GOP vs Obama On Wall Street Reform, "I Dare You!"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Dares GOP To Fight Wall Street Reform Bill


For weeks, the White House strategy on Financial Regulatory Reform remained an open question: Would President Barack Obama water down his bill just to get something passed — the way he did on health care?

A Palinesque “Hell no!” was the answer coming from the White House on Wednesday as the president, his senior aides and his allies on Capitol Hill issued an ultimatum to Republicans fighting Democrats’ plans to overhaul financial oversight.

“For the president, you have to be willing to accept a strong bill,” said White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, after Obama emerged from a contentious meeting with GOP congressional leaders.

“If the effort to get this close is simply to take steps to weaken that legislation, that’s not what the president is interested in.”

Democrats are so emboldened that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is prepared to bring the Banking Committee bill to the floor with no major concessions to Republicans and essentially dare them to vote against the measure, senior leadership aides said.

At a time when Wall Street is as reviled as government, Democrats are willing to gamble that at least one Republican — and maybe as many as a half-dozen — will break ranks. At the same time, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell is betting he can hold his caucus together to deny Democrats even a single vote.

“It’s been two and a half years since this crisis started, more than a year since we first laid out a comprehensive set of reforms,” Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said during a rare appearance at the White House daily briefing alongside Gibbs.

“I think we know what we need to know. ... It’s just time to decide and time to move,” he added.

The hard-line, limited-compromise approach reflects a belief among Democrats, buoyed by recent polls, that they enjoy huge advantages on regulatory reform that eluded them on health care.

Unless the GOP can succeed in painting the reform effort as a path to new bailouts — and Senate Republicans are trying to do just that — the politics of the issue seem to be almost entirely on the Democrats’ side.

But before they take on the minority, Senate Democrats are trying to smooth over internal conflicts. For weeks, White House officials have been quietly working with Senate leaders, including Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), on the list of amendments liberals plan to introduce when the measure comes to the floor.

The goal, according to several people close to the situation, is to green-light those amendments that force Republicans to take tough votes, while minimizing votes that divide the Democrats’ left and right wings.

In the meantime, McConnell has settled into his accustomed role as spoiler, trying to persuade the 41 members of the Republican conference to stick together in opposition to Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd’s bill as it is currently written.

McConnell circulated a letter Wednesday that he hoped every Republican would sign, sending the message — as they did during the health care debate — that Republicans are united in opposition. Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.), a potential swing vote, said he signed the letter, which asked Democrats to reopen negotiations.

“It appears the bipartisan talks have broken down,” McConnell said, after meeting for less than an hour with Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

“The strings were kind of pulled by the Democratic leaders,” said McConnell, who added that Democrats “are trying to jam us” for political gain.

A seething Reid, squinting in the bright sunlight of the West Wing driveway, called McConnell’s claim that Democrats had abandoned talks a “figment of his imagination” and vowed to pass the overhaul quickly.

The standoff defined the parameters for what has turned into a sharply partisan debate as Obama pushes the Senate to deliver another major legislative achievement before Memorial Day. Democrats believe they can make Republicans fold, and Republicans expect to hold firm or risk losing any leverage they have left to change the bill.

“If we can get 41 votes, they’ll have to deal with us,” said Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby, the ranking Republican on the Banking Committee.

Three Republicans who have been targeted as potential swing votes — Brown, New Hampshire Sen. Judd Gregg and Maine Sen. Susan Collins — suggested they have no plans, at this point, to provide Democrats the crucial 60th vote.

“Why would we do that when we are not in the room?” Gregg asked.

Shelby and Dodd resumed their negotiations Wednesday night, but both faced increasing pressure from their respective parties to go only so far in compromising.

Earlier in the day, Dodd threatened to end the talks with Republicans if they continued to lead what he called a misinformation campaign based on Wall Street talking points.

“My patience is running out,” Dodd said. “I’ve extended the hand. I’ve written provisions in this bill to accommodate various interests. But I’m not going to continue doing this if all I’m getting the other side is a suggestion somehow that this is a partisan effort.”

Dodd lashed out on the Senate floor as Obama led the tense meeting at the White House with congressional leaders.

Some Democratic senators say the template should be the legislative strategy that led to passage earlier this year of a $15 billion jobs bill. Reid infuriated Republicans by scuttling a bi-partisan compromise, betting that most wouldn’t have voted for it anyway. He pushed forward a narrowly tailored bill that at least a few Republicans decided they couldn’t vote against.





“We have to, on one hand, keep opening ourselves and keep offering our hands to Republicans,” said Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

“But as a prudential matter we also have to be prepared, once again, to have that hand knocked away and to be able to go to a well-crafted Democratic bill — which will frankly be a stronger and better bill than if it is watered down with Republican amendments — and then let the chips fall where they may. I think that has to remain a backup strategy.”

With the public relations damage wrought by GOP talk of “death panels” fresh in Democratic memory, Team Obama launched a coordinated counteroffensive to rebut McConnell’s claim that the bank-financed “risk” fund included in the bill would pave the way for bottomless bank bailouts.

Geithner dismissed the idea that such a fund would lead to a bailout, saying, “Any risks the government takes are going to be borne by large financial institutions.”

Later, an administration official said Geithner has expressed willingness to negotiate with Republicans about the mechanics — but not the basic structure — of such a fund.

