Slowly and tentatively, in fits and starts yet with gradually gathering momentum, the iron grip that big corporate interests have on the throat of our democracy is loosening a little. Credit card companies got needless delays in the implementation of last year's reform bill, but they were forced to live with the outlawing of several of their most egregious practices. The insurance companies stripped the public option and some other great things out of health reform, but would have much preferred no bill at all, and certainly not one with new regulations and expectations about pre-existing conditions, lifetime caps, and recissions. The student loan industry got an outright smackdown which will result in more money for student loans. Now Wall Street is in a wild fight on the floor of the Senate, and Senators are either deserting them on major issues like auditing the Fed and consumer protection, or else Senators are having to make very uncomfortable votes on the big bankers' behalf. Progressives who want to rein in Wall Street's power are losing on some important issues, but we are making our mark on this bill, and setting the stage for future fights.
Check out Simon Johnson's brilliant post on the vote to break up the banks, suggesting that while they won this round, they may be facing their Waterloo soon. He points out that as things like Greece continue to happen that unravel the world financial situation further, that it will become harder and harder for the defenders of the big banks to hide. Although our side lost the vote, getting over half the Democrats, the Majority Leader, the 2nd ranking member of the leadership, and the ranking Republican on the Finance committee to all vote with us on a bill to fundamentally restructure the financial system was a pretty big deal. With Senators now all on the record as to whether they support the big banks or not, we have a lot of potential to do some damage in the coming elections. Even when we lose, we are getting these issues aired and getting people on the record. That's all to the good.
Let me throw a couple of electoral examples into the mix. Take Delaware, a pretty strongly Democratic state where a locally popular Republican congressman, Mike Castle, is a heavy favorite to win an open seat. He voted against breaking up the big banks. If the Democratic candidate Chris Coons makes this big issue in a pretty working class state, maybe Castle's easy victory gets a little- or even quite a bit- harder.
Or take an old home state of mine, Iowa, where voters have a very deep populist streak in them (see Harkin,Tom). Grassley, the ultimate incumbent insider, ranking member and former chair of the Finance committee, voted for letting the 6 biggest banks continue to own the equivalent of 63% of our GDP. Roxanne Conlin is a crusading lawyer who has made her living going after corporate malfeasance. Grassley is favored in this race, but his vote makes things a lot more interesting, especially for a strong populist like Roxanne.
Moving on to the issue of auditing the Federal Reserve. Yes, Sanders compromised on the issue. But most observers following the issue see this as a solid compromise, not a cave-in: we got something real out of the deal in terms of looking at what went down over the last few years. And the House language they go into conference on is very strong. Rumor has it that Geithner is still trying to figure out how to unravel this deal, so we can't take anything for granted, but we have the momentum on this issue, and winning on it would be a very big deal.
We're winning so far on the consumer protection agency; we're making progress on derivatives. It is the progressive amendments that have the wind at their back right now.
Look, I don't want to overstate this. This bank bill has some serious weaknesses in it, and with the Brown-Kaufman bank break-up amendment failing, it still doesn't solve the most central failing of our banking system. On health care and other issues, progressives have had our share of truly bitter and disappointing defeats. But progressive populist economics and a political strategy of challenging special interest corporate power is gaining traction right now. A citizen movement is bubbling up through the barriers of special interest concrete in our nation's Capitol that is not driven by tea party anti-government fervor, but by the hopes of regular folks who believe we can take our country back. Let's keep building on our momentum.
Cross-posted at OpenLeft.com
You can read all of my work on financial reform, health care and other topics at my home blog, OpenLeft.com.
Zach Carter: Tom Carper Is Attacking Consumers and Defending Wall Street
There are two consumer protection amendments getting serious attention on the Senate floor this week, one of them positive, one of them incredibly destructive -- the kind of amendment that can actually sink the bill if adopted.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/109535/foratv-politics-lawrence-lessig-institutional-corruption-in-american-life#x-4,vclip,1,0
Below a segment of Lessings presentation --
The Early founders wanted a non-dependent representation, which “would give the right answer for the right reason” – meaning one not bought through improper influence. Lesseing quotes Jefferson: (improper dependence) “begets subservience and venality, suffocates the germ of virtue, and prepares fit tools for the design of ambition” –
Many of our political leadership, even judicial are not giving the ‘right answers for the right reasons’ but are answering from improper influence. And ‘designs of ambitions’
Personal opinion: People become blinded by their ambitions, abuse and exploit others --- as pointed out it knows no political ideology .“Designs of ambition” is a door to corruption –
It should read along these lines:
The sovereignty of the United States resides in the people, manifested in the vote. Any attempt to dilute the sovereignty of the people is an overt act of treason against the sovereigns of the country. Any act of treason is subject to the most draconian punishments.
People are free to lobby their government, but at no point may any person, or group be allowed to extend money, comfort, privilege or consideration of any kind, other than information, to a government official, and at no point may a government official be allowed to receive the same. Both the offerer and the receiver of money, comfort, privilege or consideration are guilty of treason.
This would bring us our country back in the most immediate and abject manner. Fanned.
Very little real change is happening in Washington....a lot of talk and little action.
Until we get rid of the "global economy", which is being used by corporate America via Congress to force American wages down, this country will continue to wither and die.
Having said that, though, I believe the root of the problem is the exploitation of the workers. To counter this problem, I would like to see a law that imposes a fair-value compensation standard on businesses, whereby a business's compensation practices (employees and executives) are scrutinized. If any group (say less than 1%) is compensated (pay, bonuses, perks, and options/future agreements) extravagantly compared to the other workers, then the company is fined. I define extravagantly as more than 5 times greater than the average of the remaining workers; but I'm open to discussion on the exact figure.
(continued)
Now, this will also require tariffs on goods from countries without similar standards, and stiff fines/penalties on companies who violate the standard/law.
The net effect, however, will be to increase the income of the lower & middle class which performs the majority of the work. This would, in turn, dramatically spur our economy, and reduce the need for social programs like welfare, food stamps, etc.
The progressive "political strategy" is not, in an way, gaining "traction." What does that even mean? People are leaving the Democratic party by the thousands, because you f#*king promised us that Obama would do something special.
Its the same story every four years. The progressives say they're aginst the war. They say they're for a single payer. They say they want better financial regulation. Then, when election time roles round, you tell us to vote for an Obama, or a Clinton, or a Kerry, and nothing changes. nothing.
You suck, and whatever lies Obama told us on the campaign trails are on your shoulders, because you knew better and you still supported him.
You must wage ideological war against the sophistry of so-called Republican culture wars, defined by
twisted oligarchs such as Frank Luntz and Karl Rove - think tank Machiavellis.
make sure to vote out anyone, republican or democrat, who hasn't figured it out.
business as usual must end for the good of the usa, for the good of the people of the usa.