A Couple of updates, one completely predictable that New York Governor David Paterson is polling behind everyone. He trails Andrew Cuomo by 75% to 16%, which makes him less polular amongst New York Democrats, and in the general election he trails Giuliani by 33% to 56% (Cuomo trounces Giuliani by 53%-41%), and Rick Lazio by 39% to 42% (Cuomo crushes him 67%-22%).
Give it up dude. People find you incompetent, uninspiring, craven, and stupid, and no amount of political organization, fund raising, and advertisements will change this, because you are incompetent, uninspiring, craven, and stupid.
Admittedly, it’s been 7 months between polls, but Beau Biden (Joe’s kid), has not formally announced, nor have there been any scandals to change these numbers.
The only thing that people see that might have changed this, is that Mike Castle, a Republican who is known for being one of the most, if not the most liberal Republicans in Congress, cast a vote against the healthcare plan.
Castle’s strength in Delaware politics was always that he was perceived an an iconoclastic man of integrity, not a party apparatchik, is now voting like a party apparatchik:
What’s responsible for the Biden surge? He’s grabbed the lead in vote-rich New Castle County, built up a 41-point lead among Democratic voters, and moved to only 5 points behind Castle among independents. According to the pollster, the shift “may be a result of negative publicity [Castle] received in the state after casting a ‘no’ vote for President Obama’s health care reform bill in the U.S. Congress.” Castle, who has thrived as a moderate Republican in an increasingly Democratic state, has been casting more partisan votes–against the stimulus package, for the Stupak amendment–that have been well-reported in Delaware.
I think that if there is a final version healthcare, there will be more Republicans than just Anh “Joseph” Quang Cao voting for this bill, because some of them will realize just how toxic their leadership is from an electoral standpoint,
Obviously, I have opinions on the behavior of the Church, and particularly the US Conference of Bishops, but to get true clarity, you need the viewpoint of someone raised in the faith. Case in point is thhis post by Lance Mannion:
Taking orders from the priests is exactly what JFK had to promise he wouldn’t do when he ran for President.
Several Democrats, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, said they are in touch with their Catholic bishops back home. Altmire said he must have the approval of his bishop in Pittsburgh before he can vote yes.
That’s from CNN by way of Ed Brayton by way of Mike the Mad Biologist. And Altmire was talking about a health care reform bill that hadn’t been amended by Stupak-Pitts yet. He was planning to ask his bishop for permission to vote to expand health care to the poor and protect the sick from losing it.
Mr. Mannion was a devout Catholic in his youth, and lays some serious whup ass on the Church. I highly recommend that you read it.
It is remarkable the change. In 1928, Al Smith was the target of claims that a picture of him opening the Holland Tunnel was actually a “tunnel to the Pope,” and today, it appears that the Conference of Bishops is demanding a tunnel to the pope.
I would also point you to the debate on the BBC about whether or not the Catholic Church was a force for good in the world, between Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan on the pro side, and Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry (of Fry and Laurie, Blackadder, etc) on the other.
Hitchens is, as always, an obnoxious drunk, who delights in offending the religious, and so was not interesting, but Laurie, I think, has genuine affection for faith in general, but not the church.
There is a difference between criticizing a religion for it’s beliefs and observances, and criticizing any organization for its policies.
The Catholic Church is a hierarchical absolute monarchy, and as such, their policies, whether it be the Pope lying about the use of condoms to prevent aids, or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbying against healthcare, though not, it should be noted not saying a word on the death penalty, which is also deemed a sin, need to be viewed in the exact same context as the United States setting up Gulags and torturing people.
A condemnation of torture, and wars of choice, is no more a condemnation of Americans than a condemnation of the Church in its actions regarding AIDS, or healthcare for the poor, or the complicity of its officers of state in concealing child abuse.
The BBC vid is after break. It’s broken into 5 parts, and cycles though, and Fry is on at about 2:20 in the 3rd segment.
He was an overpriced rookie flameout with the brain of a turnip* then, and he’s an overpriced rookie flameout with the brain of a turnip* now.