While Geithner and White House officials tried to project confidence that a strong, undiluted bill could be passed in weeks, they also cautioned that the toughest and most arcane work remained ahead of them.

Before leaving Wednesday’s briefing, Geithner delivered what he described as an “exhortation,” an unusual request for the press to guard the administration — and the American people — against GOP, lobbyists and banking interests.

“The stuff ahead of us now is derivatives, it’s ‘too big to fail,’ it’s complicated stuff — OK?” he said. “Make sure that you bring the same level of exposure and the spotlight on the choices ahead, because we — I think we all have an interest in resisting the efforts that are going to be made — and they’re going to come still, to weaken, to exempt, to carve people out of those basic protections.”


Sources: C-Span, MSNBC, Whitehouse.gov, Politico, Youtube

Chris Dodd Unveils Watered Down Wall Street "Reform" Bill (No Teeth)

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Dodd Puts Wall Street In Washington's Sights


A new Democratic Senate bill to tame the financial markets would give the government new powers to break up firms that threaten the economy and would force the industry to pay for its failures.

Legislation unveiled Monday by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd falls shy of the ambitious restructuring of federal financial regulations envisioned by President Barack Obama or contained in legislation already passed in the House.

But the bill would still be the biggest overhaul of regulations since the New Deal. It comes 18 months after Wall Street's failures helped plunge the nation into a deep recession.

The Federal Reserve would gain new powers to regulate the size and the activities of the nation's largest financial firms. The bill would create a consumer protection bureau within the Fed to write regulations governing all lending transactions. Bank regulators, however, could appeal those regulations if they believe they would affect the health of the banking system.

In announcing his bill at a news conference, Dodd stood alone, a sign of the difficult task ahead of him in forging a bill that can pass the Senate.

"It is certainly time to act," Dodd said.

President Barack Obama said he planned to work with Dodd to strengthen the bill and fight any moves in Congress to water it down.

"This proposal provides a strong foundation to build a safer financial system," Obama said in a statement.

"(The bill) creates a new consumer financial protection agency to set and enforce clear rules of the road and establishes stronger supervision for the largest financial firms under the Federal Reserve," Obama said.

He welcomed what he said were provisions to ensure the independence of a consumer financial watchdog and greeted the inclusion of the so-called "Volcker Rule" that would separate banking from proprietary trading and hedge fund activities.

The breadth of the bill would touch all corners of the financial sector, from storefront payday lenders to the highest penthouse office suites on Wall Street.

The bill creates a powerful nine-member Financial Stability Oversight Council that could:

* Place large, interconnected financial institutions such as insurance conglomerate American International Group under the supervision of the Federal Reserve.

* Approve the break up of large complex companies if they pose a "grave threat" to the to the nation's financial system.

Such actions would require a two-thirds vote of the council.



View Larger Map

Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

GOP Most Likely To Regain Control Of House, Senate By 2012

Democratic Majorities Safe, For Now



The recent retirements of two veteran Democratic senators and the decision by two Democratic gubernatorial candidates to drop their bids could prompt more in the party to head for the exits and further frighten already skittish donors and activists. But it doesn’t yet appear that the party’s congressional majorities are threatened.

Republicans are poised to make major gains in the House and the Senate, but the number of seats necessary to reclaim the majority makes it unlikely that they could knock the Democrats out of power in either chamber.

To win the control of the House, Republicans must win 40 seats in November. And to reclaim the Senate, they must pick up 11 seats. The math is harder than it looks.

“All things being equal, the turnout dynamics in a midterm cycle would probably cost House Democrats 10 to 15 seats. Throw in a rough national environment and our current outlook projects a GOP gain of 20 to 30 seats. Any further Democratic retirements or erosion in incumbents' standing could push that forecast higher,” said David Wasserman, an analyst for the Cook Political Report.

Larry Sabato, a University of Virginia Political Scientist, is now predicting a GOP gain of 27 seats in the House and three to four in the Senate.

“Those are marginal but significant advances for the GOP since the summer. What has gone up can continue to climb if President Obama becomes more unpopular — or the projected gains can be scaled back if the economy strengthens faster than expected,” said Sabato.

While the House is more difficult to assess because the fields aren’t fully formed, the electoral math seems difficult for the Republicans to pick up 11 Senate seats. While they may pick up North Dakota now that Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan is retiring and are running competitively in Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas, the GOP finds itself defending seats in Missouri, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Louisiana.

Democrats took comfort in analyzing the case-by-case fallout from the Tuesday and Wednesday announcements, which saw incumbent senators Dorgan and Chris Dodd of Connecticut disclose their decisions to retire rather than face potentially difficult re-elections, Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter declining a re-election bid and Michigan Lt. Gov John Cherry quitting his gubernatorial race before it even started.

“When you look at these races individually our overall net position may have improved, particularly given that this is a bad year to be an incumbent,” said Democratic strategist Anita Dunn, the former Obama White House communications director. “On the micro level, none of these with the possible exception of North Dakota are all that damaging.”

With the embattled Dodd off the ballot, Democrats will now field longtime state Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut and can recruit gubernatorial candidates in Michigan and Colorado who are not tainted by the unpopular status quo.

It will be tough for Democrats to hold the Dorgan seat, particularly if, as expected, popular North Dakota Republican Gov. John Hoeven gets in the race. Rep. Earl Pomeroy, the state’s at-large House member, could have been a strong contender, but he indicated Wednesday that he wouldn't run.

