Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Feingold: 'Standing Up to the Unholy Alliance Between Washington and Wall Street'
WASHINGTON - Wall Street and its allies have been calling the shots in Congress for decades, so they must be glad to see how things are shaping up on financial regulatory reform. Congress is about to vote on a final bill that fails to fix the key flaws in the bills passed by both the House and Senate. At the start of this process I made clear that I had a simple test for financial reform -- will it stop another financial meltdown? This bill fails that test, and I won't support legislation that fails to protect the people of Wisconsin from the pain of another economic disaster. And I don't need to be lectured about this issue by people who supported the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which paved the way for this terrible recession.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI). "This bill caves to Wall Street interests," Feingold said in a statement. "It doesn't meet the test of preventing another financial crisis, and it won't get my vote." (File) I had hoped I would be able to support the legislation, given the
clear need for strong reform. I cosponsored a number of critical
amendments during Senate consideration of the bill including a
Cantwell-McCain amendment to restore Glass-Steagall safeguards, Senator
Dorgan's amendment that addressed the problem of "too big to fail"
financial institutions, and another "too big to fail" reform offered by
Senators Brown and Kaufman that proposed strict limits on the size of
those institutions. Each of those amendments would have improved the
bill significantly, and each of them either failed or was blocked from
even getting a vote.
After that, it wasn't a close call for me. It would be a huge mistake to pass a bill that purports to re-regulate the financial industry but is simply too weak to protect people from the recklessness of Wall Street. That would be like building an impressive-looking dam without telling everyone that it has a few leaks in it. False security is no security at all.
Since the Senate bill passed, I have had a number of conversations with key members of the administration, Senate leadership and the conference committee that drafted the final bill. Unfortunately, not once has anyone suggested in those conversations the possibility of strengthening the bill to address my concerns and win my support. People want my vote, but they want it for a bill that, while including some positive provisions, has Wall Street's fingerprints all over it.
In fact, reports indicate that the administration and conference leaders have gone to significant lengths to avoid making the bill stronger. Rather than discussing with me ways to strengthen the bill, for example, they chose to eliminate a levy that was to be imposed on the largest banks and hedge funds in order to obtain the vote of members who prefer a weaker bill. Nothing could be more revealing of the true position of those who are crafting this legislation. They had a choice between pursuing a weaker bill or a stronger one. Their decision is clear.
On this bill, like the others that preceded it, the biggest financial interests have won.
I've seen this too many times before. When I was in the Wisconsin State Senate, I chaired the Senate Banking Committee for nearly a decade, and fought against enactment of an interstate banking law that resulted in the concentration of financial assets and most large Wisconsin banks being bought up by even larger out-of-state banks.
Shortly after I came to the U.S. Senate we considered a national interstate banking bill, the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Act of 1994, which accelerated the concentration of financial assets, and the creation of "too big to fail" firms. I was one of only four senators to oppose that legislation. Five years later, I was one of only eight Senators to oppose the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, the bill that repealed Glass-Steagall and paved the way for this disastrous recession, which has been an economic nightmare for so many Americans.
Those two measures -- the 1994 law and the 1999 law -- accelerated the trend toward increased concentration of financial assets, aggravating the problem of "too big to fail." Before those two laws were enacted, the six largest U.S. banks had assets equal to 17 percent of our GDP. Today the six largest U.S. banks have assets equal to more than 60 percent of our GDP.
Ultimately, it was the threat of the failure of the nation's largest financial institutions that spurred the Wall Street bailout. I opposed that measure as well, in part because it was not tied to any fundamental reforms of our financial system that would prevent a future crisis and the need for another bailout. We could have had a much tougher reform package if the bailout had been tied to such a measure.
Every single one of those bills caved to Wall Street and the biggest financial interests, and so does the current regulatory reform bill. Economist Dean Baker called this bill a "fig leaf," and former IMF Economist Simon Johnson has slammed the bill's failure to address "too big to fail." These experts paint an accurate picture of this bill's failings, and frankly those failings shouldn't come as a surprise. Many of the critical actors who shaped this bill were present at the creation of the financial crisis. They supported the enactment of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, deregulating derivatives, even the massive Interstate Banking bill that helped grease the "too big to fail" skids. It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that the final version of the bill looks the way it does, or that I won't fall in line with their version of "reform."
This bill caves to Wall Street interests, it doesn't meet the test of preventing another financial crisis, and it won't get my vote.
86 Comments so far
Show AllGood Senator Feingold, don't vote for this piece of garbage and huge hand out to Wall Street while Main Street is hurting like hell.
AD
In addition to further empowering the banksters, the Obamabankster bill imposes many token new red tape requirements on banks that the banks will pass on to those of us with savings, checking and CD accounts in the form of higher fees and/or lower interest rates paid to depositors.
