This stunning report should make everyone question the wisdom of moving forward with plans to give regulators like the SEC even more widespread authority," he said. "Inexplicably, rather than exercise its existing regulatory enforcement authority, SEC officials were preoccupied with other distractions."
Killing the golden goose...yeah right. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63L62220100423?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews The political action committees of six Wall Street banks spent the first quarter of 2010 giving handsome donations to Republicans and Democrats who are critical to passing legislation that could determine the future of the U.S. financial sector. The banks -- JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs -- gave about $106,000 to 12 members of the Senate and House of Representatives who sit either in leadership positions or on the committees that forged the measures. The sum is 40 percent of the $272,000 that the same institutions donated overall to political campaigns and committees between January and March. But it is only a tiny fraction of the more than $30 million that has flowed into campaign coffers from the PACs and employees of banks, securities firms and finance companies since the 2010 election cycle began on January 1, 2009, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the non-partisan watchdog that tracks the role of money in U.S. politics. Wall Street lobbyists this year have hosted fundraising events for at least 10 senators who sit on the banking and agriculture committees, which have advanced separate pieces of financial regulatory legislation, according to the Sunlight Foundation, another money in politics watchdog. Senator Blanche Lincoln, chairwoman of the agriculture panel, decided to stop accepting contributions from Goldman's PAC and employees now that the Securities and Exchange Commission has charged the firm with civil fraud, allegations Goldman denies. But she already has plenty of money from the financial sector. The Democrat has received $7,000 from the Goldman PAC during the current campaign, part of $920,935 that has flowed into her re-election coffers from securities and other financial institution PACs and employees. "The contributions have no impact on Senator Lincoln's public policy decisions," Lincoln's campaign said in a statement. WALL STREET WINS Wall Street has maintained a long and robust relationship with Washington decision-makers over the years, providing nearly $1 billion in campaign funds since 1990 and millions of dollars more on behind-the-scenes lobbying. Analysts say big spending in Washington helps explain the evolution of the financial regulatory reform debate in the Senate, from harder-edged Democratic proposals last year to modifications that seem headed for a bipartisan deal with Republicans. President Barack Obama, who counted four Wall Street firms including Goldman Sachs among his top 2008 contributors, told an audience including Wall Street executives that regulation is necessary despite the industry's "furious efforts" to lobby against it. A vote to open debate in the Senate on reform legislation is set for Monday. "They're going to get a bill. The question is how rigorous, and it looks like it'll be a bipartisan bill that doesn't go after the industry like the original drafts. Wall Street's winning that way," said James Thurber of American University's Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies. Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation said: "It's hard to be tough on somebody you're taking money from." The biggest financial sector beneficiary in the current election cycle is Democratic Senator Charles Schumer of New York, who has received $1.6 million from securities firms and commercial banks, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Close behind are Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell with $1.5 million and fellow Republican Senator Bob Corker, who broke party ranks to open reform talks with the Democratic chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, Christopher Dodd. Corker raised $1.4 million from financial sources. Other big Wall Street recipients are Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid with $920,000 and Senator Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on Dodd's committee, with just over $800,000.
Lincoln's actually been one of the most aggressive on the pro-regulation side in this debate. She's been one of the big forces behind derivatives regulation, and her committee is the one that inserted the swaps restrictions that the banks absolutely dread. As much as she tacked right on the health care debate, she has done the exact opposite in this one.
I suppose my ill will for Lincoln comes from the healthcare debate. Any good words for Schumer? I think he's a piece of crap.
Probably the result of the primary challenge from her left sparked by her actions during the health care debate.
Understandable - she was quite the nightmare in that debate. My understanding with Schumer is that he's definitely on the pro-bank side. I imagine it's a combo of all the money he gets from them and the fact that the state he represents includes Wall Street, so a lot of financial sector employers are part of his constitutency. Very true. It will be interesting to see how her primary goes and then how her general re-election goes. While what she did sucked in the health care debate, she was probably representing her state fairly well. It may very well get her re-elected in what was supposed to be an impossible re-election battle for her.
I wonder if any of those guys have posted in this thread, http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=185577 ?
I've been feeling more upbeat about the possibility of financial reform and it is good to see that Congress is feeling the heat to do something. For the Republicans I think they reacting in regard to Health Care Reform taht they can't just be the party of "No!" while legisilation passes anyway. As much as it might pleasse some of their base campaigning on the basis that they tried to stop things just isn't an overall winning strategy.
So, did they get fired or what? I doubt it had any impact on the recession. But, in the private sector, they'd be fired. I had a boss once who was a shining light in the company, the CFO's favorite; he was given a lot of special recognition at the year-end party, and then fired 2 months later for surfing p*rn on work computers.
So the party of No blocks debate again. no surprise But what I find more interesting is that the tea party seems to have disappeared in regards to wall street reform. I mean, it would seem an appropriate issue that would concern the tea party. No? Shouldn't the tea party be storming the steps of congress to demand reform to an industry that has devastated their 401s and retirements?
They haven't exactly disappeared. They are showing a general lack of knowledge about what's in the bill(what a surprise) and cheering on the blockage of debate about the bill The common man's tea party is taking the side of Wall Street mega banks. But they aren't just opposed to Obama. The inconsistencies have nothing to do with that.