So, big pharma is trying to get a bill through Congress for draconian exclusivity periods for so called “biologics” drugs. It’s 12 years, but with minor changes, snipping a hydroxyl, or adding a time released variant, they could drug companies could extend their government granted monopolies virtually infinitely. (also here, both from Jane Hamshire)
Well, in response to Jane’s push against these provisions, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) turned on their lobbyists, and wrote statements that 42 Congressmen read into the record, almost verbatim.
The kicker is that there were two versions of their talking points, a Republican version and a Democratic version, so depending on party, they were using different cheat sheets….Except, of course for Heath Shuler (DINO-Loser Land), who somehow or other managed to use the Republican version of the talking points.
As a Washington Redskin’s fan, this wanker has been bedeviling me since 1994…..Please, make it stop!!!
Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch after the break.
I do wonder though why Randall “Duke” Cunningham, who did far worse, compromising major defense contracts and the operations of the CIA in the process of his corruption only got 7 years?
As to whether it’s a black/white thing, or a Democratic/Republican thing, or Cunningham’s age/health, or his history as a stick jock, I don’t know, but the disparity is troubling.
I’m not saying that Jefferson didn’t get what he deserved. He deserved that, and more.
I’m saying that Cunningham should have gotten more, even with the leniency accorded a guilty plea relative to Jefferson’s conviction.
Following repeated actions by Barack Obama and his administration to do absolutely nothing about gay rights, including a particularly illuminating exchange between DNC Treasurer and Andrew Tobias, which I noted here.
Well, it appears that some people concluded that enough was enough, and John Aravosis launched a donor boycott of the DNC. (There is a particularly damning list of the bill of particulars at the link)
I think that if people are interested in gay civil rights, it needs to be understood that while Barack Obama and his administration may not be homophobic, they are hostile to the expenditure of any political capital on this matter.
Simply put, while they may not hate gays, they find the LGBT community inconvenient.
This means that the only way that anything is going to get done is if the LGBT community makes doing nothing even more inconvenient.
There is a reason that I emphasize political pressure: It is because it is clear that the Fed is under pressure, and it is clear that the only reason that it is finally taking consumer friendly steps is because they they feel this pressure.
The effect of insulating a bank regulator from public pressure is to have them favor the banks.
Full press release after break:
Press Release
Federal Reserve Press Release
Release Date: November 12, 2009 For immediate release
The Federal Reserve Board on Thursday announced final rules that prohibit financial institutions from charging consumers fees for paying overdrafts on automated teller machine (ATM) and one-time debit card transactions, unless a consumer consents, or opts in, to the overdraft service for those types of transactions.
Before opting in, the consumer must be provided a notice that explains the financial institution’s overdraft services, including the fees associated with the service, and the consumer’s choices. The final rules, along with a model opt-in notice, are issued under Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
“The final overdraft rules represent an important step forward in consumer protection,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. “Both new and existing account holders will be able to make informed decisions about whether to sign up for an overdraft service.”
The Board’s consumer testing shows that most consumers prefer not to be enrolled in overdraft services for ATM and one-time debit card transactions unless they affirmatively consent, or opt in. At the same time, testing shows that most consumers want overdraft services to cover important bills, such as checks they use to pay rent, utilities, and telephone bills.
To ensure that consumers have a meaningful choice, the final rules prohibit financial institutions from discriminating against consumers who do not opt in. The final rules require institutions to provide consumers who do not opt in with the same account terms, conditions, and features (including pricing) that they provide to consumers who do opt in. For consumers who do not opt in, the institution would be prohibited from charging overdraft fees for any overdrafts it pays on ATM and one-time debit card transactions.
“Overdraft fees can be costly,” said Governor Elizabeth A. Duke, the chair of the Board’s Committee on Consumer and Community Affairs. “Our rule will help consumers better understand the terms and conditions of overdraft services and will give them an opportunity to avoid fees when these services do not meet their needs.”
