Senate Slated to Roll Back Key Dodd-Frank Financial Regulations & Victory in sight for Democrats defying Warren on bank bill 5MAR18

SEN Mark Warner D VA is usually a Democrat, a politician who for the most part has the interest of the 99% guiding his decision making. His decision to support the weakening of Dodd-Frank is disgusting because it shows he, along with too many other democrats, is willing to sell his vote to the bank-financial cabal though it is obvious this is against the best interest of the poor and the working and middle classes as well as retirees. These sleazy democrats will turn to the 99% for campaign donations and volunteers to get out the vote, but we need to ask them first, in light of their weakening of Dodd-Frank as well as the CFPB, how they are different than the drumpf/trump-pence republicans in congress. This from Democracy Now! and Politico.....

Senate Slated to Roll Back Key Dodd-Frank Financial Regulations

MAR 05, 2018

The Senate is slated to roll back key financial regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. A new bill, which will come up for a procedural vote this week, would exempt 25 of the nation’s 40 largest banks from being subject to heightened scrutiny by the Federal Reserve. If it passes, it would be the biggest weakening of the Dodd-Frank Act since it was signed into law in 2010.

Victory in sight for Democrats defying Warren on bank bill

While Sen. Elizabeth Warren will likely be unsuccessful in stopping the package, she is again trying to activate her base to fight it. | AP Photo

For the bill’s supporters, the legislation is a chance to show voters that it’s still possible to get things done in an often paralyzed Congress.

By ZACHARY WARMBRODT

 

03/05/2018 05:01 AM EST

Republicans and Democrats in the Senate are poised to pass a bill this week that would relax key banking regulations, steamrolling opposition from outspoken liberals like Sen. Elizabeth Warren who have built their careers calling for tougher oversight of Wall Street.

A core group of moderate Democrats is brushing off an escalating opposition campaign by the Massachusetts senator and other progressives like Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, instead joining with GOP colleagues to reverse restrictions on large and small banks that were enacted in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown.

For the bill’s supporters, the legislation is a chance to show voters that it’s still possible to get things done in an often paralyzed Congress. They include at least 12 Democrats, several of whom face tough reelection campaigns in states that President Donald Trump won in 2016.

"I hope that our bipartisan work can rub off on the rest of Congress so we can break through the partisan gridlock that has plagued Washington for too long," said Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, one of the Democrats who has negotiated the bill.

As supporters work to attract even more votes from Democrats, they argue that the bill would right-size post-crisis rules imposed on small and regional lenders and help make it easier for them to provide credit.

Still, most Senate Democrats are expected to oppose the legislation, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who announced his opposition Friday afternoon after declining for months to take a public position on the divisive issue.

“There will be a split in the caucus,” said Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), who was also part of the group that negotiated the legislation. "But I believe we’ll get between 65 and 70 votes.”

The bill marks the biggest legislative change to banking industry oversight since Democrats enacted the Dodd-Frank Act, the historic 2010 law that imposed reams of new rules on lenders after the global financial crisis. The first procedural vote on the bill is scheduled for Tuesday.

Yet while the ink was still drying on Dodd-Frank, the seeds of the bill on the floor this week were being planted.

“Literally, from the night of the conference on Dodd-Frank, there have been discussions about the need to go in and make some fixes,” said Senate Banking Chairman Mike Crapo, the lead author of the deregulation bill.

“Almost absolute resistance” by President Barack Obama and former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stopped it from happening sooner, Crapo said. Trump has pledged to scale back Dodd-Frank and is expected to sign the bill once it hits his desk.

Obama and Reid themselves faced pressure from Warren, who in 2014 tried to rally support for shutting down the government over a Dodd-Frank rollback that was slipped into a must-pass appropriations bill.

She was unsuccessful in stopping the repeal from becoming law, though the event illustrated the leverage she could wield by focusing her millions of followers on fighting attempts to deregulate the finance industry.

But even after that event, centrist Democrats began negotiating with Crapo and other Republicans on the proposals that are about to appear on the Senate floor.

“We have been negotiating for about four years,” said Crapo, who has irked conservatives and big banks such as Citigroup and Capital One by compromising in the talks. “We’ve been working toward those areas where we have been able to find consensus. This year it came together.”

The bill would make numerous changes to safeguards sitting between lenders, consumers and the broader economy.

Among the provisions: Easier mortgage regulations for small banks; new exemptions from tougher oversight for regional banks with $50 billion to $250 billion in assets; a directive to the Federal Reserve to tailor its rules for large banks and relaxed capital and liquidity requirements for some of the nation's biggest financial institutions.

