Kieth did a pretty damn good job of summarizing the high points of Bernie Sanders epic speech yesterday. Can anyone really doubt that if the President of the United States put half of Bernie's effort into educating the American people--the way Bernie did yesterday--he could literally crush the GOP opposition? He. Just. Doesn't. Want. To. He prefers to crush you and me, instead.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 7 - Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) issued the following statement today on the agreement announced Monday between the White House and congressional Republicans:
"In my view, it is a moral outrage that at a time when this country has a $13.8 trillion national debt, a collapsing middle class and a growing gap between the very rich and everybody else that the Republicans would deny extended unemployment benefits to 2 million workers who are desperately struggling to pay their bills and maintain their dignity. It is also beyond comprehension that the Republicans would hold hostage the entire middle class of this country so that millionaires and billionaires would receive huge tax breaks. In my view, that is not what this country is about and it is not what the American people want to see. Our job is to save the disappearing middle class, not lower taxes for people who are already extraordinarily wealthy and increase the national debt that our children and grandchildren would have to pay.
"The immediate political task in front of us is to rally the American people so that in the next several weeks we can find at least a few Republicans who will join us in saying no to increasing the deficit by giving tax breaks to the wealthy and no to holding the unemployed and the middle class hostage.
"I believe that we have the American people on our side on this issue. My office, and I come from a small state, has received more than 600 calls today, 99 percent of them in opposition to this so-called compromise that the president negotiated with the Republicans.
"I will do everything in my power to stand up for the American middle class and defeat this agreement."
This is really the archetypal situation: Obama & Versailles vs. the American people. It really didn't have to be this way. But since Obama chose it, I don't think there's a better time to stand up and oppose him. Every other compromise that follows this one is only bound to get worse, and worse and worse.
Just ask yourself this: Is there any way other than opposing this that we can expect anything to get better?
On Wednesday, the Federal Reserve finally released the data on trillions of dollars worth of secret low-interest loans it madeto banks and other institutions during the height of the financial crisis. Three banks received a total of over $2 trillion each--roughly three times the amount of money authorized for the much more high-profile TARP program:
A total of 23 banks received more that $100 billion each (chart on the flip).
The Federal Reserve made $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks and Wall Street firms during the financial crisis, according to newly revealed data released Wednesday.
The loans were made through a special loan program set up by the Fed in the wake of the Bear Stearns collapse in March 2008 to keep the nation's bond markets trading normally.
The amount of cash being pumped out to the financial giants was not previously disclosed. All the loans were backed by collateral and all were paid back with a very low interest rate to the Fed -- an annual rate of between 0.5% to 3.5%.
Still, the total amount was a surprise, even to some who had followed the Fed's rescue efforts closely.
"That's a real number, even for the Fed," said FusionIQ's Barry Ritholtz, author of the book "Bailout Nation." While the fact that the markets were in trouble was already well known, he said the amount of help they needed is still surprising.
"It makes it very clear this was a very serious, very unusual situation," he said.
Sen. Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent who had authored the provision of the financial reform law that required Wednesday's disclosure, called the data that was released incredible and jaw-dropping.
"The $700 billion Wall Street bailout turned out to be pocket change compared to trillions and trillions of dollars in near zero interest loans and other financial arrangements that the Federal Reserve doled out to every major financial institution," Sanders said.
He said that even if the Fed was right to make the loans to keep the economy from toppling into a depression, it should have made stronger demands that the banks help American consumers and small businesses.
"They may have repaid their loans, but that's not good enough," he said. "It's clear the demands the Fed made were not enough."
Two critical Wall Street reforms, once declared dead by U.S. megabanks, are suddenly close to Congressional approval. As the House and Senate iron out the differences between their financial overhauls, it now appears that lawmakers are finally willing to ban banks from gambling with taxpayer money by implementing a strong Volcker Rule, and to end taxpayer subsidies for risky derivatives operations.
Update 4:29--Audit the Fed amendment changed: Sanders and Dodd seem to have reached some sort of agreement on the Audit the Fed amendment. Unclear exactly what change occurred, but Dodd is now a co-sponsor. Wondering if there was some deal worked out with the White House on this one. Floor debate continuing...