The Federal Register notice is attached. The final rules are effective July 1, 2010.
The following congressmen, Ann Kirkpatrick, Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords, Dennis Moore, John Hall, Alan Grayson, Mark Schauer, Mike Arcuri, Steve Kagen, Jerry McNerney, Melissa Bean, Debbie Halvorson, Bill Foster, Tim Walz, Bill Owens, Carol Shea-Porter, Tim Bishop, Dina Titus, Mary Jo Kilroy, and Kurt Schrader all voted for healthcare reform and against the Stupak amendment, and they all have districts that imply a close election.
You can donate to them all at once at the link, or separately, as, for example, Grayson has already raised over $400,000 on act blue, and Melissa Bean is way too friendly with the banking industry, though she is good on other things.
I’ve been holding off talking about this, news has been coming out in dribs and drabs, but now that Dodd has released his version, I think that things will move forward more quickly, so here is what we has happened so far.
First, in both the House (Rep. Barney Frank) and Senate (Sen. Chris Dodd), we have changes to allow for resolution authority for the banking mega-giants (I prefer Sen. Bernie Sanders’ alternative of breaking them up into small and manageable pieces to both bills, but that’s just me), and for a consumer financial protection agency. (CFPA)
First, the CFPA, and it should be noted that the House bill has moved further along the legislative process, and as such, it has incorporated more bad ideas as amendments, such as sunsetting the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC), which was proposed by Rep. Gary Miller (R-Realtor).
The objection to the HVCC is not that it is inaccurate, but that it is accurate, and so it makes more difficult to move homes, because it shows that a lot of people overpaid, and are now under water.
Freddie Mac has issued a report saying that HVCC has substantially improved loan quality, which, since the taxpayers back up Freddie, and Fannie, and the FHA, means that Miller won one for his realtor friends at the expense of the taxpayers.
So the CFPA can write rules for small banks, and can investigate complaints at small banks, but can’t examine small banks, or enforce its own regulations at small banks? It all seems like a horrible mess to me.
He suggests that perhaps an online clearing house of complaints, basically “crowd sourcing” them to send to the CFPA would be a way of dealing with this.
It should be noted that this is the same office of the OCC that fought Eliot Spitzer tooth and nail when he saw evidence of banks were engaging in predatory lending against minorities. (Thankfully, while Spitzer lost this suit at the appellate court level, his successor, Andrew Cuomo, continued to pursue the litigation, and won at the Supreme Court).
Note that these are all problems because the House bill is further along, and as such, has been put through the sausage machine, and as Bismark noted, it resembles the making of sausage.
Dodd’s bill is “clean” at this point, which means that it covers all banks, and that it does not allow agencies to preempt stricter state laws, so I think that it clearly better here.
Next we have the issues of systemic risk and resolution authority, and while the Dodd and Frank bills are different, Dodd calling for after-the-fact payments in the event of a resolution/bankruptcy, and Frank calling for a before-the-fact insurance fund like the FDIC.
What has happened here, I think, is that the initial proposal, put forward by Timothy “Eddie Haskell” Geithner was that the big banks be required to pay after the fact, and as more comments came in, most notably FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair’s blistering criticisms of the idea (also here and here) in favor of an FDIC style system.
President Obama, when Congressmen are calling your Secretary of the Treasury a bitch, it’s time to reconsider his employment.
Geithner does not like an FDIC style system, thinking that it, “would encourage risky behavior by ‘creating an expectation of explicit insurance.'”
The word for this is “bullsh&^“. As Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) noted in when Geithner testified before Congress:
Let’s create the fund, just like the FDIC, so when we need to resolve [a financial institution], it stands. Your argument is, ‘oh, but Luis, moral hazard’…I don’t see banks racing to the precipice of destruction and bankruptcy because the FDIC exists. Nor do I go to an insurance company and take out a life insurance policy on myself, and the next day decide, wow, maybe I’ll just start smoking. Maybe I’ll start drinking, maybe I’ll start driving my car in a crazy manner. Maybe I really don’t care whether I live or die. I’ve got life insurance, what the hell if I die, everything is taken care of. No, that’s not the way it works.
