Last updated on 2013.11.10
Right before Halloween, Rep. Kristi Noem and the GOP House tricked us with another treat for Wall Street. The House Republicans (and a sizable contingent of Democrats with strings attached) passed H.R. 992, the Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act. It's complicated, but the short form is that, once again, the financial industry is looking to swap their risk for ours, putting taxpayers back on the hook for the risky derivative investments that helped tank the economy in 2007 and 2008 (how quickly Congress forgets!).
Now if a bill is complicated, you know Rep. Noem didn't vote for it because she'd read and understood it. Someone had to tell her to vote for it. In this case, the folks giving Noem orders were likely in the board room at Citigroup... which is also where H.R. 992 was written:
In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)
The lobbying campaign shows how, three years after Congress passed the most comprehensive overhaul of regulation since the Depression, Wall Street is finding Washington a friendlier place [Eric Lipton and Ben Protess, "Banks' Lobbyists Help in Drafting Financial Bills," New York Times, 2013.05.23].
Corinna Robinson, I hope you're taking notes for your big campaign kick-off (that's Monday, isn't it? With no campaign website or Facebook or Twitter presence yet, I can't find out!). Just a few years after Wall Street caused a financial debacle, Congresswoman Kristi Noem is letting banks rewrite the rules that would let them cause the same kind of crash.
Hmm! How many of you lost money err I mean who didn't lose money from that 2008 crash? Someone refresh my memory who from the big Wall Street firms were prosecuted and held accountable for that? What safeguards were put in place to prevent it from happening again? How much taxpayer money was spent bailing them out?
I realize any investment has some degree of risk but the previously respected firms that specialized in rating investments such as mutual funds were paid by those investment companies thus invalidating the ratings we find out afterwards.
In relation to the topic it would be expected Noem would vote that way.
is it safe to say ALL Republicans and some Democrats or would you call it a bipartisan vote Cory?
Mr. Reitzel,
Vote was Dems 119 against 70 for 5 no vote, no vote includes Pelosi, Reps 222 for, 3 against, 5 no vote. Much better bipartisan than the ACA. Not defending Representative Noem, just saying blames go to both parties, as usual.
Ms. Robinson should have a list of votes she can use against Noem by now. This vote, her vote against the VAWA, her vote against raising the minimum wage, her continued votes to repeal the ACA, her vote to continue to the government shutdown and default on our nation's debt and her vote to gut SNAP while giving more money to crop insurance. Keep repeating this over and over and maybe, just maybe South Dakotans will start to listen...especially South Dakota women.
@J.G. Thompson: Just because some members of both parties vote for something doesn't make it bipartisan, except in a purely semantic sense. According to the figures you provided, 97% of the Republicans voted for it, while 61% of the Democrats voted against it. Calling that bipartisan support is extremely misleading. (Though I agree: There are all too many ConservaDems who will support anything vaguely Republican-lite.)
What per cent of the vote is needed for it to be considered bipartisan?
I'm going to lean toward Joseph on this call. Whatever formal definition we may be able to construct for "bipartisan", HR 992 clearly won more support from opposite sides of the aisle than did the PPACA. This Economic Intelligence post from USNWR notes that HR 992 had much stronger bipartisan support back at committee time this spring. Jim Lardner makes the point in that article that Democrats were about as ready to do Wall Street a favor as were Republicans. Reformers and the press had to raise hell to get some Democrats to listen... and even with this negative press, some Democrats still vote like Kristi. As we've seen with Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, Democrats are not immune to the influence of Big Money.
A lot of people from Wall Street should be in jail, starting with Corzine. But its not Noem's fault that Obama and Holder won't prosecute. Why isn't the Justice Department going after these people?
It is NOem's fault that there is no prosecution Alan R. The House could dictate the following legislation to reinstate a new Glass Steagall Act and to pass legislation to enforce Dodd Frank http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/11/glass-steagall-act-elizabeth-warren_n_3580967.html .
The House controls the spending and they could find the money and get a more serious approach to go after our money. By doing nothing, they handcuff the DOJ into doing something. Something else as well, each one of those "people" from Wall Street should be in jail. Each on has culpability for this scam as they new the fix was in each day they went to look at their screens. The whole basket was rotten. NO More NOem
Mr. Jerry,
You neglect to say that the article also states that most federal regulators oppose the reinstatement of Glass Seagull, the people that would enforce the act don't like it.