“All told, it was a lot to absorb for one day, but when push comes to shove, it may prove to be no runs, no hits, no errors,” said Democratic strategist Steve Rosenthal.

While Republicans may not be immediately positioned to pick up the needed seats to win control of the House and Senate, Tuesday’s retirements represent a blow to Democratic expectations and will likely spell the end of the party's filibuster-proof Senate majority.

“On the macro level there clearly is a psychological impact,” acknowledged Dunn.

Republicans said the symbolism of the day's events would fuel an already energized party.

"The retirements make recruiting easier on our side," said former Republican National Committee Chair Ed Gillespie. "And it feeds the impression this could be a very big year, and Democrats see the writing on the wall. It feels like blood in the water."

The retirements also bear significance in part because of who is stepping down. The departure of Dodd and Dorgan represents the loss of nearly 50 combined years of Senate experience.

“From a Senate caucus perspective, it’s never a good day when you lose a pair of sea legs, and Tuesday we lost two pairs,” said Democratic lobbyist Joel Johnson, a former senior Hill and Clinton administration official. “They were real forces within the caucus, both legislatively and politically. There’s no denying that’s a real loss and a disappointment.”

The announcements also mark a striking turnabout for Senate Democrats.

In a February news conference, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez predicted that the party would see no Senate retirements – and said it was Republicans who would face a difficult 2010 cycle.

“I think a cursory look at the map shows that the fear should be on the other side,” Menendez said at the time.

Less than a year later, the political world looks a lot different and the fears are plainly with the Democrats – as Menendez himself conceded in a statement Wednesday morning.

“We know that history suggests this November will be tough for Democrats,” said the campaign committee chairman. “But Republicans face six Senate retirements this cycle, and Democrats will likely wage competitive races in five of them.”

Those open seats and the wide Democratic majority in the House provide a measure of reassurance to party officials.

Yet even though it still seems unlikely that Republicans could win enough seats to recapture either chamber of Congress, the retirements are hardening the view among longtime Democrats that the party will suffer significant losses this fall.

“Democrats will still clearly be in control of the House and Senate, but we won’t have the margins that we had before,” said former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux. “The numbers will be determined by how we address the economy, the jobs issue. If we can focus in on that with more clarity then we can prevent potential losses from getting out of hand.”

But Democrats don’t just have to scramble to address the still-wheezing economy – they also must move to ensure that Dodd and Dorgan don’t set off a stampede among other endangered incumbents.

“Retirements tend to snowball,” said Democratic strategist Paul Begala, who called yesterday’s retirements “Black Tuesday.”

“Keep in mind the Republicans had five senators announce their retirement last year; one seemed to trigger the next,” said Begala. “We are still 10 months from the election, so I hope the Democrats are working hard on incumbent retention.”

In the wake of a string of House Blue Dog retirements last month, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chairman Chris Van Hollen sought assurances from some of the members rumored to be looking to leave that they were sticking around.

And after Alabama freshman Rep. Parker Griffith switched parties, Van Hollen reached out to some of the most vulnerable House Democrats, including Reps. Bobby Bright (D-Ala.) and Chris Carney (D-Pa.), to ensure that they wouldn’t become Republicans.

As for potential retirements, veteran Reps. Vic Snyder of Arkansas and Leonard Boswell of Iowa are seen as two of the most likely endangered House Democrats to consider forgoing re-election.

Van Hollen acknowledged in an interview on ABC's "Top Line" on Wednesday that there could be a “couple more” House Democratic retirements but said there would not be a wave of departures as in the 1994 cycle.

As for the Senate, a DSCC official said that there were no other retirements on the horizon – but was quick to note that nobody expected Dorgan’s stunner.

And just as the retirements of a colleague can have a psychological impact on other older or imperiled members, such moves also send a message to donors and activists about what sort of year it’s shaping up to be.

“This cycle will be a vicious cycle for Democrats,” said consultant Dan Gerstein. “Each of these things will feed the larger perception that we’re in deep doo-doo – which will depress people more and deepen the doo-do.”

On K Street, in particular, the recent retirements could prompt lobbyists and corporate officials to hedge some of their contributions, which, with Democrats in the majority, had swung sharply away from the GOP in recent years.

Still, Democratic lobbyists say that as long as the conventional wisdom remains that their party will retain both the House and Senate, donors will continue to funnel contributions to the majority party.

And because of the clear and present political danger, lobbyists may be pressured even more to give to Democrats.

“No one is under any illusions today that this is going to be anything but a tough cycle,” said Johnson. “So people are already raising money, people are putting together real campaigns.”

Beyond Washington, other Democrats hope that the wave of retirements will wake their financial contributors up about the difficulties ahead.

“I’m hoping it will scare donors,” said a Democratic fundraiser in New York City.

Begala, though, noted the financial advantage that the party holds, which is especially glaring between the two House campaign committees. The challenge, he said, was in keeping incumbents on the ballot.

“Democrats will have the money they need,” he said. “Will they have the candidates?”


Sources: Politico

Chris Dodd's Retirement Speech "My Moment To Step Aside"

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Google Maps

Sen. Dodd Defended Daily Kos After Site Posted Offensive Political Picture

(Published July 30, 2007) Offensive Picture Posted on Daily Kos Creates Controversy


The Internet is buzzing about what is being billed as the final “death blow” to ultra left-wing blog Daily Kos.