The banking fees that the Obamabankster bill will add will add more artificial stimulus to boost stock values, thereby creating an even more severe crash during the next meltdown.
whatever with feingold. you can tell november's approaching.
Mr. Feingold paints a pretty consistent portrait of foreseeing the end results of this carnage for over 20 years. That's every November since 1990 or so. Where you out of 3/4 pants and paying attention then? Some of us were but our name wasn't Bush/McCain/Dodd or (insert name here) so The Establishment didn't listen. Even so, I'm not going to shoot my letter carrier today for dropping of the utility bills. Just sayin'.
November is coming and that means you get a chance to vote. You need to base the decision on how and who you vote for on the basis of what they did while in office, and NOT ON THEIR POLITICAL PARTY!
So far, since our 'hope and change' Democrats were voted control of both houses of Congress, they have voted to continue and expand the wars. You agree with that? They voted to give TRILLIONS of our tax funds to the banksters without any strings attached. You like that vote? And the nice bonuses the bankers got from you? You like that? They also passed a health care "reform" bill that left the for profit insurance companies in control of our health care system. You like that? Now they are passing financial 'reform' that doesn't close the Wall St. casino and leaves the people holding the bag if the whole thing implodes again. You like that?
Both the Democrats and the Republicans did these dirty deeds in a bipartisan deal. They held hands while they screwed the people. It there something here you don't understand? Our present government is corrupt and working hard for their donations (truthfully named bribes) from their corporate sponsors. If you really want some 'HOPE' and 'CHANGE' don't vote for either a D or an R. Don't vote corporate. Let's throw out the corrupt and reboot Congress.
I have promised myself that I will vote for no candidate with a D or an R after their name on any ballot ever again. We've got to start over somehow and that will have to be by getting away from those who are totally owned by the big money types.
Concur.
As much as I wish we could reform the Democratic Party rather than abandoning it, it appears the party is terminally addicted to corporate money to the point that its only mission is to get more corporate money than the Republicans.
I don't think either party is particularly "reformable". As you know more than most on this site, we have deep structural problems with our electoral system that really can't be addressed by all this brouhaha over candidate x or party y.
If the right wing rank and file ever turns their guns on the economic system, they'll find that out when their hall pass gets revoked.
Drone--that is true. But I don't see the right-wing rank and file getting excited about the problem as long as they are led by the fat bloviator and his ilk. In the end, the right wing rank and file are still tools in the hands of the right-wing blowhards. Good God, they've even got the wingnut troops up in arms about, of all things, the deficit! Not one of them could explain what the deficit actually is, still less why, with nearly 10% unemployment--and set to rise--and with unemployment support now cut off with the certain catastrophic collapse of local businesses and resulting further rise of unemployment, why paying off the deficit (financed by a measly 1% interest these days), firing state workers (as here in NY) and reducing taxes is the equivalent of the Great Leap Forward.
On second thoughts, there is a distinct parallel between their solution and the original Great Leap Forward--but it ain't pretty.
YES
I won't vote anymore for reasons i'd be happy to explain.
not sure why you attached this screed to my mini-screed, but I suppose it's as good a place as any.
As if we needed another example of the rampant corruption of the political system in America. It is almost hopeless. This past week, the Once hugely popular prime minister of Australia, Kevin Rudd, was removed by his party because he choose to pursue a course that was not endorsed by his party constituents. boom, bang...he's gone. In Washington, securing one election is tantamount to a lifetime sinecure. One thing is for certain. The legislative body will never reform itself.
Drone:
Your comment proves you're aptly named.
next time post your witty response where it belongs, genius.
I second that, drone.
Next time, JoeTWallace, click the "reply" word. And instead of a snide insult, how about something substantive of your own for a change?
; - ) /cm
It never ceases to amaze me how our Congress has been bought by the big corporations, and the American voter just has no idea what is going on.
The comment above applies mostly to Democrats. The Republicans are so bad they aren't even worth mentioning. I EXPECT them to support the plutocrats.
Jim Shea
From what I understand, Senator Feingold won't even allow anyone on his staff to take a free LUNCH from a lobbyist, much less do it himself. He has a lot of integrity. If only more Senators were the same. He doesn't always do what I''d like him to do, and when that happens I write him to let him know it. He always responds and tells me his reasoning. For the most part, I'm very proud that he represents me in the Senate.
I read the same and admire that much.
When Kucinich screwed the people on healthcare, I was looking for Feingold's vote. What happened there? If he screwed us there, he too doesn't deserve a serious vote.
I could forgive Feingold's position on gun control (supporting gun ownership), but we need candidates for financial reform, healthcare, campaign finance/election reform, media reform...
So you're willing to wait to see if you get screwed.
