Senate Republicans have perfected the art of saying no. But in blocking a debate on financial reform, they have begun to imitate Goldman Sachs traders, selling positions that they are betting against.
Blocking financial reform is, not surprisingly, financially rewarding, as Republican leaders lease themselves to Wall Street as congressional security guards. But with the public outraged at the human devastation caused by the financial crisis, and the bailout of the big banks, with the Wall Street ethics (increasingly an oxymoron) in full display in the Goldman Sachs and Washington Mutual hearings, being in the pocket of the big banks isn't exactly a popular platform for re-election.
So instead, Republicans are expressing their inner populism. They rail at the financial reform bill (the Dodd bill) as too weak, designed to ensure more taxpayer bailouts. "We cannot allow endless taxpayer-funded bailouts for big Wall Street banks. And that's why we must not pass the financial reform bill that's about to hit the floor," says Senator Mitch McConnell, unfortunately tracking almost word for word the infamous Frank Luntz talking points on how to kill financial reform. Republicans pose like Horatio at the bridge, defending us against future bailouts. For McConnell to come straight from a Wall Street fundraiser to parade as the scourges of Wall Street may lack a certain authenticity, but Goldman Sachs traders aren't the only insiders who think the rubes will buy anything.
Now Republicans have done us a favor. They've published a Republican alternative on financial reform, laying out the differences. Not surprisingly, much of it tracks the Dodd Bill, since a good portion of that was forged in bipartisan negotiations. It adds language calling on the Treasury Secretary to present a plan on Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae, which he's promised to do. It puts somewhat different limits on the Federal Reserve. But its major differences come in two major areas: how to pay the costs associated with shutting down failed big banks, and on consumer financial protection.
The Dodd bill calls for the banks to ante up a $50 billion fund. This would be used by the FDIC if it were forced to take over a failing big financial institution. Unlike the last bailout, where the banks were rescued but not reorganized and taxpayers paid the bill, in the Dodd bill, a troubled big bank would be treated basically like smaller insolvent banks. The FDIC would take it over, fire the management, and reorganize it, liquidating assets, merging with other banks. The shareholders would lose their investment; the creditors would take a hit. The bank financed fund would cover any costs along the way.
For all of Republican warnings about the FDIC's incompetence, the Republican alternative essentially calls for the same procedure. The FDIC would be named receiver. It would liquidate the assets, or transfer them to a "bridge bank" and sell them. It would fire the management; operate the bank if necessary while dispersing its assets. Shareholders would be wiped out; creditors would take a hit. But in some cases, the FDIC will have to take "emergency action to stabilize" the bank, "issuing guarantees, purchasing assets, and advancing funds to creditors." The FDIC would seek to recoup this money from creditors and shareholders in the ensuing liquidation.
Where would that initial money come from? Here's where Republicans pay tribute to George Orwell. The money won't come from a fund paid for by the banks. Republicans denounce that as leading to "taxpayer funded bailouts." No, the money would come from, well, taxpayers, and thereby save us from taxpayer funded bailouts. War is peace. Black is White. Are Republicans a great party or what?
The second major Republican initiative is to protect the banks from consumer protection. No really. Instead of an independent agency which the House called for, or a strong agency lodged in the Fed as the Dodd bill calls for, Republicans would create a "Council for Consumer Financial Protection" to promulgate rules for consumer financial protection. It would have three regulators and three consumer advocates and is charged with insuring that all rules and regulations "consider the safety and soundness" of the banks.
That, of course, is essentially what we have now where the various regulators have the authority to protect consumers, but are focused on the safety and soundness of the banks. The result is that they sat on their hands as consumers got gouged by payday lenders, rapacious mortgage brokers, credit card companies, used car dealers and more. (Of course, they didn't do much on the safety and soundness of banks either).
So when you watch Republicans join in lock step once more to block opening the debate on financial reform, understand what their objections are. They want taxpayers, not banks, to front the costs of resolving failed big banks. And they want greater protection for the banks from consumer protection.
Which side are they on?
Follow Robert L. Borosage on Twitter: www.twitter.com/borosage
Robin Canter: How To Kill Two Troublesome Birds With One Profitable, Gay Stone
We gay and lesbians get to show the country what the true sanctity of marriage is: a union between a homosexual and an illegal alien.
Robert J. Shapiro: Goldman Scandal Erodes Case For Cap and Trade
The best policy is to establish a clear and stable price on carbon and offset the resulting costs for American households with tax cuts.
Blythe McGarvie: Uncle Sam, The Right Reaction to Goldman is Not Group-Think
Government leaders often fight to protect people from themselves, believing they know best what others should do.
Hoyt Hilsman: Moral Blindness on Wall Street
One of the most shocking elements of the testimony by Goldman Sachs executives this week was the moral blindness they showed when evaluating the role of their firm in the economic collapse.
So true, Mr. Borosage, so true. In the alternate universe that radical republicans inhabit, war is always peace, black is always white, and the taxpayers always bail out the corporate gangsters.
But, we who are not radical republicans, like the Greeks, we rise up and say NO, Hell NO!
We used to be the Democratic ideal. Now maybe the Brits will be.
" I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway;
Whatever it is, I'm against it! "
It makes for good comedy, but poor government.
I am still waiting to see when the CONGRESS, you know Congress, the people who Write the
LAWS and the TREATIES of America?
Still waiting for them to be ALLOWED to see the Nuclear treaty obama phoned in to Russia like Dictator.
Presidents do not write laws like healthcare or Treaties.
Constitution has a thing called balance and separation of powers so a dictator could never become president
Do unto others as you would not allow them to do unto you.
Good God, what does it take for people to remember Republicans' strategy? Frighten people with lies and remember how ignorant their supporters are..
1980 U.S. median income - $43K +/- 1980 U.S. median home price - $62K +/-
2008 U.S median income - $50K +/- 2008 U.S median home price - 213K +/-
It wasn't a matter "if" it would burst the only question was when. Just what was sustaining such a massive raise in real estate prices except for fraud? In the late 1980's the taxpayers were forced to bailout the banks and S/L's in the "worse taxpayer bailout in history" and the main reason was over valued mortgages.
http://stvglmr.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/27/1921509-deregulation-and-lack-of-media-attention-cause-bailout
When the appraisers were fired for refusing to commit federal banking fraud by protecting the consumer and taxpayer from exactly what has happen...well read Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez letter. The appraisers that tried to prevent what happen was eliminated and no matter how much the appraisers tried to change this it fell on deaf ears.
If unemployment continued to rise and income is flat how did the market triple and no one see a bust coming.
If no one (supposedly) didn't see the bust/correction coming, why, then did G/S "bet" it would happen/ Why would G/S sell portfolio's of mortgage backed securities then bet they were worthless?
Brilliant.
"Which side are they on?"
That's clear. The Dems are disorganized still, but we know exactly where Republicans stand. And if you're one of the 2% they are protecting, you should be proud!