Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: Senate Vote Just Now Shows Who Stands With the Banks Against The People (300 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart . . . (5+ / 0-)

    It's a gross over-simplification to say that this was just about saving the Big Banks.

    The rule change is a good one, but it's an open question just how much of the money will end up in consumers pockets, and how much will simply be shifted from the banks to retailers' bottom (especially the big ones).  It's also good news for smaller banks.

    This is one of those issues where the voting lines tend to get a bit blurred though.  

    Generally speaking "moderate" leaning Republicans and economic progressives voted against the Tester-Corker amendment.  But then you also had some right-wingers like Enzi, Brasso thrown into the mix.  The Senators from Georgia might have been swayed by producers like Coca-Cola who might benefit from this kind of rule change (e.g. as it removes an inefficiency in the cost of their product -- potentially allowing them to sell a higher volume of their product at the same profit margins = more profit).  There was a local interest at stake in preserving the current rule.

    On the Banks side were the Blue Dogs, Blue Dog leaners, Social liberals from NY, and a big chunk of Conservative Republicans.  Some disappointments, but not too many huge surprises.

    But then there are cases like the Arkansas delegation.  Mark Pryor is no economic progressive -- he's about as much of a Blue Dog as there is, but in the end Wal-Mart brought him in for a landing; amazingly they couldn't rope in his GOP counter-part.

    The degree to which local commercial interests played into this one can't be understated.  If there weren't very, very deeply pocketed Goliaths on either side of this issue, then this one wouldn't have even been close.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site