This according to Bill O’Reilly who will run the story tonight on The O’Reilly Factor. O’Reilly has done a number of stories about the left wing blog which he has compared to a KKK website.

The Daily Kos is one of the most trafficked sites on the Internet and has received sporadic media attention over the years for its over the top personal attacks on the Bush Administration and Republicans in general.

Fueling the current controversy involving The Daily Kos is a picture that a user posted which was obviously edited to give the appearance of Senator Joe Lieberman preparing to perform oral sex on President Bush. In response, the Daily Kos removed the picture and says it can’t be held responsible for everything people post.

The Democrats running for President are set to speak at the yearly convention organized by the Daily Kos called YearlyKOS, which is a gathering of the most liberal organizations in America.


Sources: Daily Kos, Bill O'Reilly Show, Fox News, Washington Post, The Hot Joints, Huffington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Sen. Chris Dodd To Announce His Retirement; Received VIP Subprime Loan

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Sen. Chris Dodd Won't Seek Re-election


Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) plans to announce Wednesday that he will retire from the Senate at the end of the year, capping a 30-year career where he rose to become one of the chamber's most influential members, several Democratic sources told POLITICO Tuesday night.

Dodd’s decision to retire is, at first glance, a blessing to Senate Democrats who worried they would have trouble holding the seat with the embattled senator in the race. Now Democrats expect that Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will run in Dodd’s place, giving the party a stronger nominee in a race that was widely believed to be a toss-up.

A top national Democrat said Blumenthal's candidacy was all but certain. "He's totally in," said the Democrat.

The attorney general has scheduled a 2:30 news conference on Wednesday where he's expected to announce his candidacy.

“Chris Dodd has been a great US Senator for Connecticut and the country. He’s made a meaningful difference in the lives of millions of people – here in Connecticut, and across the country," said Roy Occhiogrosso, a Connecticut-based pollster who has worked for Dodd in his past races. "Attorney General Richard Blumenthal is uniquely suited to step into this campaign, win this race, and represent the people of Connecticut as we continue to confront unprecedented challenges. The Republicans thought they might steal this seat. Not anymore.”

News of Dodd’s plans, first reported by the Washington Post's Chris Cillizza, came on the heels of the stunning announcement Tuesday that another Democrat, Sen. Byron Dorgan, would not run for reelection in North Dakota, likely giving the GOP an advantage for his seat.

Dodd has faced months of tough press coverage surrounding his Countrywide FInancial mortgages, which followed his ill-fated decision to move his family to Iowa for his 2008 presidential run. Earlier this year, the Senate Ethics Committee cleared him of any wrongdoing related to Countrywide.

But Dodd also drew scrutiny over his role as Banking Committee chairman, where he presided over the committee’s approval of billions of dollars in bonus money to AIG executives, leaving opponents to criticize him for being overly cozy with the financial industry.

The most recent Quinnipiac University poll, conducted in November, showed Dodd trailing former GOP congressman Rob Simmons by double-digits and trailing former WWE CEO Linda McMahon by a smaller margin. Even the senator's own internal polling showed him trailing Simmons – an ominous sign for a well-known incumbent.

While the Obama administration worked last year on Dodd's behalf—including fundraisers headlined by both the president and vice-president—White House aides were long convinced that the senator was the political equivalent of a dead man walking.

With poll after poll showing Dodd trailing, it became increasingly clear that his candidacy was not salvageable. A senior Democratic official said Dodd's long-rumored, and always-denied, retirement plans were "inevitable - like gravity."

Still, a source familiar with Dodd’s plans insisted late Tuesday that there was no pressure exerted on Dodd from the White House to back down.

The news that Dodd would not seek re-election capped a day of Democratic retirements. Aside from Dodd and Dorgan, it was revealed that Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter would not run for re-election in 2010. And in Michigan, Lt. Gov. John Cherry announced Tuesday that he would be forgoing a run for governor.



View Larger Map


Sources: Politico, MSNBC, Freedom Works, Youtube, Google Maps

Chris Dodd vs Barney Frank: Fights Erupt Over Real Financial Industry Reform

Fights erupt over Chris Dodd's Financial Reform Bill


Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd said he wanted to produce a “bold” and “sweeping” Financial Reform Bill.

In other words, he’s got a bill that’s going to tick everyone off.

The 1,136-page draft measure the Connecticut Democrat unveiled last week would bulldoze the financial architecture built over the past 80 years, setting up clashes among Democratic chairmen, powerful regulators, small banks and their bigger competitors. He’s angered everyone from Coca-Cola to your corner credit union.

For those keeping score, here’s a list of the most significant fights erupting over Dodd’s bill:

Frank vs. Dodd

Dodd has immediately picked a fight with his House counterpart, Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), by proposing to strip the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. of its supervisory powers and give those powers to a new banking super-regulator.

“There is no chance of the FDIC being put in there,” Frank told POLITICO.

Frank isn’t the only one ganging up against Dodd on this one. Sheila Bair, chairwoman of the FDIC and incredibly popular on Capitol Hill, has argued loudly against such a move — including in a New York Times op-ed — saying it would threaten the country’s long-standing dual banking system. Community bankers also reject the idea, arguing that the largest institutions would consume the regulators’ time and attention, while smaller banks would be ignored.

