The Senate Republicans are refusing to allow a vote on the Merkley-Levin amendment, which would put a meaningful version of the Volcker Rule into law (splitting off proprietary trading from major banks).
After weeks of dancing around, the Democrats finally have a signature issue on which to fight. Senator Carl Levin frames it exactly right: "It's a sad day when the power of Wall Street can overwhelm the power of the American people in the US Senate."
This is the opportunity that White House claims it has long sought -- to have an intense fight on a financial reform issue that everyone can understand. Paul Volcker made his determination long ago: the big banks are too big and must, in this fashion, be broken up. Senators Merkley and Levin negotiated the precise language of their amendment in good faith. The Republicans have made their answer clear: No way.
Time for President Obama to make the call.
Only the president can break through the daily logjam of information. Only the president can define the issues in the simple, powerful and convincing terms that people can grasp. Only the president can insist -- this is a matter of urgent national priority.
The economic analysis (Volcker), political back-story (Brown-Kaufman and all that involved), and just the right rhetoric are already in place:
"We got into this financial crisis because Wall Street set the rules to benefit itself, and now with an assist from Senate Republicans, they're doing it again," said Merkley. "Obviously the lobbyists are afraid they'll lose this vote, and in typical Wall Street fashion their solution, with help from Senate Republicans, is to rig the result. Main Street is being shut out of this debate. It is time to stop letting Wall Street call the shots -- let this amendment have a vote."
"The long arm of Wall Street reached directly into the Senate chamber today," Levin said. "By blocking us from even debating this amendment, the Republican leadership is carrying Wall Street's water and standing in the way of real reform."
This is a defining issue for the president. Either he takes up the Volcker Rule -- proposed by his administration, to great fanfare (and some skepticism) in January. Or he rolls over -- admitting that Wall Street has won.
We know where Goldman Sachs and its fellow travellers stand on this issue -- adamantly and publicly opposed. And we pointed out here in February which way the Republicans were likely to go.
"But if you don't have the votes in the Senate, what can you do?" This one is easy. You stop the clock and put everything else on hold. The president calls the American people to order and asks them to take a long hard look at the issues and the corporate interests at stake.
And then you start to pound away. Day in and day out, the president and other leading members of his administration need to come out swinging with relentless pursuit of substance on TV talk shows and prime time speeches -- demanding an up-or-down vote on Merkley-Levin.
Admittedly, this may be awkward for leading officials, who have been rather accommodative to financial interests over the past 15 months or so. That's unfortunate (for them), but now entirely water under the bridge. All is forgiven to the policymaker who finally gets it and changes course in the right direction.
Don't move on. Pick up the baseball bat that Paul Volcker has given you. Either that or go down to the most embarrassing, humiliating, and memorable defeat in the history of Wall Street-Washington confrontations. It's the president's call.
This post was originally published on The Baseline Scenario.
Well, maybe in another generation.
And remember, Dems, that THIS is the issue that will win it for you in November. The public want NOTHING MORE than to see the banks put back in their tidy little pigeon holes, forbidden to gamble our money on "sure things" that always lose in the long run.
Do this, and sweep into office in November with a new Majority.
Time to fight. Believe me, this issue is worth tying up the Senate completely for months, to finally address it, and put the banks back where they belong; too small individually to need any bailing out, and free from the possibility of growing beyond those bounds.
We need Glass-Steagle put back into effect.
Hididng like he always does and waiting for his handlers to tell him what to say!
He's a lame duck one-termer and his policies are exactly OPPOSITE of what the voters want. He's wise to be avoiding the press, avoiding showing up for candidates, etc.
I mean, let's face it: Wall Street needs these regulations. Right? These guys almost ran us all into the ground (and got rich doing it). But far fewer articles are published discussing the actual language of the proposed legislation, than those talking about the intent to filibuster and the political brawl still unfolding.
We're a nation that likes our brawls, I guess.
Yeah, like Obama's going to weigh in on ANYTHING. Boy did HE sell us a bill of goods.
Far beyond ADMITTING Wall Street has won, he's LETTING Wall Street win. He's got way too much skin in the game to double-cross those boys. Rubin, Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke wouldn't allow him to do so, anyway. Doesn't it seem really, really likely that Goldman Sachs ensured those, um, gentlemen, would BE the Department of Finance?
Speaking of which, doesn't it also seem likely that Obama isn't putting pressure on BP in order to avoid double-crossing those boys. Ultimately, doesn't it seem likely that a Big Corporate replica of the Mafia is running the country?
Like I said, boy did Obama sell us a bill of goods. (And yet, somehow I can't help but LIKE him!!)
How is any of that Obama's fault, hmmm? Saying it is, is like an Evangelical sinning (that never happens, right?) and then blaming it on "the devil." Blaming Obama for the fact that his opponents are so powerful and determined, is to totally absolve his opponents from not acting as they should be -- as the responsible representatives of the PEOPLE, rather than Wall Street.
And as long as they keep us divided and blaming each other they can keep doing the same thing over and over. It would be very nice to do away with parties. They all just care about the party and not about honest governing, Some changes need to be made with these corrupt politicians. Any bill they put forward should be voted on by the people. No more pay raises for them except by vote of the people. No lobbying allowed. They just a bunch of greedy corrupt politicians who care more about themselves then the people of this Country.
This is reform proposed by his own economic adviser, Paul Volker. So why isn't Obama on national TV hammering this issue into every home and demanding that the Republicans allow a straight up-or-down vote on this critically important reform? Hell, even the tea-baggers would agree with him on this! And likewise, why hasn't he been using his bully pulpit to explain to the people how the 'Too-Big-To-Fail' megabanks are too big to exist and should be broken up?
He should be out there front and center leading the fight for this reform. But sadly, I think it shows once again that Obama is still a corporatist at heart and he will still lay down and roll over for corporate interests.
And yet, I still like him. He really has no choice if he wants to have a second term than to be on the take like every other politician in D.C. If he doesn't take protection money from and do the bidding of big corporations, they buy the office for the candidate running against him next election. The only thing that really changes is the name of the office holder taking the bribes.
I share your cynicism though. I don't think we'll ever get someone in office who is able to separate herself from the paradigm that got her there.
Elections are about choice -- people should know they have a choice between corporate lackeys and those who represent them. Of course, that would require Democrats to stop acting like Republican lite.
For all we know, Obama already has picked up the "baseball bat", though he's much better at bball.
Look how well that worked!.
Unfortunately, Obama could go either way.
He won't come out to fight here either