SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Focus On This: Merkley-Levin Did Not Get A Vote
After 9 months of hard fighting, yesterday financial reform came down to this: an amendment,
proposed by Senators Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin that would have forced
big banks to get rid of their speculative proprietary trading
activities (i.e., a relatively strong version of the Volcker Rule.)
May 21, 2010
After 9 months of hard fighting, yesterday financial reform came down to this: an amendment,
proposed by Senators Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin that would have forced
big banks to get rid of their speculative proprietary trading
activities (i.e., a relatively strong version of the Volcker Rule.)
The amendment had picked up a great deal of support in recent weeks,
partly because of unflagging support from Paul Volcker and partly
because of the broader debate around the Brown-Kaufman amendment (which
would have forced the biggest 6 banks to become smaller). Brown-Kaufman failed, 33-61, but it demonstrated that a growing number of senators were willing to confront the power of our biggest and worst banks.
Yet, at the end of the day, the Merkley-Levin amendment did not even get a vote. Why?
Partly this was because of procedural maneuvers.
Merkley-Levin could only get a vote if another amendment, proposed by
Senator Brownback (on exempting auto dealers from new consumer
protection rules) got a vote. Late yesterday afternoon, Senator
Brownback was persuaded, presumably by his Republican colleagues and by
financial lobbyists, to withdraw his amendment.
Of course, Merkley-Levin was only in this awkward position because
of an earlier lack of wholehearted support from the Democratic
leadership - and from the White House. Again, the long reach of Wall
Street was at work.
But the important point here is quite different. If Merkley-Levin
did not have the votes, it was in the interest of the megabanks to have
it come to the floor and be defeated. That would have been a clear
victory for the status quo.
But Merkley-Levin had momentum and could potentially have passed -
reflecting a big change of opinion within the Senate (and more broadly
around the country). The big banks were forced into overdrive to stop
it.
The Volcker Rule, in its weaker Dodd bill form ("do a study and
think about implementing"), perhaps will survive the upcoming
House-Senate conference - although, because this process likely will
not be televised, all kinds of bad things may happen behind closed
doors. Regulators may also take the Volcker Rule more seriously - but
the most probable outcome is that the Fed and other officials will get
a great deal of discretion regarding how to implement the principles,
and they will completely fudge the issue.
Most importantly, everyone who wants to rein in the largest banks
now has a much clearer idea of what to push for, what to campaign on,
and for what purpose to raise money. This is the completely reasonable
and responsible ask:
- The Volcker Rule, as specifically proposed in the Merkley-Levin amendment
- Constraints on the size and leverage of our largest banks, as proposed by the Brown-Kaufman amendment
When the mainstream consensus shifts in favor of these measures, or
their functional equivalents, we will have finally begun the long
process of reining in the dangerous economic and political power of our
largest banks.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Simon Johnson
Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and a member of the CBO's Panel of Economic Advisers. He is a co-founder of The Baseline Scenario.
After 9 months of hard fighting, yesterday financial reform came down to this: an amendment,
proposed by Senators Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin that would have forced
big banks to get rid of their speculative proprietary trading
activities (i.e., a relatively strong version of the Volcker Rule.)
The amendment had picked up a great deal of support in recent weeks,
partly because of unflagging support from Paul Volcker and partly
because of the broader debate around the Brown-Kaufman amendment (which
would have forced the biggest 6 banks to become smaller). Brown-Kaufman failed, 33-61, but it demonstrated that a growing number of senators were willing to confront the power of our biggest and worst banks.
Yet, at the end of the day, the Merkley-Levin amendment did not even get a vote. Why?
Partly this was because of procedural maneuvers.
Merkley-Levin could only get a vote if another amendment, proposed by
Senator Brownback (on exempting auto dealers from new consumer
protection rules) got a vote. Late yesterday afternoon, Senator
Brownback was persuaded, presumably by his Republican colleagues and by
financial lobbyists, to withdraw his amendment.
Of course, Merkley-Levin was only in this awkward position because
of an earlier lack of wholehearted support from the Democratic
leadership - and from the White House. Again, the long reach of Wall
Street was at work.