The reason the Timothy Geithner thinks that there is a “moral hazard” problem with a prepaid insurance because, “That great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity,”* Goldman Sachs, told him to say this. Geithner is a poster boy for regulatory capture.
“If you wait until after the fact, you would then have to go to the taxpayer first and get the assessment to repay it and some people are afraid that would never happen,” said Frank, a Democratic representative from Massachusetts.
Which is what happened this time. If, after Lehman had gone down, we had demanded that the rest of the industry pay the costs of liquidation of the firms, it would have driven into bankruptcy too, so when there is a need, the money will never be collected. Goldman Sachs, of course, knows this, which is why they want a phony reimbursement plan.
Frank/Bair are right here, and Dodd/Geithner are wrong, but I think that we will end up with the FDIC type plan when everything settles out, because it is so clearly the best solution.†
Geithner, in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said the Fed should keep its ability to act as an emergency lender of last resort, but only to solvent firms in times of severe stress in financial markets — with Treasury consent.
“Any firm that puts itself in a position where it cannot survive without special assistance from the government must face the consequences of failure,” Geithner said. “The proposed resolution authority would not authorize the government to provide open-bank assistance to any failing firm.”
I guess that no one can be wrong all the time, not even Timmeh.
Strips regulatory authority from the FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve.
Removes much of the authority for the Fed to make emergency loans to banks, and requires fuller disclosure of these loans.
Removes the authority that private banks have to choose directors, and places the authority in the Federal Reserve board, and makes the chairman of the board for the regional Fed banks a Presidential appointment with formal Senate confirmation.
Here, I would go further, and enact a 1-term for the Fed Chairman, because, much like the FBI, the level of power accrued by the chairman can create situations where is both unaccountable, which is necessary for managing monetary policy, and where the financial markets demand his reappointment.
Creates a CFPA.
Note here that in stripping regulatory authority from the Fed, and leaving the monetary policy there, Dodd is not moving to an untried model: The UK does this, with the Bank of England controlling monetary policy, and the Financial Services Authority doing regulation of the financial markets, and it a little (very little) bit better than our current layout.
Simply put, we cannot afford another Randroid nut-job like, Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan to be in the position he held, where he controlled all of monetary policy, and was simultaneously the most powerful person in the United States (world) in terms of financial regulation, for 18½ years….It Damn near destroyed us.
I like Dodd’s bill more than Frank’s, and I think that the concerns of people that I generally agree with, like Felix Salmon, about the curtailing of the powers of the Fed, are misplaced.
Cutting the Federal Reserve down to size is a feature, not a bug, and one of the best features, at that.
Includes a CFPA with rule-writing authority, with no federal preemption of state law. All financial institutions are subject to examination by the CFPA.
Includes a CFPA with rule-writing authority, and bank regulators can preempt state law on a case-by-case basis. Financial institutions with less than $10 billion in assets are not subject to CFPA examinations.
Consolidated Regulators
Consolidates all existing federal bank regulators into one super-regulator, the Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority (FIRA). Removes bank supervisory powers from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC.
Merges the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), leaves other regulators in place.
Resolution Authority
Includes resolution authority, funded by an after-the-fact assessment on institutions with more than $10 billion in assets. Institutions must draw up a “living will,” to be used in the event they must be unwound.
Includes resolution authority, pre-funded by an assessment on institutions with more than $10 billion assets. Institutions must draw up a “living will,” to be used in the event they must be unwound.
Systemic Risk
Creates a new Agency for Financial Stability, composed of the federal bank regulators and two independent councilors appointed by the President. The council will make decisions regarding systemically risky firms.
A systemic risk council, composed of the federal bank regulators, will make decisions, to be carried out by the Federal Reserve. The Fed would be empowered to conduct “on site” examinations of any systemically risky firm.
Breaking up risky firms.
Gives federal regulators the authority to break up systemically risky firms on a case-by-case basis.