Update 3:51--The unusual, and possibly breakthrough, coalition on Audit the Fed: Sanders speaking in favor of his Audit the Fed amendment now. He notes the unusual nature of the coalition supporting it--some very progressive and very conservative groups. It is indeed unusual. If it succeeds, it will be the first time during the Obama administration when progressives joined with conservatives to pass something through both chammbers of Congress against the wishes of the Obama administration.
Update 3:31--Consumer Financial Protection Agency not gutted Shelby amendment defeated 61-38. All Dems voted against, as did Olympia Snowe and Charles Grassley. Some process stuff now, and Audit the Fed up next.
Update 3:03 p.m.--Finally returning to voting: Senate about to finally vote on Shelby's amendment to gut the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. The Sanders and McCain amendments will be read into the record next, followed by debate and vote on the Sanders amendment.
****
The Senate is still debating the Wall Street reform bill. There has been only one vote as of 1:50 p.m., when the livestream on C-Span 2 went down (although it is back up now). The next vote is on Richard Shelby's amendment to gut the Consumer financial Protection Agency. After that, there will be a vote on the Audit the Fed amendment by Bernie Sanders.
In advance of the Audit the Fed vote, the effort gained momentum when Majority Leader Harry Reid came out in support: While Reid backed the effort last time, his public support is important is important both because the White House has been lobbying Senators to flip, and because it includes a promise to hold the vote (which was one path for the White House to defeat the effort). Ryan Grim:
Harry Reid will make sure that an amendment to break up megabanks and cap their size comes up for a vote, the Senate majority leader said. He added that he was leaning heavily toward voting for the amendment, cosponsored by Sens. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Ted Kaufman (D-Del.).
Reid will also support an amendment from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) that will authorize an audit of the Federal Reserve, he said.
On Wednesday, Reid was noncommittal when asked by reporters at a briefing about the two major amendments. In an interview in his office with the Huffington Post on Thursday, Reid went further when asked if he'd considered the amendments since the briefing.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) keeps hearing from Rahm Emanuel about his proposal to force a comprehensive audit of the Federal Reserve. But the White House isn't calling to tell him about new plans to kill his amendment.
The White House is hoping to cobble together a separate proposal, to be offered as an alternative to Sanders' backers. The so called "side-by-side" would give them cover to vote down the Fed audit amendment, by offering them them a weaker plan to support.
Sanders is particularly worried about a proposed provision that would nullify existing state programs to limit emissions. Vermont is among those states that have paved the way for national carbon regulations, and the bill would remove the ability of states to set tougher restrictions on carbon dioxide than those passed by the federal government. Sanders describes this as "a huge mistake," writing that "we should definitely set a floor, but not a ceiling." He also expresses reservations about new loan guarantees for nuclear power, expanded offshore drilling, and the bill's likely giveaways to coal. "I do not want to see a global warming bill become an bonanza for the coal industry," he writes.
Sanders is also worried about what's not in the outline of the bill that the senators are circulating. In particular, he thinks that their plan doesn't do enough to promote energy efficiency, develop a renewable energy industry, and provide incentives for green jobs.
At the end of the article, Joe Lieberman brushes off the threat of any left-wing revolt on the bill, stating that Senators will fall in line as long as the bill is viewed as an improvement on the status quo, however minor.
A Lieberman versus Sanders conflict is particularly notable, as history tells us there are reasons to respect threats from both Senators:
Then again, despite Lieberman having the backing of the administration, Sanders did still hold out on supporting the health reform bill until he got a big concession: almost doubling the annual funding for the federal Community Health Center system, which will allow it to handle another 17-18 million patients annually. He also has proven willing to stand in the way of the Obama administration before, putting a hold on Ben Bernanke and voting against the Wall Street bailout.
Given recent history, there is good reason to suspect that left-wing Democratic members of Congress will simply fold and support a bill that is a marginal improvement on the status quo. Then again, there are some members of the Senate, most notably Bernie Sanders and Russ Feingold, who have frequently proven themselves unwilling to fold without at least receiving some sort of important concession.
To put it a different way, there would be every reason to not take left-wing criticisms of the climate bill seriously if they were coming from almost anyone in the Senate except Bernie Sanders.
In terms of progressive activists, it is clear that they have been completely rolled in this process and were given absolutely nothing. The good parts of the bill (Medicaid expansion, theoretically, the better regulations, though I have no confidence in the enforcement mechanisms) were not controversial and should not be seen as concessions to progressives. Indeed, I expect they would be passed separately if the Senate bill fails. In short, progressives got nothing in the political bargaining.