“We’re going to be lobbying hard against it both here in Washington and via the grass roots,” said Steve Verdier, head of congressional affairs for the Independent Community Bankers of America. About 25 of the group’s state association executives will be on the Hill this week and will definitely raise the issue with their senators, he said.

The Fed vs. the World

If Federal Reserve leaders think everyone is out to get them on financial reform, they may be right. Virtually every major proposal seeks to scale back the Fed’s incredible powers — and there’s a huge push to audit the Fed for the first time.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned that the central bank’s ability to directly oversee banks — especially the big complex bank holding companies — is key to the Fed having the know-how and information it needs to conduct monetary policy, especially in a crisis.

But the Fed doesn’t really have many people in its corner. The perceived missteps made by the Fed leading up to the crisis and the extraordinary measures it took during the crisis have made the central bank wildly unpopular on Capitol Hill with both parties. Dodd called the Fed’s regulatory record an “abysmal failure.” Even the big banks that support the Fed aren’t going to stick their necks out over the issue — and even if they did, lawmakers most likely wouldn’t listen.

The Obama administration — which envisions an enhanced, not diminished, Fed role — did step up to defend the Fed at the end of last week.

“No regulator had a perfect record leading up to the crisis. But in our view, the Federal Reserve is the agency best equipped for the task of supervising the largest, most complex firms,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Neil Wolin said in a speech Friday.

But some observers doubt the administration can do much to deter the anti-Fed push on the Hill.

Shelby vs. the White House

Any hope for bipartisanship goes through Sen. Richard Shelby, the wily Alabama Republican.

Where he goes, most of the Republican votes are likely to follow. And Shelby has been as vocal about what’s in the bill — the consumer financial protection agency — as what’s not in the bill: a serious overhaul of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

President Barack Obama himself has put a lot of political capital on the line in pushing for the creation of the consumer financial protection agency, but Shelby calls the establishment of a separate agency an “obstacle” to his support. When asked by reporters about the White House’s strong support for the CFPA, Shelby observed that the administration doesn’t get a vote in the Senate.

Shelby, the top Republican on the banking panel, is balking at the idea of moving financial regulatory overhaul legislation without addressing the future of the companies, which were taken over by the government following the housing collapse last fall.

“And so the question is, what is it going to take; what are the fights going to be to try to bring enough Republicans along to get the bill done?” said Jaret Seiberg, an analyst with Washington Research Group.

Big banks vs. little banks

The two lobbies have been tussling over numerous aspects of financial reform, but Dodd’s bill sparked a brand-new fight.

Dodd wants the FDIC to collect its fees based on assets rather than deposits as it does under current law.

This would make business much cheaper for the smaller banks, which tend to have much lower assets but higher deposits. And it would make larger banks, which tend to have assets far in excess of deposits, pay more into the FDIC.

The two camps continue to fight over who pays into a “too big to fail” fund that would grant the federal government “resolution authority” to wind down large financial firms. Community banks want the big banks to prepay into this emergency fund. The big banks prefer the approach taken by Dodd’s bill: the FDIC collecting money from big firms after the crisis has passed. But the community banks won the day on the House side on this issue.

Apple Inc. & Coca-Cola vs. Democrats

Why would Apple and Coke — or, for that matter, Harley- Davidson and Ford Motor Co. — lobby so hard on derivatives legislation?

These companies live at the retail end of these complex financial tools, using them to hedge their futures on commodities like fuel, foreign currency rates and raw materials for their products. And they’re not happy about being lumped into the wide-ranging proposals to heavily regulate the derivatives market.

These big companies aren’t the speculators who caused the derivatives market meltdown, this group argues, and they’ll be seeking exemptions from Dodd’s tougher crackdown on the derivatives market. But some Senate Democrats have criticized the House bill for making the changes these companies asked for.



Sources: Politico

Countrywide Gave Political VIPs "Special Loans" Why?...Whistle Blower Report

View Larger Map

Sources: Committee On Gov't Oversight and Reform, CBS News, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps

H1N1 Flu Vaccine Went To Wall Street First...Voters Want To Know Why

Wall Street gets H1N1 Flu vaccine first before high risk citizens and children. Now Voters want to know why.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Chris Dodd rips bankers bogarting H1N1 shots


A senior Senate Democrat is demanding answers from federal officials on why they sent swine-flu vaccines to bankers at Goldman Sachs, rather than to the schoolchildren who really need them.

“It is hard to believe that at a time when even the most vulnerable in our society are unable to obtain H1N1 vaccinations, the government is sending doses to private firms on Wall Street,” Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) said in a statement. “People are frustrated by the government’s response to this crisis, and with news like this, who can blame them? “

“Vaccines should go to people who need them most, not people who happen to work on Wall Street,” said Dodd, who’s also readying financial reform legislation that Wall Street won’t like.

Dodd sent a letter to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, demanding she review her policies to make sure that “healthy stockbrokers” aren’t getting the H1N1 vaccine doses meant for “pregnant women and school children.” He also told Wall Street firms to immediately send back their stash.

“Schools in my state have closed; hospitals and health clinics report widespread shortages. It is shocking to think that private firms would be prioritized ahead of hospitals when the vaccine supply cannot meet the demand,” Dodd said in the letter.