The legislation includes a handful of consumer protection measures that critics have panned as an insufficient trade-off for the regulatory rollbacks in the bill.

One is a proposal pushed by Delaware Democrats Tom Carper and Chris Coons that would require free credit monitoring for military members.

The provision has rankled credit-reporting agencies that will be forced to offer millions of dollars worth of free products, as well as conservatives such as Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, who has complained to Crapo that the proposal would expose the credit-reporting companies to "new liability which the trial bar will certainly try to exploit."

Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) has concerns with the provision and hasn't decided whether he will support the bill, a source familiar with his thinking said.

While Warren will likely be unsuccessful in stopping the package, she is again trying to activate her base to fight it.

On Friday, she sent an email to supporters in which she attacked “Republicans AND Democrats" for supporting the bill. She warned that “the bank lobbyists are getting ready to pop champagne and light their cigars.” Warren is expected to offer amendments that could force her colleagues to take tough positions as they stick together to defend the bill and avoid fracturing the political coalition underpinning it.

“To me this bill says it all about how Washington works,” Warren said in an interview. “This is Washington working for the rich and powerful, not for the American people.”

While the bill has enough support to escape a filibuster, aides and lobbyists identified a handful of additional Democrats beyond the legislation's co-sponsors who could potentially support it. They include Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

For the team of moderate Democrats who have been negotiating with Crapo and other Republicans, it’s a positive story in which they will likely have the upper hand when the Senate votes to pass the bill. In addition to Warner and Tester, Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) and Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) have been trying to assemble the bill for years.

Democrats who support the legislation are proud they were able to convince colleagues to get over the stigma around reopening Dodd-Frank, a signature achievement of Obama's.

They won’t be shy about attending a signing ceremony with Trump, whom their constituents helped send to the White House.

"I would not understate the influence of Elizabeth Warren, but in this particular case, on this particular bill, what's prevailing is the pretty strong belief of this group of moderate Democrats and also their political survival," Capital Alpha Partners Director Ian Katz said. "If you're running for reelection in states like Indiana, North Dakota and Montana, which Trump won very decisively, agreeing with Elizabeth Warren isn't necessarily helpful."

