| In a representative democracy, with 3 supposedly co-equal branches, each branch has its role. The role of Congress, particularly in the House is funding i.e. MONEY, which gives it the right, really mandates oversight on that money, that those who administer it and then receive it, are held accountable by whatever standard(s) Congresss imposes, and third that in order to accomplish 1 and 2 that there must be transparency...to Congress itself and by extension of their responsibility to those who elected them, the public at large.
We have been in some danger of Democrats acting as irresponsibly and blithely oblivious as the Republicans under Bush. They gave George Bush carte blanche because they thought standards weren't necessary in principle, after all government is just a trough, and oversight was distrust and betrayal.
Democrats shouldn't be begin this administration by giving it carte blanche on the TARP funds. That was Dodd's and even Frank's initial attitude....trust our new president, he's a good guy. And he is a good guy. But Congress doesn't do this administration any favors by holding it to no standards. It's takes many eyes, ears, reports and hearings to make sure that 350 billion dollars does what it's supposed to do.
Under George Bush, whose view of his office was that of an overweening monarch,we all agreed with this 1780 report of the British Parliament. " The power of the Crown has increased, is increased and should be decreased" There is danger of that even now, if Democrats aid and abet. Democrats should believe in strong, effective government, but not in overwhelming executive power. You give away your power now, when you are in 2016 (2012 feh!!!...if the present stimulus isn't enough, ) a Republican president will create an even more imperial presidency than we had under George. Once power is tendered it doesn't reurn.
LOBBYING REPORT
Wednesday's lobbying went as well as could be expected. Sen. Dorgan was on the floor voting to confirm Hillary Clinton, so I spoke to his press person who officially gave me the Senator's press release. It list its four components.
http://dorgan.senate.gov/issue...
His bill is a good start...there is oversight if no compulsion and transparency to Congress and the public. The two commission are potentially a great way to begin talking about effective re regulation of the financial sector...which became just a very rich playing field for corporate condottieri. Just like in the wars of the Italian peninsula, the pillaging and the suffering was borne by all the common folk.
Frank's bill of course took the YOU MAYs of the original TARP bill and turned them into SHALLs. I am a big believer in Congressional Commandments...Thou Shall renegotiate submerged mortgages. Thou Shall get common stock. Thou Shall give Community Banks money (because they will lend) and stop giving so much to those who use it to buy up rivals. Consolidation making it even likelier in the future that one problem cascades down into the financial system like dominoes.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/...
Chris and I decided to focus on Sen. Dorgan's bill. Dorgan's press person would let me say that the Senator very much wants his bill to pass...indeed the Senator want it passed ASAP...like yesterday. He's looking for sponsors to move it forward. I offered to help....both personally and using this site. (Chris has also done that.
http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
So I walked over to Senator Cantwell's office, she was one of the few who voted against the initial TARP funds and she voted against releasing it this time as well. When the first TARP bill was being debated, I had talked to her about it (I was against the first bill on the grounds that it gave one of the fathers of the problem,Hank Paulson, total discretion) So was she ...she was concerned it had no oversight could easily not accomplish a thing. So I asked her office about whether she would support a bill with oversight. I don't want to put her on the spot without her say so...but I think I am fairly reporting her stance.
I think sponsors could be found among those, at least the Democrats, who voted against TARP and would be a good place to lobby as well.
NEWS FLASH...there will be a new Senator from NY!!!!!!! :-)
NY is financial crisis center. I saw some of the contenders for the position in DC....Carolyn Maloney, Jerry Nadler from Manhattan and Kirsten Gillibrand of upstate. I am not purposely slighting the others; I just didn't personally bump into them at the right time. I put it to each what would they do, whether they would support, sponsor in terms of TARP oversight.
Each one of the House members are more proactive than most of the Senators.
Jerry Nadler, while he thought Dorgan's S195 was good, he would want a bill more like Barney Frank's bill...with its specific THOU SHALLS. If he were Senator he would like to "do Barney Franks bill". Jerry has also gotten the Progressive Caucus to endorse a much larger stimulus bill of 1.2-3 billion.
Carolyn Maloney felt that it was insufficient to do nothing...and there is always a danger when one has been on a committee for a while. That one makes friends with those they deal with. She voted for Barney Franks' bill and also would like a version of it to pass both Houses. Now that she has been appointed as Chair of the House Senate Joint Economic Committee, she is in a position to have real impact in either House.
Kirsten Gillibrand voted against the initial TARP funds. She said, without pausing to breathe, that there should be more oversight passed by the Senate. She supported Franks bill and thought the letter from Summers was strong but in addition wanted "regulations of derivatives and credit defaults swaps added, and a better accounting of the banks receiving the funds"
Any of the 3 could be Senator and each one wanted Congress to do more to fulfill its mandate.
PS The rumors I have been getting is that it's Kirsten Gillibrand for NY Senate. But my sources could be wrong or the Governor could change his mind. |
