Casual Observation

17 Comments

1. 

   MNPundit on June 30, 2010 at 3:05 pm

   I think Ezra has the right of it.

   Feingold vs. FinReg

   Kevin Drum and Jonathan Bernstein are giving Russ Feingold some grief for not supporting the financial regulation reform bill. In the specific, their argument makes sense: The bill is being made somewhat worse because Feingold refuses to support it. On the other hand, it’s understandable why someone wouldn’t support this bill.

   Take one of the issues at the core of the reforms: The amount of capital financial institutions need to hold to protect themselves from crises. Is the bill good or bad on this? Well, it’s hard to say, because the bill punts the capital requirements to regulators.

   Or take another issue: The government’s authority to take down a major bank that might fail and cause panic in the system. In order to use this authority, the Treasury Department, the FDIC and the Federal Reserve must all agree that the bank needs to be taken down. Then, three bankruptcy judges must ratify their decision. It is hard to believe that this authority will ever be used in time to prevent panic. As a financial reporter friend of mine noted, this is oddly reminiscent of the layers of redundancy we erect around nuclear weapons and, tellingly, those redundancies are there to prevent the weapons from being launched.

   Or take the all-important regulators who’ll make these decisions. I spoke with Eric Patashnik yesterday, the political scientist who wrote “Reforms at Risk.” The reforms that fare worst over the long haul, he said, are those that choose to layer new regulatory bureaucracies atop old ones rather than simply creating new, clean structures. The Dodd bill retreated from its initial and radical reorganization of the regulatory landscape and now layers a systemic risk regulator atop the Federal Reserve.

   I don’t want to go too far with this. The bill is an improvement on the status quo. Bringing over-the-counter derivatives into clearinghouses and onto exchanges is a major victory, and so, too, is the establishment of an agency to protect consumers, the end of an unregulated shadow banking market and much more. So in that way, I get the critique of Feingold. But I also get Feingold’s critique of the legislation. If I had to come down on this, I’d say his initial votes against the legislation made sense, but at this point, it’s time to drop the procedural votes against it. If he wants to vote no, he should vote no. But he should vote against the Republican filibuster.

   It’s what I would do to.

   • 

     GreenOx on June 30, 2010 at 6:39 pm

     Feingold can take his purity and shove it up his well-paid ass.

     • 

       MNPundit on June 30, 2010 at 9:42 pm

       Don’t act so mind-numbingly stupid. You’re better than that.

       Financially, Russ Feingold Out of Place in U.S. Senate

2. 

   MNPundit on June 30, 2010 at 3:09 pm

   Bowers comes out for the bill. And thank God he doesn’t call it the abominable FinReg like Klein. Christ what an awful name.

   Why we need to pass the Wall Street reform bill

   In the extended entry, you will find a very lengthy description of what victories were won in the Wall Street reform bill, what compromises were made, and what defeats were suffered.  It is, on balance, an argument for why we should pass the Wall Street reform bill, and a roadmap of where the fight continues.

   Senator Russ Feingold is a personal hero of mine.  Today, he posted an editorial explaining why he is opposing this bill.  I am not going to pick a fight with Senator Feingold over what he could have done, or should have done on the bill.  While this is a rebuttal of sorts, mainly it is to let people know that there is a lot of good in this bill, and it is possible to present that information in an honest, self-aware manner that acknowledges where it falls short.

   There are a lot of victories in this bill.  We need to pass those victories into law.  If the bill is defeated by pro-Wall Street forces over the next two weeks, the only parts which will be defeated are the victories, while all of its shortcomings will remain in place.  If it is defeated, the 1999 financial deregulation package will remain the basic framework under which our financial system operates, and we all know how that worked out.  If it is defeated, no one will ever really take on the banks again, as their victory would demonstrate their invincibility.

   The text in the extended entry was prepared by numerous people associated with Americans for Financial Reform.  It is a work in progress, but I hope you find it to be a useful touchstone.

   Pass the bill.

   Weird day when Bowers and Klein agree.

3. 