There Is Only One Issue in America 10DEZ11

WELL said Mr Van Zandt!
I was obsessed with politics in the '80s. I've recovered and I'm feeling much better now thank you.
By the time I realized, as interesting as it was, I'd better stop this stuff and try to earn a living, I had discovered many of our social problems and quality of life issues could be traced to the same political source: our corrupt-by-definition electoral system. The solution to the problem was as easy to discover as the cause: The elimination of all private finance in the electoral process.
I was working doing most of my research in the area of our foreign policy since WWll, whatever fell under the umbrella of international liberation politics, but I examined and analyzed a fair amount of local issues as well.
I wanted to know how things work? Where's the power? Who's pulling the strings?
The economy of the world came down to the unholy trinity of guns, drugs and gasoline -- military industry, drugs (legal and illegal), and energy -- and now I would add agribusiness as the fourth controlling commodity, and always with the enabling bankers never too far out of sight making their profits far too often from wars and slave labor.
While that readily explained the suffering of the Third World, it didn't immediately answer why in America it was possible for so many people to be unhappy with our government's decisions, both foreign and domestic, when we're supposedly living in a democracy.
A quick analysis of our electoral process revealed the obvious answer. The simple fact is we do not live in a democracy. Certainly not the kind our Founding Fathers intended. We live in a corporate dictatorship represented by, and beholden to, no single human being you can reason with or hold responsible for anything.
The corporation has but one obligation, which is to increase profits for it's shareholders by any legal means necessary by the next fiscal quarter.
They have no moral, patriotic, social, environmental, generational or even sustainable responsibility. They have only a short-term economic mandate and their only responsibility to society is to stay within the law to accomplish it.
This doesn't mean corporations shouldn't exist or even that their directors are evil by their very DNA. It has been a legally acceptable basic flaw in the form of our capitalist system that allows corporations to operate without a moral compass or obligation to society -- but that's a discussion for another day.
The law is rarely a problem because the corporations' legal obligations are pretty much designed first and foremost for their maximum profit by the legislation created by the legislators belonging to our two national political parties, both of which are wholly bought, sold and controlled by Wall Street. The banks and the corporations. In other words the game is rigged. Feel like a sucker? We all do because we all are.
The manipulation, aided by a very willing media also owned by the corporations, has made things easier beginning with what has become the amazing Orwellian staple of every newscast, selling the public on the lie that the Dow has somehow become America's scoreboard!
We're all hypnotized, rooting for them like they're our home team at a football game, cheering for THEIR scoreboard mindlessly forgetting WE'RE THE AWAY TEAM!!
You think your congressman is working all day to get you a job? He may want to. He or she is probably not a bad person. They probably want to do the right thing. But they can't. Long-time Capitol Hill staff and campaign strategists tell me the average legislator spends one-third of their time (or more) every day raising money or on activities related to raising money.
Yes, they are "elected" which creates the mass delusion of democracy to keep the masses from rioting, but congressional races are costing millions of dollars and some Senate seats are going for tens of millions each, and they're predicting well over one billion dollars for the next presidency.
That's some democracy we've created there, isn't it?
Of the people?
By the people?
For the people?
What people?
Democracy in America is a sick joke and the masses aren't laughing anymore.
Yes, we can demonstrate. We can march. We can write and sign petitions to our Representatives. We can occupy.
And we should because it's healthy to vent, and we don't feel so all alone. But the truth is, other than the value of venting, we're wasting our time. It is naïve to expect political results from any of these activities.
Our representative can give us lip service. A lot of sympathy. Empathy even. But we don't pay their media bills, gabeesh?
We need to eliminate all private finance from the electoral process.
And let's not be distracted by "reforms." Let's spare ourselves the unnecessary discussions about transparent disclosure, or the conflict of interest of foreign countries buying favorable treatment, or protection after protection being gutted by dangerously diluted regulations, or trying to impose this limit or that limit, etc., etc., etc.
Campaign finance doesn't need reform. It needs elimination.
To accomplish this we must overturn Buckley v. Valeo, one of the two or three worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court.
The ruling makes the extraordinary decision that money is protected by the First Amendment.
Presumably Chief Justice Gordon Gekko presiding!
These smartest guys in the room actually decided that spending money is the equivalent of free speech. You might wonder why no one in that smart room stood up and said wait a minute, if money is speech, isn't lack of money lack of speech?
You know, as in the rich get to talk, and the poor don't? How are the non-moneyed classes represented by this decision?
I guess nobody stood up then, but it's time to stand up now.
In fact, I am now introducing a new pledge to be signed by our legislators. Of both parties. Indies too. Everybody's welcome.
THE PLEDGE FOR A DEMOCRATIC AMERICA
(We'll need someone more educated than me to draw it up, or we can copy Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge, but it would go something like this.)
I, The Undersigned, pledge to overturn Buckley v. Valeo and eliminate all private finance from the electoral process, thusly restoring America to it's democratic principles. I may take corporate, PAC, SuperPAC, or Chinese money to get elected or reelected (martyrdom accomplishes nothing), but upon my election I will make campaign finance elimination one of my immediate top priorities.
Now somebody should be starting a new Third Party whose platform is dedicated to this one idea. Twenty-five years ago that's what I'd be doing right now.
But,the need for a Third Party aside, this idea applies for everyone. Just as much for the Tea Party on the right as the 99 Percenters on the left (the corporate oligarchy actually has no Party affiliation, it just looks Republican).
Both groups should adopt this issue. The Occupiers need not agree on anything else, because frankly nothing else matters, and a bit more focus on the root of our problems for the Tea Party certainly wouldn't hurt them either.
Let's see who's serious about representing the "people."
And you know what?
We might be pleasantly surprised at how many congressmen and senators sign this thing who would rather be doing something more dignified with their lives than spending half their time begging for money.