News reports of that large, private employers in New York City – including Wall Street banks – and been sent of the scarce H1N1 vaccines set of a feeding frenzy Thursday. The Service Employees Union International jumped into the fray early, issuing a public call for the Wall Street fat cats to donate their doses to public hospitals.

“It’s bad enough that Wall Street crashed our economy and is back to paying out platinum bonuses after taking trillions in taxpayer-funded bailouts and backstops. But purposely endangering the health of millions of Americans during a public health crisis crosses all lines of decency,” the union’s secretary-treasurer Anna Burger said in a statement.





Flu shots for Wall Street stirs ire in New York

New York City health officials scrambled to explain themselves on Thursday in the wake of media reports about bankers who got scarce H1N1 flu vaccines through their employers.

Members of Congress fired off letters demanding immediate explanations and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reminded state and city health officers of the need to make sure the most vulnerable people get shots first.

"I am concerned that the distribution of the vaccine is resulting in favored treatment for the privileged," New Jersey Democratic Representative Frank Pallone said.

A shortage of H1N1 vaccines has frayed nerves, and public health departments across the country say they will not be able to meet the bulk of the demand until December or January.

The CDC estimates swine flu has infected more than five million people and it is documented as having killed 1,000.

The federal government, which is buying the vaccines and distributing them for free to 62 state and city health departments, says 35.6 million doses have been made and packaged since production began.

Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd, a Democrat, released a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying he was "stunned" at the reports.

"I implore you to use whatever authorities you have to ensure that H1N1 vaccines already distributed but not yet used are promptly redirected to hospitals, schools, community health clinics, school-based health clinics, and pediatricians so that they can be made immediately available to at-risk members of the public as identified by the Department," Dodd wrote.

CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden sent out a reminder to state and city health departments that distribute vaccine.

"I ask each of you to review your plans immediately and work to ensure that the maximum number of doses is delivered to those at greatest risk as rapidly as possible," he wrote.

"I especially appreciate the many innovative ways you've found to reach them, including school-located vaccine clinics, special clinics for pregnant women, outreach to children with special needs, and making vaccine available to community- and faith-based organizations serving these high-risk populations."

Close to 160 million people are in the priority groups to get vaccine first -- healthcare workers, pregnant women, children and adults under 65 with medical conditions, caregivers for infants too young to be vaccinated and people 24 and younger.

"When H1N1 vaccine first became available in the fall, we directed all available doses to pediatricians, OB-GYNs, community health centers, public and private hospitals," New York City health department spokeswoman Jessica Scaperotti said in a telephone interview.

"As more vaccine became available we started to place small orders to providers that serve adults, including employee health centers."

She said the city had given 800,000 doses to about 1,100 providers, with Lenox Hill Hospital, for example, getting 1,200 doses and banking firm Goldman Sachs getting 200 of the 5,300 doses it asked for, Scaperotti said.

She said 16 of the city's 25 biggest employers had vaccine, including Columbia University, Citi Group and others, as well as the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not among the top 25 employers.

Morgan Stanley said it received 500 doses of the vaccine for its New York City locations and 500 doses for its Westchester location in suburban New York.

"We never thought we would receive doses ahead of area hospitals and once this was brought to our attention, we promptly donated the doses we received to a few area hospitals," including Morgan Stanley Children's Hospital in New York, a company spokeswoman said.



View Larger Map

Sources: Politico, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Bizaim, Forcechange, Google Maps

Breaking Up Banking Institutions "Too Big To Fail"...Real Financial Industry Reform

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Greenspan Says U.S. Should Consider Breaking Up Large Banks

U.S. regulators should consider breaking up large financial institutions considered “too big to fail,” former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said.

Those banks have an implicit subsidy allowing them to borrow at lower cost because lenders believe the government will always step in to guarantee their obligations. That squeezes out competition and creates a danger to the financial system, Greenspan told the Council on Foreign Relations in New York.

“If they’re too big to fail, they’re too big,” Greenspan said today. “In 1911 we broke up Standard Oil -- so what happened? The individual parts became more valuable than the whole. Maybe that’s what we need to do.”

At one point, no bank was considered too big to fail, Greenspan said. That changed after the Treasury Department under then-Secretary Hank Paulson effectively nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Treasury and Fed bailed out Bear Stearns Cos. and American International Group Inc.

“It’s going to be very difficult to repair their credibility on that because when push came to shove, they didn’t stand up,” Greenspan said.

Fed officials have suggested imposing a tax or requiring higher capital ratios on larger banks to ensure the firms’ safety and reduce some of the competitive advantage from the implied subsidy. Greenspan said that won’t work.

“I don’t think merely raising the fees or capital on large institutions or taxing them is enough,” Greenspan said. “I think they’ll absorb that, they’ll work with that, and it’s totally inefficient and they’ll still be using the savings.”

Really Arbitrarily

The former Fed chairman said while “just really arbitrarily breaking down organizations into various different sizes” goes against his philosophical leanings, something must be done to solve the too-big-to-fail issue.

“If you don’t neutralize that, you’re going to get a moribund group of obsolescent institutions which will be a big drain on the savings of the society,” he said.

“Failure is an integral part, a necessary part of a market system,” he said. “If you start focusing on those who should be shrinking, it undermines growing standards of living and can even bring them down.”