Feingold gives it to you straight and the picture is bleak. He was one of four in 94 and one of eight in 99. Don't forget that's out of one hundred senators. The odds are against us for sure.
When is the populace going to get some *****and follow the lead of the Europeans(especially Greeks where the problem was caused by Goldman Sachs too) who are taking to the streets to protest loss of income.....and their loss is not as drastic as the Main Street loss in the US
Sounds like someone's spoiling for an up close 'n personal ride on Air Force One.
Thanks for the speech but you have powers that we citizens lack to convince your colleagues to think like you unless I am missing something. If you do have to leave the Senate, perhaps you might make a nice leader somewhere in Europe depending upon on things improve or worsen there.
As amazingly shitty as things are here, I think Europe will be worse soon. They have deficit hysterics -- and unlike the U.S., they actually do have to worry about their debt, since they no longer issue their own national currencies...European nations are now like individual U.S. states when it comes to fiscal constraints. Austerity measures are going to destroy their wonderful social welfare system, I guarantee it.
zmann, I can't deny that things will be tougher for Europe but the voters there are overwhelmingly opposed to keeping the Euro dollar and even in the nations that don't do the Euro, they can feel the damaging effects of the Euro. While the Euro may not be as bad as the American dollar, I strongly support abolishing it and returning economic sovereignty to each of those nations especially after what Wall $treet has been able to do with the Euro to tickle those nations into economic hell and bigger economies misusing the Euro to get into the act of pulling a "Walmart" against the smaller economies. I haven't visited every single nation in Europe but a few of them I visited had a mixture of individual and collective thinking with more emphasis on the latter. As for the US doing better than Europe, I disagree. The bad news may not have been reported as much but it doesn't mean that the bleeding in the US is continuing. Most European nations have enough of a true safety net to structurally protect themselves and lessen the impact of economic crashes unlike the US so I still believe that at the end of the day, those nations will recover while the US will still be in limbo. The people there are also far more sensitive to such austerity measures unlike the US. At the end of the day, the austerity measures will most likely get reduced out of fear of uproar from the public. Also, keep in mind that unlike here where "too big to fail" is still endorsed, such is not the case abroad. I see the ongoing subscription to "too big to fail" here at home where I have to go through lots of stressful days of preventing my company from caving into hostile corporate takeover and buyouts. Working in a small business isn't always easy but it sure beats getting ripped off by big corporations. In most European nations along with Russia and South Africa, working in a small business isn't as tough as working in a small business in this country.
P.S.: Nice to see you back again and sorry to be jealous and angry at the way things are going in the US. :)
Yeah, I think the Euro is going to go too. It simply puts too many restrictions on the countries making up the EU...each nation -- and its people -- should be free to choose their economic system and destiny.
And I'm going to be blogging on a new website that launches tomorrow. It should be a lot of fun :-) (but that probably means even less time for here. oh well.)
http://www.exposetheright.com/?page_id=31
PLEASE learn to use paragraphs, if you'd like to have more readers.
I detect a note of skepticism about Sen. Feingold's righteous indignation from many of my brothers and sisters here on commondreams. Imagine that--after our loyal politicians have represented our interests so well over the past 200 or so years.
I have admired Russ Feingold ever since he was the Lone Ranger in voting against the Unpatriot Act.
I admire him for voting no on this proposed banking bill.
Wonder what Feingold has to say about billions in 'aid' to that criminal Zionist regime?
Feingold signed the Senate letter of support for Israel's "right to self-defense" after the Gaza flotilla massacre.
As I said above about other issues. This is not forgivable. Vote progressive, anti-corporate, and anti-facist.
Who'd've thunk? - A senator with integrity.
I hope the good readers of CommonDreams.org do their homework on this issue. I am baffled by the Senator's comments that this bill nuzzles up to Wall Street. I guess that explains why Wall Street has spent tens of millions of dollars of the bail out money given to them for lobbyists to fight this bill. If indeed the bill was caving into Wall Street interests, they certainly wouldn't have hired over 1,500 lobbyists to kill it!
I am sorry Senator but I am tired of politicians who tout that a bill doesn't go far enough or isn't hard enough on Wall Street when all the while Wall Street is doing everthing they can to kill it. What gives?
Unfortunately Senator, if your vote kills this bill, I hope you are around to explain to the voters when another completely unjustified 2008 gasoline spike to over $4.50 per gallon occures. Without this bill, it is certain.
Please do your homework and not believe the Wall Street misdirecting mantra. This bill is not perfect but it is definitely not nuzzling up to Wall Street. Senator, me thinks thou doest protest too much!
Uh yeah, right. If this bill actually is reform, then why did financial stocks soar when it passed?