The Zero Economy from HUFFPOST 2SEP11

WE are at a turning point in this recession (I feel we are still in a recession, do not see huge corporate profits and obscene executive pay and compensation packages proof the recession is over) and the middle class, the working class and the poor are exhausted. We are exhausted by the struggle to hold on to our homes, our jobs, our dreams..and we are exhausted by having to fight tooth and nail politicians on the local, state and federal level who are so incompetent they offer no leadership to help us get through this recession or all too often are nothing more than political whores doing the bidding of the rich and corporate America, their pimps. We had hope for a better nation, for better government, for better lives after the 2008 election, now all we hope for is the strength to hold on. Pres Obama, are you going to give us reason to have faith in your administration again, or are you going to nail the coffin shut and leave the nation to deteriorate further into Third World status? 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports today no jobs were created in August. Zero. Nada.
Well, not quite. The strike at Verizon reduced the labor force by 45,000. Minnesota government employees returned to work, adding 22,000. So in reality, America added 23,000 jobs. Almost zero.
In reality, worse than zero. We need 125,000 a month merely to keep up with population growth. So the hole continues to deepen.
Since this Depression began at the end of 2007, America's potential labor force -- working-age people who want jobs -- has grown by over 7 million. But since then the number of Americans with jobs has shrunk by more than 300,000.
If this doesn't prompt President Obama to unveil a bold jobs plan next Thursday, I don't know what will.
The problem is on the demand side. Consumers (whose spending is 70 percent of the economy) can't boost the economy on their own. They're still too burdened by debt, especially on homes that are worth less than their mortgages. Their jobs are disappearing, their pay is dropping, their medical bills are soaring.
And businesses won't hire without more sales.
So we're in a vicious cycle.
Republicans continue to claim businesses aren't hiring because they're uncertain about regulatory costs. Or they can't find the skilled workers they need.
Baloney. If these were the reasons businesses weren't hiring -- and demand were growing -- you'd expect companies to make more use of their current employees. The length of the average workweek would be increasing.
But the length of the average workweek has been dropping. In August it declined for the third month in a row, to 34.2 hours. That's back to where it was at the start of the year - barely longer than what it was at its shortest point two years ago (33.7 hours in June 2009).
It's demand, stupid.
So what does a sane nation do when the consumers and businesses can't boost the economy on their own?
Government becomes the purchaser of last resort. It hires directly (a new WPA and Civilian Conservation Corps, for example). It helps states and locales, so they don't have to continue to slash payrolls and public services. (The help could be structured as a loan, to be repaid when unemployment drops to, say, 6 percent.)
And it hires indirectly -- contracting with companies to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, including school buildings, to take another example.
Not only does this create jobs but also puts money in the hands of all the people who get the jobs, so they can turn around and buy the goods and services they need -- generating more jobs.
Get it? Not exactly rocket science.
So why don't Republicans get it? Either they're knaves -- they want the economy to stay awful through next Election Day so Obama gets the boot. Or they're fools -- they've bought the lie that reducing the deficit now creates more jobs.
Every time you hear anyone say we're "broke" or "can't afford to spend more," tell them we'll be in worse shape if we don't. If the economy remains dead in the water, the ratio of public debt to GDP balloons.
And remind them that the federal government can now borrow at fire-sale rates. Interest on the ten-year Treasury bill is 2 percent.
Do you hear me, Mr. President? Please -- be bold next week. And if, as expected, Republicans refuse to go along, take it to the people. Mobilize the public. Use the bully pulpit. That's what you have it for.
One more thing, Mr. President. You also have to tackle inequality. When so much income and wealth continues to flow to the very top, America's vast middle class still won't have enough purchasing power to boost the economy. Priming the pump is necessary but won't be sufficient without enough water in the well.

Robert Reich is the author of Aftershock: The Next Economy and America's Future, now in bookstores. This post originally appeared at RobertReich.org.

Wisconsin assembly agrees to union bill vote; troopers' search for Democrats comes up dry 24FEB11

THE DICTATOR WANNA-BE gov scott walker continues his assault on workers rights in Wisconsin, and the repercussions will be felt around the nation. The Wisconsin Senate Democrats must stay united and stay out of the state until the union-busting legislation is withdrawn. Go to the Wisconsin Is Us live blog for the latest updates on the workers struggle, there is a link to them on this blog
By Ariana Eunjung Cha and Brady Dennis
Washington Post Staff Writers