View Larger Map


Sources: MSNBC, Bloomberg.com, Huffington Post, Google Maps

Obama's Consumer Protection Agenda vs. Lobbyists...Who Will Win?

(Pres. Obama's recent speech regarding his proposal to overhaul and ramp up our nation's Federal Consumer Protection Agencies.)



(Maxine Waters a California Congresswoman recently attempted to help a few of her constituents get a hold of their banks in order to re-negotiate the terms of their loan. What she thought would be a simple telephone call turned in to hours of being placed on hold and speaking mainly to automated voices.)



(Congresswoman Maxine Waters Questions Bailed Out CEOs.)






Pres. Obama Slaps Congress, Lobbyists In Push For Consumer Protection Agency

Remarks of President Barack Obama--As Prepared For Delivery Consumer Financial Protection Event Friday, October 9, 2009 Washington, DC

Good afternoon. For the last several months, this administration has been working with Congress to reform an outdated system of financial regulations and lax oversight that helped lead to last year's crisis. And I want to thank Chairman Chris Dodd, Chairman Barney Frank, and Senator Richard Shelby for the leadership and enthusiasm they've shown throughout this process.

Part of our reform effort involves putting in place new safeguards that would help prevent the irresponsibility and recklessness of a few from wreaking havoc on our entire financial system. We want to close gaps in regulation, eliminate overlap, and set rules of the road for Wall Street that make fair dealing and honest competition the only way for financial firms to win and prosper.

But a central part of our reform effort is also aimed at protecting Americans who buy financial products and services every day - from mortgages to credit cards. It's true that the crisis we faced was caused in part by people who took on too much debt and took out loans they couldn't afford. But my concern are the millions of Americans who behaved responsibly and yet still found themselves in jeopardy because of the predatory practices of some in the financial industry. These are folks who signed contracts they didn't always understand offered by lenders who didn't always tell the truth. They were lured in by promises of low payments, and never made aware of the fine print and hidden fees.

Secretary Geithner and I just finished meeting with some of these Americans who've joined us here today. You already heard from Patricia, who was forced to pay thousands of dollars in interest on a $550 payday loan. We also heard from Susan Chapman, who had excellent payment history until she was contacted by a broker who told her that she could lower the monthly payments on her mortgage. Instead, the loan they sold her ended up increasing her debt, and her principal has now gone up $20,000.

We talked with Karen Cappuccio, who is still fending off foreclosure because her mortgage company duped her into taking out two expensive loans when they had originally promised her one low, fixed rate mortgage. We talked with Maxine Given, whose bank hit her with four separate overdraft charges because of one mortgage check that they ended up rejecting the very next day. And we talked with Andrew Giordano, whose bank made a mistake that cost him over $800 in overdraft fees. And when he caught their mistake, the bank only refunded part of the fees.

As we've seen over the last year, abuses like these don't just jeopardize the financial well-being of individual Americans - they can threaten the stability of the entire economy. And yet, the patchwork system of regulations we have now has failed to prevent these abuses. With seven different federal agencies each having a role, there is too little accountability, too many loopholes, and no single agency whose sole job it is to stand up for people like Patricia, Susan, Maxine, Andrew and Karen - no one whose chief responsibility it is stand up for the American consumer and for responsible banks and financial institutions.

Under the reforms we've proposed, that will change. The new Consumer Financial Protection Agency that I have asked Congress to create will have just one mission: to look out for the financial interests of ordinary Americans. It will be charged with setting clear rules of the road for consumers and banks, and it will be able to enforce these rules across the board.

This agency will have the power to make certain that consumers get information that is clear and concise - in plain language - so they can compare products and know exactly what they're getting into. It will ensure that banks and other firms cannot hide behind those ridiculously confusing contracts - pages of fine print that no one can figure out. It will have the ability to enforce and build on the credit card reforms we passed earlier this year, so that consumers aren't hit with unfair rate hikes, penalties, or hidden charges. It will require brokers to look out for the interests of families if they give advice about mortgages. And it will ensure transparency and fair-dealing for other financial products, like bank overdraft services and payday loans.

In a financial system that has never been more complicated, it has never been more important to have a watchdog function like the one we've proposed. And yet, predictably, a lot of the banks and big financial firms don't like the idea of a consumer agency very much. In fact, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is spending millions on an ad campaign to kill it. You might have seen some of these ads - the ones that claim local butchers and other small businesses will somehow be harmed by this agency. This, of course, is completely false - and we've made clear that only businesses that offer financial services would be affected by this agency.

Contrary to what some have argued, this agency would not restrict consumer choice and innovation. Nothing could be further from the truth. In the past, a lack of clear rules led to innovation of the wrong kind: the firms that did best were the ones that did the best job of hiding the real costs to consumers. By contrast, the consumer agency we're proposing would set ground rules so that firms don't have to compete to confuse families, but to give them better choices. This will also help small business entrepreneurs who often rely on credit cards and home equity loans to finance their start-ups.

But all this hasn't stopped the big financial firms and their lobbyists from mobilizing against change. They're doing what they always do - descending on Congress and using every bit of influence they have to maintain a status quo that has maximized their profits at the expense of American consumers. And since they're worried they may not be able to kill this agency, they're trying their hardest to weaken it - by asking for exemptions from this agency's rules and enforcement; by fighting to keep open every gap and loophole they can find. And they're very good at this, because that's how business has been done in Washington for a very long time. In fact, over the last ten years, the Chamber of Commerce alone spent nearly half a billion dollars on lobbying - half a billion dollars.

