While I want to see financial regulatory reform pass (and the Senate is clearly the biggest hurdle to passage), I think it needs to be done right.
I want to applaud Russ Feingold and Maria Cantwell for standing up for the true Democratic Party - the party that stands up for individual Americans, small business, and class mobility. Russ Feingold folded on both the public option and on the 55-plus Medicare buy-ins on health care reform, so its good to see him taking a firm line against the defeatist, corporatist attitudes of the milquetoast Senate Democratic leadership.
This isn't an issue of left vs. right, its an issue of right vs. wrong and standing up for democracy vs. plutocracy. Russ and Maria have it right. Let's support them however we can. It should be noted that Russ was one of only a handful of Senators who voted against the repeal of Glass-Steagal in 1999.
The Senate regulatory reform bill is good as it stands now with the stringent derivatives measure attached to it. However, it could (and should) be much stronger.
The biggest failure so far in the financial overhaul debate as been the failure to pass the Brown-Kaufman amendment that would have effectively split up the mega-banks. Quite frankly, there is no question that, in the interests of the public, the Brown-Kaufman Amendment should have passed. It only garnered 33 votes, which goes to show how powerful the banking and insurance lobbies are in Congress.
It is about time that liberal Democrats in the Senate start standing up for the values they espouse and "hunt down" the forces of defeatism and appeasement that seem to be spreading through the Senate Democratic caucus. Feingold and Cantwell should continue to vote against cloture until there are floor votes on the Merkeley-Levin amendment, as well as the Cantwell-McCain amendment to re-instate Glass-Steagal. It would be fascinating, funny, and tragic to watch John McCain vote against an amendment he co-sponsored to save his own sorry ass in AZ.
I don't understand how the Republican leadership can dictate that certain amendments need 60 votes to pass instead of 50+1. I was always under the impression that the rules for debate on a particular piece of legislation were set before debate began and that the Senate leadership settled on either a 60 or 50+1 vote threshold for ALL amendments. The filibuster (or rather, GOP abuse of it) is one thing, but allowing Republicans to dictate which amendments need how many votes to pass is crazy.
I am also ticked at the smartass, arrogant-jerk economists at the White House, namely Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who seem to think that too big to fail is OK and that derivatives don't need close regulation. (Note, I have a great deal of respect for Paul Volker and Christina Romer, who are members of Obama's Economic team, but whose voices are drowned out by Summers and Geithner.) After the greatest economic meltdown of the past 70 years, aggressive and potent regulation is needed. Good job, Russ!