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/fundmastery/2010/06/26/bank-regulation-passes-bank-stocks-soar/
Do your homework.
- and Russ for President!
Wall Street spent boodles of money to make sure the bill was one that would not disturb them while feeding at the trough. And they succeeded. The Volker Rule was wateered down so as to be meaningless, Senator Lincoln's amendment on derivatives was watered down. The list could go on for pages. Senator Dodd clearly wants a job in Wall Street next year when he leaves the Senate. But I don't understand Barney Frank caving in as much as he has.
Lol... R u kidding me? Sanders wants the same as Dodd... Only Dodd is on his way out so he is more obvious.
With respect, the assumption that the lobbyists are present to kill a bill is not always accurate. they largely mobilize to "shape" a bill in the same way they did the dreaded health insurance handout act.
in this case, their purpose was to kill amendments in committee and ensure that the language that passes muster meets to their approval.
this is pretty standard in the legislative process.
Do you think Wall Street could be charading and pretending to oppose this bill, to fool the people with this pageant show, all the while hoping it passes?
Something like when Big Pharm pretended to fight "health care reform" all the while they knew it would be passed and it would be to their benefit very, very much?
It looks like a bill is designed by the people it benefits, then they pretend it will hurt them, and when it passes they will raise their champagne glasses once again.
And they know that some of us are aware so part of the pageant show is to trot out a Feingold (D) or a Kucinich (D) to try to convince us they are "trying."
This wouldn't surprise me a bit. And I have friends who would tell me, "If the health care bill is designed to help the health insurance companies and Big Pharma, why did they oppose it?" No one wants to consider the likelihood that we've been had.
The lobbyists are the ones who determine what goes in the bill. They didn't spend all that money to get a bill they don't like. You are proving yourself wrong, really, by your own logic.
Russ, do us a favor and run for president in the 2012 primary against the corporate, conservative, Democrat disgracing the White House.
Why - was he a community organizer?
Suckered again.
Check his record before you give him your support. It has some very ugly spots. Despite Kucinich's caving in on the healthcare bill, his record is way better that Russ, or Sanders.
To jbr;
Stocks are not derivatives! Derivatives are commodities. They are bets! Non commercial speculators have been betting the commodities market with no transparency so financial institutions have gamed the system with great success. AIG (and others) used derivatives to "insure" housing mortgages where...oh yeah, the banking community allowed over valuated homes to be financed by overstated- income borrowers! All the while the financial institutions were paying off the rating agencies that were calling the crap they were selling as AAA rated! I sure have faith in them now. Of course they don't want the $609 billion derivatives market to require transparency and clearing. Goldman Sach's admitted just yesterday that they bet against financial products they themselves were selling to consumers! Again, this bill is needed or it is only a matter to time before speculators in an opague and virtually unregulated derivatives market drive gas prices up again. What is in place to prevent it? BTW, the market responds to many items, not just congressional meddling. Again, I continue to be amazed by the notion that Wall Street likes this bill. Balderdash!
Glass-Steigal wasn't reinstated, there's nothing to prevent another 'too big to fail' fiasco and just like healthcare reform, it's too watered down. Healthcare stocks shot up when that 'reform' passed as did bank stocks for this 'reform'. Who are placing bets that the banks will fair well? The banks and the financial institutions themselves. They've read the bill because they and their thousands of paid extortionists - ie lobbyists - have written it. So, they know the loopholes and they know it'll lead to little substantive financial reform, hence the stocks soared at the news.
Obama needs some balls (or a conscience). We only have one chance on this.
Finally I never said stocks are derivatives. And commodities are not derivatives either; they're a product that has an intrinsic value. Betting on them is really the futures market.
Ironically, much of the support for the free market comes from the idea that the people should be aware, should know how to keep themselves out of foreclosure, etc. And it's true: If the people were enlightened there would simply be no demand for the racketeer' warez. When a leftist makes a vague demand for more education, he should demand specifically a civics curriculum that teaches civic duty through demands in the economic/civic spheres that truly serve the society's better interests. In this way a free market would actually work - the people are free to demand and get out of the market their own better interests. Notice that in this scenario producers take orders. They are subservient to the public interests. When the people feel strongly about this issue, that is when they will gain back control of production.
Something I don't understand. If he feels so strongly about the bill, as he should, why doesn't he put a hold on it? The Republicans do it all the time.
All he needs is 3 or 4 other Democrats who will filibuster it to stop it in its tracks.
In all fairness, Feingold can't put a hold on it. Harry Reid wouldn't honor such a hold. The only holds Harry Reid honors are ones placed by Rethugs.
"i've seen this too many times before."........................... so, russ, what conclusion do you draw from this? and also, why do you keep beating your head against the wall? and, bye the bye, why should we care?...just saying...peace