Well the stories we heard today remind us that the American people cannot afford business-as-usual any longer. These Americans cannot afford high-priced lobbyists to argue their case. They are counting on us to be their advocate; to be their voice; to restore a sense of responsibility from Wall Street to Washington. That's why we need a Consumer Financial Protection Agency that will stand up not for big banks and financial firms, but for hardworking Americans. That's why we need regulatory reform that will reward innovation and competition instead of short-cuts and abuse. And that's why we cannot let the special interests win this fight.

We have already seen and lived the consequences of what happens when there is too little accountability on Wall Street and too little protection for Main Street, and I will not allow this country to go back there. It is time to move forward. It is time for real change. And I am confident we will get it done. Thank you.



View Larger Map


Sources: Huffington Post, Whitehouse.gov, MSNBC, Politico, McClatchy Newspapers, Charlotte Observer, ABC News, TPM, C-SPAN, US Treasury Dept., Senate.gov, House.gov, FTC.gov, Youtube, Google Maps

The Health Care Reform Debate...Who's Leading It?

MSNBC----


Sen. Chris Dodd (D)(Conn.) - With Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., sidelined by illness, Dodd is leading the Senate health committee's effort to design its overhaul legislation. It is inevitably going to be a slow process, Dodd (who's up for re-election) told colleagues, saying, "I never suggested this was going to be warp speed."

Sen. Max Baucus (D)(Mont.) - Baucus is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and architect of one of the bills that, with some modifications, is most likely to arrive on the president's desk. He has stressed paying for extending health coverage to the uninsured by taxing some workers' health insurance and by forcing hospitals and providers to become more
cost-effective.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi,(D)(Calif.) -
Pelosi's clout with her 256 Democratic members may prove to be essential in getting a compromise bill passed in the House. She favors a "public option," a government-sponsored plan that would compete with private-sector insurers. "I have every confidence we will have a public option coming out of the House of Representatives. It will be a level playing field. For us to have substantial health care reform, this has to be part of it," she said.

Sen. Charles Grassley (R)(Iowa) - The senior Republican on the Finance Committee, Grassley (who's up for re-election) has worked closely with Baucus to design a bill that would gain some Republican support. He is not a fan of Obama's plan to let government plans compete with private ones. "There's a lot of us that feel that the government is an unfair competitor," Grassley said. "We have to keep what we have now strong, and make it stronger."

Sen. Kent Conrad,(D)(N.D.) - Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, Conrad is the sponsor of a proposal to use a series of regional co-operatives, somewhat like farmer co-ops, as non-profit rivals for profit-friendly insurance companies. Conrad told the Washington Post it was necessary to get 60 votes in the Senate to pass any health insurance overhaul. He has warned about a government-sponsored insurance plan. "Virtually all Republicans are against the public option and some Democrats are," he said. "So how do you get to 60?"

Sen. Ben Nelson,(D)(Neb.) - A crucial Senate centrist who along with about six other like-minded Democrats may supply the votes to pass a bill, or might kill it by voting "no." A critic of the "public option," a government plan competing with private-sector insurers, Nelson has also said he might be open to some form of public option which would be "triggered in the event that there's no market available on the private side."

Sen. Olympia Snowe, (R)(Maine) - Snowe is a critical GOP centrist who often votes with the Democrats on significant legislation. She has voiced worries that high-cost areas of the nation, including her home state, would suffer disproportionately if Congress decided to tax employer-provided health insurance.

Peter Orszag, Office of Management and Budget - Head of the Office of Management and Budget, Orszag is largely responsible for making sure the Obama administration accepts the design of any insurance overhaul. Orszag said the resulting plan "must be deficit-neutral," and must require some real, quantifiable savings to offset the new federal spending that will be needed to cover the uninsured.

Douglas Elmendorf, Congressional Budget Office - As director of the Congressional Budget Office, the non-partisan budget scorekeeper for Congress, Elmendorf is in charge of the analysts who'll figure out whether the numbers in the health insurance blueprint add up. "Without meaningful reforms, the substantial costs of many current proposals ... would be much more likely to worsen the long-run budget outlook than to improve it," he said.

Karen Ignagni, America's Health Insurance Plans - Ignagni is president of America's Health Insurance Plans, the group that represents nearly 1,300 companies providing health insurance coverage to more than 200 million Americans. AHIP supports making all uninsured Americans living in poverty eligible for the Medicaid program -- which currently has wide coverage gaps in it. AHIP opposes a government-run plan for the non-poor, which it says would dismantle employer-based coverage and cost taxpayers too much money.

Richard Kirsch of Health Care for America Now - Kirsch is the leader of a Democratic-affiliated advocacy group Health Care for America Now -- a coalition of labor unions and others, including ACORN, the AFL-CIO, and MoveOn.org. The group calls for a federal health insurance plan that guarantees coverage without a private insurer involvement. It attacks the private-sector insurance industry as "beholden to Wall Street" and says it "puts corporate profits before people's health."

Sources: MSNBC, Politico, Reuters, Flickr, Huffington Post, Zimbio