But the important point here is quite different. If Merkley-Levin
did not have the votes, it was in the interest of the megabanks to have
it come to the floor and be defeated. That would have been a clear
victory for the status quo.
But Merkley-Levin had momentum and could potentially have passed -
reflecting a big change of opinion within the Senate (and more broadly
around the country). The big banks were forced into overdrive to stop
it.
The Volcker Rule, in its weaker Dodd bill form ("do a study and
think about implementing"), perhaps will survive the upcoming
House-Senate conference - although, because this process likely will
not be televised, all kinds of bad things may happen behind closed
doors. Regulators may also take the Volcker Rule more seriously - but
the most probable outcome is that the Fed and other officials will get
a great deal of discretion regarding how to implement the principles,
and they will completely fudge the issue.
Most importantly, everyone who wants to rein in the largest banks
now has a much clearer idea of what to push for, what to campaign on,
and for what purpose to raise money. This is the completely reasonable
and responsible ask:
- The Volcker Rule, as specifically proposed in the Merkley-Levin amendment
- Constraints on the size and leverage of our largest banks, as proposed by the Brown-Kaufman amendment
When the mainstream consensus shifts in favor of these measures, or
their functional equivalents, we will have finally begun the long
process of reining in the dangerous economic and political power of our
largest banks.
Simon Johnson
Simon Johnson, former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, is a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, and a member of the CBO's Panel of Economic Advisers. He is a co-founder of The Baseline Scenario.
After 9 months of hard fighting, yesterday financial reform came down to this: an amendment,
proposed by Senators Jeff Merkley and Carl Levin that would have forced
big banks to get rid of their speculative proprietary trading
activities (i.e., a relatively strong version of the Volcker Rule.)
The amendment had picked up a great deal of support in recent weeks,
partly because of unflagging support from Paul Volcker and partly
because of the broader debate around the Brown-Kaufman amendment (which
would have forced the biggest 6 banks to become smaller). Brown-Kaufman failed, 33-61, but it demonstrated that a growing number of senators were willing to confront the power of our biggest and worst banks.
Yet, at the end of the day, the Merkley-Levin amendment did not even get a vote. Why?
Partly this was because of procedural maneuvers.
Merkley-Levin could only get a vote if another amendment, proposed by
Senator Brownback (on exempting auto dealers from new consumer
protection rules) got a vote. Late yesterday afternoon, Senator
Brownback was persuaded, presumably by his Republican colleagues and by
financial lobbyists, to withdraw his amendment.
Of course, Merkley-Levin was only in this awkward position because
of an earlier lack of wholehearted support from the Democratic
leadership - and from the White House. Again, the long reach of Wall
Street was at work.
But the important point here is quite different. If Merkley-Levin
did not have the votes, it was in the interest of the megabanks to have
it come to the floor and be defeated. That would have been a clear
victory for the status quo.
But Merkley-Levin had momentum and could potentially have passed -
reflecting a big change of opinion within the Senate (and more broadly
around the country). The big banks were forced into overdrive to stop
it.
The Volcker Rule, in its weaker Dodd bill form ("do a study and
think about implementing"), perhaps will survive the upcoming
House-Senate conference - although, because this process likely will
not be televised, all kinds of bad things may happen behind closed
doors. Regulators may also take the Volcker Rule more seriously - but
the most probable outcome is that the Fed and other officials will get
a great deal of discretion regarding how to implement the principles,
and they will completely fudge the issue.
Most importantly, everyone who wants to rein in the largest banks
now has a much clearer idea of what to push for, what to campaign on,
and for what purpose to raise money. This is the completely reasonable
and responsible ask:
- The Volcker Rule, as specifically proposed in the Merkley-Levin amendment
- Constraints on the size and leverage of our largest banks, as proposed by the Brown-Kaufman amendment
When the mainstream consensus shifts in favor of these measures, or
their functional equivalents, we will have finally begun the long
process of reining in the dangerous economic and political power of our
largest banks.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.