Now, pardon my exasperation, and please don't anyone talk anything I am about to write personally, because it is a generalized rant. But...
Bullshit. This is just wrong. Its bullshit like all the other bullshit out there in the blogosphere about how progressive activists who want to pass the health reform bill got nothing and have been forced into their "veal pens" or some other offensive formulation. That entire line of "argument" is just demonstrably false, and either intellectually dishonest or blinded by egregious cynicism
Here are two huge public option concessions that ended up in the Senate bill as concessions to progressive activists and members of Congress (more in the extended entry):
Slowly but surely, more current and potential Senators are coming out in favor of reforming Senate rules regarding the filibuster. Greg Sargent gets the quote from Sanders:
Separately, Sanders told me in the Senate hallway that he's "absolutely on board" with filibuster reform. "We've gotta reform it," Sanders said. "The present situation leads to dysfunctionality."
"I may well support the Harkin effort," Sanders added. "But if not that, some other effort."
For those who don't remember, the Harkin effort effectively means a 51-vote Senate. However, we are also counting supporters of any sort of filibuster reform, including Senators like Robert Byrd who want to keep the filibuster but no longer make it "painless."
In addition to Sanders, Ohio Lt. Governor Lee Fisher, who is running for Senate in Ohio, also came out in favor of reform today. From Fisher's campaign website:
End the Filibuster
Washington is broken - and the filibuster is being abused, halting progress on the big issues facing our nation.
I believe we should abolish the filibuster. If you agree, please join me by signing our petition in support of filibuster reform today!
PETITION TEXT:
I support ending the filibuster, which has been repeatedly abused by Washington Republicans to paralyze Congress and halt progress on the big issues facing our nation.
Ohio is a winnable Senate campaign, so this is meaningful. Also, I will attempt to contact Fisher's primary opponent, Jennifer Brunner, to see where she stands on filibuster reform.
With these new additions, here are the current supporters for filibuster reform:
*****
Filibuster Reform Whip Count 50 Senators who are currently safe bets for being in Senate in 2011
For a supposedly quixotic effort, changing filibuster rules has a surprising number of supporters from all over the ideological spectrum in the Democratic Party. We are going to be more than halfway to the necessary supporters before the end of the month.
If you think there a chance one or more Democratic Senator will filibuster the health insurance bill from the left, or if you think that the left should be blamed if the bill fails, then you need to think again. Recent actions and statements from Roland Burris, Bernie Sanders, and Russ Feingold make it clear no such left-wing filibuster will take place. As such, if the bill is defeated, it will be entirely because of right-wing opposition.
Kill the Bill or be killed by the Senate Health Care Reform Bill. That is the choice Americans face. Death looms large in the United States today. The Single-payer health care plan died in the Senate. Bernie Sanders, Senator from Vermont, and the father of the more recent Single Payer Plan "which eliminates the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste, administrative costs, bureaucracy, and profiteering that is engendered by the private insurance companies" was brought to his knees on the floor of the Senate. As he tried to cope with the loss of common sense and what the citizens crave, reluctantly Mister Sanders acknowledged the proposal did not have the votes to pass.
Emanuel didn't just leave it to Reid to find a solution. Emanuel specifically suggested Reid give Lieberman the concessions he seeks on issues like the Medicare buy-in and triggers.
"It was all about 'do what you've got to do to get it done. Drop whatever you've got to drop to get it done," the aide said. All of Emanuel's prescriptions, the source said, were aimed at appeasing Lieberman--not twisting his arm.
I contacted a Senate aide to further confirm the story. When I asked the aide if the Huffington Post and TPMDC stories were true, the aide responded "absolutely."
Further, the aide confirmed that Joe Lieberman is lying (I'm not exaggerating the language). Immediately after the Gang of Ten struck a deal on the public option, Harry Reid contacted Lieberman to hear his thoughts. Lieberman indicated that he was liking what he was seeing, and just wanted to wait for the CBO score. For him to change without the CBO score is mendacity, pure and simple.
Finally, the aide also said that this is still about saving lives. We keep talking about cost, but this bill still saves lives. For all of its tremendous disappointments, the aide kept emphasizing that the bill saves lives. This shows, if nothing else, that Alan Grayson's messaging appears to have won the day for Democrats.
