The conference report on the Wall Street reform bill, which had already passed the House, just achieved cloture in the Senate, 60-38. Three Republicans, Scott Brown, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins voted in favor. Among Democrats, Russ Feingold voted against. There is currently a vacancy in the Senate, and one Republican Senators did not vote. It will now receive an up or down vote at some point between now and Saturday. It will then be signed into law be President Obama.
While this particular bill is finished, and while it's a step in the right direction, the fight against Wall Street is far from over.
As I disclosed repeatedly, I worked on this bill, in a paid capacity, for four months (my work ended on July 1st). With that work over, and the process on this bill finally complete, I am going to go off on a bit of a rant, in bullet point form:
- Why the frak didn't we take up this bill last spring? This bill would have been a lot stronger if we brought it up last spring, after the stimulus and budget fights, and before the health care fight. In the worst depths of the recession, Democrats could have spent 8-10 weeks debating and amending the bill on the floor of the Senate, instead of the four weeks they spent doing so one year later. The bill kept getting stronger on the floor of the Senate, and would have kept getting even stronger the more time spent debating and amending it in public. We should have struck while the iron was hot.
- Why the frak isn't there an organized community around this issue in progressive circles? In the progressive ecosystem, we have longstanding green groups, civil rights groups, unions, immigrant groups, women's groups, and many more well-defined constituencies. However, we simply do not have an organized constituency that fights large financial institutions on behalf of consumers. The lack of this organized, institutional constituency is almost certainly why the bill was not taken up sooner--it meant there was no one pushing Congressional Dems or the Obama administration to take it up sooner. If these regulations are ever going to get stronger in future fights, we need an organized constituency on this issue.
- Yeah, the bill probably will not prevent a financial financial meltdown. No shit, Sherlock. However, holding that up as the only test as to whether the bill is worth passing is frakking absurd. The bill does a lot of good in terms of protecting consumers and the broader economy in other ways, which I presented in detail here and here. Should all new consumer protections be defeated because they will not prevent another financial meltdown? And what other laws, which do good in ways other than preventing financial metldowns, should be repealed? The Clean Water Act won't prevent another financial meltdown, but it is still a good idea that we regulate our water supply. Medicaid won't prevent a financial crisis, but it's still good that low-income Americans have access to public health insurance. The Civil rights Act won't prevent another financial metldown--should we have voted against that, too? Even if it probably won't prevent another financial meltdown, the bill still does some good things.
- What's that you say, that passing the bill will give people a false sense of security that the problems plaguing our financial system have been repaired, and thus we won't try to pass a new wave of reforms in the future? What utterly patronizing bullshit. As someone who worked on the campaign for four months, I can tell you that there isn't a single advocate working on this campaign who thinks this bill is a total victory and we never have to bring it up again. Every single person working on it knows we have a long, long way to go. The country thinks that, too. So do the majority of members of Congress. How frakking special and superior to you think you are that only you realize we have not completely fixed our financial system, while everyone else has been lulled into a contented sleep with their fellow sheeple? Patronizing horseshit.
- This bill protects the status quo, huh? Well you know what protects the status quo even more? The frakking status quo without this bill. That's just a frakking tautology. Defeating the bill is the status quo. It's the exact same frakking thing.
- Finally, while both Democrats in Congress and advocates working on the bill share blame for it not being stronger, everyone who wanted a stronger bill shares some blame for it not being stronger. This is the bill that passed, despite everyone's best efforts, intentions, and rants. Don't tell me that you wanted a stronger bill, and the failure to achieve a stronger bill doesn't at least partially rest with you. I must have missed the part where you overran Wall Street defenses, while the rest of us were stuck with this bill.
There, I needed to get that all off my chest.
Despite this rant, I am still grateful to everyone who agitated on this bill. I am even more grateful to the agitators who actually engaged and organized around the fight, rather than sitting on the sidelines. While I am upset that the strengths of the bill are not getting attention, the necessary further fights against Wall Street will never happen unless the ways in which the fight needs to be continued are articulated. It's just that I don't think it is fair, or productive, to dump on the people who actually engaged and organized in this fight.
Finally, someone needs to explain to me how viciously attacking the people who are fighting Wall Street will actually achieve stronger Wall Street reform in the future. Once everyone fighting for stronger Wall Street regulations is discredited, then we will achieve stronger Wall Street regulations! Yey!
|
STATE BLOGS