   DaveW on June 30, 2010 at 3:37 pm

   I applaud Feingold for trying to redress the flow of power that always runs only one way when “compromises” are made: from the center to the right. He’s hoping to use the same tactics as Nelson to end up with better legislation. Good for him.

   I don’t see anything in his article where he says he’ll vote against cloture when the time comes. I hope he gets thrown a bone that makes the bill a little better. His arguments seem sound. If he votes against the bill in the end, what’s the problem?

   • 

     Davis X Machina on June 30, 2010 at 5:13 pm

     [blockquote]I don’t see anything in his article where he says he’ll vote against cloture when the time comes[/blockquote]

     On May 18, Feingold voted against cloture on arguably a stronger bill…

4. 

   Brendan Skwire on June 30, 2010 at 3:50 pm

   shorter: russ feingold should vote for something he doesn’t support.

   • 

     Davis X Machina on June 30, 2010 at 4:14 pm

     While that criticism would apply to the bill, how does it apply to the vote on cloture?

5. 

   seabe on June 30, 2010 at 4:07 pm

   The bill is worth voting for just because of the CFPA alone.

   I still haven’t seen the final language, and as far as I know, no one else has either. I’m not sure how anyone can analyze the bill in-depth until that happens.

6. 

   bologna on June 30, 2010 at 6:14 pm

   No shortage of shit sandwiches!

7. 

   TarheelDem on June 30, 2010 at 9:46 pm

   If it was smart for Blue Dogs to vote against health care reform because of local issues, it is smart for Feingold to vote against a Financial Reform package that does not serve Wisconsin.  And the leadership should cut him some slack just as they did the House Blue Dogs and Senators like Ben Nelson.

   That puts it on the Republicans to participate in passing this bill or deciding to kill it for now.  Feingold will get cred for it not being strong enough; Republicans will not get cred, unlike the health care bill, for it not being weak enough.

   Feingold’s (and Cantwell’s) positions put more pressure on the Republicans, not less.

   Let’s see Republicans run on failing to pass financial industry reform.

8. 

   Delonjo on July 1, 2010 at 10:01 am

   It’s not about (*Obama-defending STRAWMAN ALERT*) “acced[ing] to his demands,” it’s about fighting for something progressive. But that’s just to radical for the corporate laziness and lack of principles that’s glorified here.

   • 

     BooMan on July 1, 2010 at 11:19 am

     Unless you consider Marcy Kaptur a progressive, not a single progressive member of the House voted against the reforms. Not one.  And that had enough votes in hand to allow some symbolic protests from the left.  No one took them up on that.  Not even Kucinich.  So, what principle is it that Russ Feingold has discovered that is invisible to the entire Progressive Caucus?  

     Are there shortcomings with the bill?  Of course.  We’re taking on the most powerful business interests on the planet and we’re not going to get everything we want.  Are the shortcomings worth filibustering over?  Only in Russ’s fevered mind.  

     • 

       Delonjo on July 1, 2010 at 1:53 pm

       Yes. You’re saying it again: If Obama endorses it, and if it’s better than nothing, then everyone else needs to shut up, clap louder, and give Obama more water to walk on. I know that my tune is getting old with you; but so is your tune getting old with the increasing chorus (if you haven’t noticed in your Praise Obama Bubble) of voices who are sick to death of being told, “It’s the best we could get, now shut up and get in line for the parade.”

       Also, who cares if all those “progressives” got in line and cheered at the parade? Does that mean that I should not complain because Versailles still loyally follows its headless queen to the guillotine? Pardon me for not being loyal enough.

       • 

         BooMan on July 1, 2010 at 2:57 pm

         you can complain all you want.  But it’s not all that interesting unless their is something constructive about it.  

         • 

           Delonjo on July 1, 2010 at 3:23 pm

           The constructive part was what you were tearing down.

         • 

           BooMan on July 1, 2010 at 5:06 pm

           are you talking about you or Russ?

           Because you haven’t offered anything constructive, and, while Feingold offered legitimate criticism, my only complaint is that he doesn’t play the game smartly to get what he wants done.  To be effective you have to start building coalitions early, not throw solo pouty fits in the end.