I don't really know what to think right now. Too angry to think straight. After a very long campaign, we had appeared to secure a deal that I thought was acceptable. We promptly get stabbed in the back by none other than Joe Lieberman (and the CBO, btw), and then just as promptly told by the White House to accept it all.
The cloture motion on health care reform will be filed either tomorrow or Thursday, setting up a vote two days later. With a very crowded legislative schedule, and demands from the White Hosue to pass the bill in 2009, there really isn't any other option. My bet is that Olympia Snowe will probably vote for the bill now, as will Roland Burris. All of this makes even the unlikely prospect of a no vote from Bernie Sanders on the cloture motion irrelevant. Barring further mendacity, this bill now has sixty votes.
The next step will be the conference committee, unless the White House demands that also gets thrown in the trash to appease Lieberman, or Nelson, or whoever.
I've heard a rumor from multiple sources I consider credible that Ben Bernanke is considering withdrawing his name from renomination to another four-year term as chair of the Federal Reserve.
I'm pretty skeptical that Bernanke will actually withdraw. Still, that he is even considering it is enough to make you wonder...
Has Bernanke realized that he did a really bad job chairing the Federal Reserve during a worldwide financial meltdown?
I lean toward a combination of the second and third. Through the trans-partisan holds and audit the Fed movement, Bernanke is not receiving the appropriate deference members of Congress typically show to their betters and masters. So, he petulantly threatened to take his ball and go home, unless Congress promise to be much, much nicer to him.
For your part, don't be nicer to Bernanke--be nicer to the Senator who first put a hold on him. You can still say thank you to Bernie Sanders here.
The adage is "Time moves on." The assumption is all will get better. However, for the little people in the United States, those who work, pay taxes, and still cannot make ends meet, life has been a backward motion. Throughout the history of America, it was believed the people, with the assistance of elected Representatives, and well-chosen regulators would ensure that the United States was solid, strong, and fiscally viable. Currently the public is told. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has saved the country from certain crash. However, for the first time in generations, the population feels as though it is in free fall.
As Chris wrote, tonight Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) shocked Wall Street and the DC establishment by announcing a "hold" on the nomination of Bush's Federal Reserve Chair Ben Bernanke for another 4-year term at the helm of our economy.
This is huge. Wall Street will not be happy, and they'll go after Sanders with everything they've got. Most senators wouldn't even consider going up against them like this.
Senator Bernie Sanders has placed a "hold" on the vote to reconfirm Ben Bernake as chair of the Federal Reserve. Even if they are supportive of this move, many people seem to be asking what a "hold" actually does.
A motion to proceed is required for the full Senate to debate, and eventually vote, on a confirmation or piece of legislation. A "hold" is when one Senator denies unanimous consent on a motion to proceed. Without unanimous consent on a motion to proceed, a cloture vote is required to pass a motion to proceed. The cloture process is difficult, because it requires 60 votes for passage and quite a bit of time to unfold.
Here is a description of the cloture process on motions to proceed which I received from a Senate aide. The specific topic of the discussion was health care, but really it could apply to any bill or confirmation:
Leader Reid moves to proceed to an HR [House of Representatives] bill, which will be the vehicle for the Senate health care bill, and files a cloture motion on the motion to proceed
Two calendar days later, the cloture motion on the motion to proceed ripens (there has to be one intervening calendar day between the day you file cloture and the day you have the vote)
The cloture vote on the motion to proceed occurs one hour after we convene on the third day (If cloture is filed on Wednesday, the cloture vote is Friday. If cloture is filed on Thursday, the cloture vote is on Saturday, etc)
Assuming 60 Senators vote to limit debate on the motion to proceed and end the filibuster, the Senate invokes cloture on the motion to proceed
Thirty hours after cloture is invoked the Senate will proceed to vote on adoption of the motion to proceed itself (This assumes (a) consent will not be granted to yield back any post-cloture time on the motion to proceed and (b) consent will not be granted to adopt the motion to proceed itself---adoption of the motion to proceed itself is routinely agreed to by UC but Rs could force a roll call vote).
Upon adoption of the motion to proceed, the Senate will be on the Health Care bill
A shorter version is that it takes about three days, and 60 votes, to overcome a "hold." Sanders has bought opponents of Bernanke some time.
STATE BLOGS