Gives federal regulators the authority to break up systemically risky firms on a case-by-case basis.
*Alas, I cannot claim credit for this bon mot, it was coined by the great Matt Taibbi, in his article on the massive criminal conspiracy investment firm, The Great American Bubble Machine. †Why yes, I am sounding like I have the political acumen of Little Orphan Annie, why do you ask?
In this case Frank Kratovil, who was looking for both money and sweat equity.
My reply:
I live in Owings Mills, very close to your district, and might be inclined to contribute or volunteer for efforts in Baltimore County, except for the vote on Healthcare Reform.
First, I do not believe that this would be a good use of my time. As Harry S Truman said, “Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time,” and I believe that the voters of MD-1 will choose the real Republican regardless of what I do.
Secondly, on a more personal level, I am self-employed, and use MHIP for my insurance, because there is no other insurance available due to my wife’s pre-existing conditions, and I have seen cuts in coverage and a rate hike in excess of 50% just this year.
Third, anyone who cites the Washington Post editorial board on healthcare [he linked to some WaPo Op/Eds], where they have consistently and deliberately got the facts wrong, is being either clueless or disengenuous.
Because, these days, they all seem to be over 100 pages long.
But , when Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) offered his Too Big To Fail – Too Big To Exist bill, a bill that has a body only 27 lines long, (PDF link) I thought that it deserved a read (after the break).
No big surprise though, the New York Times, all the news that’s fit to line Tweety’s (the Warner Brothers version, not the MSNBC Version) cage, subtly casts him as your crazy old uncle, “The bill has no co-sponsors…..Mr. Sanders, who has described himself as a socialist,” while Bloomberg actually covers it seriously, and notes that there are a lot of people in Congress who actually support this idea.
This may not be as long of a long shot as it seems, since, as Barry Ritholtz notes, while the big banks love this, the regional and smaller banks would like this a lot, since they are getting eaten alive by the bigs ability to borrow money at an interest rate that is very near 0%, because of the support offered by the Treasury, Fed, FDIC, etc.
A BILL To address the concept of ‘‘Too Big To Fail’’ with respect to certain financial entities.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Too Big to Fail, Too 5 Big to Exist Act’’. 6 SEC. 2. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON INSTITUTIONS THAT 7 ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL. 8 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later 9 than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the 10 Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a list
2
1 of all commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds, 2 and insurance companies that the Secretary believes are 3 too big to fail (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Too Big 4 to Fail List’’). 5 SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS. 6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, begin- 7 ning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the 8 Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included 9 on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would 10 no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States 11 or global economy without a taxpayer bailout. 12 SEC. 4. DEFINITION. 13 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘Too Big to Fail’’ 14 means any entity that has grown so large that its failure 15 would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either 16 the financial system or the United States economy without 17 substantial Government assistance.
They get it. They realize that the Stupak amendment effectively bans insurance that covers insurance from the public exchanges, which would have the effect of banning coverage for abortion nationwide over a relatively short period of time.
Good for them, and we need to primary Bart Stupak…..Hell, if I have a job in 2010, I’m considering contributing to his Republican challenger.
Letter follows:
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker U.S. House of Representatives H-232 Capitol Washington, DC 20515
Dear Madam Speaker:
As members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health servicesto which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. employers who tell workers to stay home when they are sick will have to give them paid time off for up to five days under new federal legislation proposed on Tuesday.
The emergency law would cover pandemic H1N1 flu or any other infectious disease, said California Representative George Miller, a Democrat who chairs the House Education and Labor Committee and who introduced the bill.
“Sick workers advised to stay home by their employers shouldn’t have to choose between their livelihood, and their co-workers’ or customers’ health,” Miller said.
<George Herbert Walker Bush>Not Gonna Happen.</George Herbert Walker Bush>
It makes sense from a business perspective, a public health perspective, and a moral perspective, but there is no way that the Congress is going to pass this because….Because they are a bunch of wankers.
And I am pretty sure that