Republicans and Democrats in the Wisconsin Assembly agreed to a deal shortly before dawn on Thursday that sets the stage for a vote on a bill that would limit collective bargaining rights for public workers.
The bill has prompted several days of protests at the State Capitol by more than 60,000 union supporters .
The agreement, announced shortly after 6 a.m., follows a marathon 40-hour debate that began Tuesday morning, during which Democrats sought to delay the vote by filibustering. The vote could come as soon as Thursday afternoon and will almost certainly pass, given the chamber's Republican majority.
That would send the bill to the Wisconsin Senate, which has been unable to vote on the issue since 14 Democratic senators fled the state and left it without a quorum. Wisconsin state troopers were dispatched Thursday to the homes of the missing Democrats to try to pressure them to return to break an impasse on a budget bill.
The Senate sergeant at arms said the troopers left after not finding any of the senators at home, the Associated Press reported. The troopers had been authorized by a Senate decision early Thursday to issue a "call of the house," allowing law enforcement to be sent to find missing members.
While police cannot arrest the members, Republican Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald has said he hopes they will feel compelled to come back to debate the bill. The Republicans need just a single Democrat to return to vote.
Democratic state Sen. Robert Jauch, a longtime Wisconsin lawmaker, said Thursday morning that despite rumors that some of his colleagues had returned to the state, "everybody is outside of Wisconsin -- all of us."
He said he had just spoken to his wife at their home more than 300 miles north of the state capital and that no law enforcement officials had come knocking at his door.
"They're too cheap to send somebody from Madison up to northern Wisconsin," Jauch said. "If they had, my wife was going to invite them in for hot chocolate."
Jauch criticized what he called the "police state mentality" by Republicans in the capital and took issue with Republican Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker's assertions that Democrats who had fled the state were abandoning their duties.
"I'm doing more from the Land of Lincoln to communicate with citizens in my district than he is," Jauch said, adding that the Senate Democrats talk regularly and are "trying to reach out through back channels to see what the solution could be. This governor has dug himself in -- that's very clear."
The scene at the Wisconsin Capitol resembled a siege. Elected officials and their staffers were taking turns sleeping on couches. Some Republican representatives' offices have had to defend themselves from angry protesters who defaced signs supporting Walker. Many Assembly members have had only a few hours of sleep over two nights.
Peter Barca, a Democrat who is the Assembly's minority leader, said that around 4 a.m. he was approached by the speaker, who told him that "his members were tired and they were frustrated."
Barca said in an interview that he was given an ultimatum: "Unless we limited our amendments, they were going to just pull the plug. They were going to use parliamentary procedure to shut down the debate. It would get ugly."
The Assembly's Democrats had no choice, he said. "We very reluctantly agreed."
Under Walker's plan, most public workers - excluding police, firefighters and state troopers - would lose bargaining rights for anything other than pay and would have to pay half of their pension costs and at least 12 percent of their health-care costs. Walker, who took office last month, says the emergency measure would save $300 million over the next two years to help close a $3.6 billion budget gap.
Rep. Tyler August (R), who represents the southeastern part of the state, said that the deal announced by the Assembly is the first step toward resolving the standoff that has triggered protests in state capitals throughout the country.
"I think the Democrats thought they might be able to wear us down. But they have not done so. We certainly plan on still passing the bill," August said.
August said he had heard that several Democratic senators already had returned to the state and was hopeful they would show up so that the bill could be passed.
"This isn't a game. For them to be running around is just so unbelievably irresponsible to their constituents," he said.
chaa@washpost.com dennisb@washpost.com

Labor, Guns, and Money 17JUN10

This is disgusting....and pathetic, and shows that we are becoming no better that the Third World countries we lecture about corruption are. The blame falls on the NRA and corporate America and the unions, but it is mostly due to the spineless cowardly politicians who have been bought by those with money. It seems the only thing we have to teach anyone else on political corruption is how much one needs to pay for a politician. This is from the MOJO blog.

Earlier this week, the National Rifle Association scored a major victory when the gun rights lobby persuaded House Democrats to exempt it from legislation intended to reign in the campaign finance free-for-all ushered in by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling. The move has sent other groups scrambling to create their own carve-outs, ramping up their lobbying efforts on Capitol Hill. Among those seeking a deal of their own are a handful of labor unions, which have largely criticized the Citizens United ruling while also taking advantage of its loosened restrictions.
On Tuesday afternoon, representatives from the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) met with top Democratic leaders who are involved with the bill, known as the DISCLOSE Act, to push for additional changes that would blunt the legislation’s impact on unions. "I think there’s just overreach in this bill," said Chuck Loveless, director of AFSCME’s legislative department, who attended the meeting and said that "key people" were involved, though he declined to name them.
While many have warned that Citizens United would unleash a flood of corporate spending in elections by relaxing campaign finance rules, labor unions have been some of the first groups to try out tactics that would have previously been forbidden. AFSCME, along with the AFL-CIO and SEIU, has yet to take a formal position on the bill. Their support, like the NRA's, could be critical to its passage, particularly since a host of conservative groups have come out against the legislation in the wake of the NRA's deal. (And 45 liberal organizations have threatened to pull their support from the bill if the NRA exemption isn't taken out.)
But while the SEIU has suggested that the bill doesn't go far enough, groups like the AFL-CIO and AFSCME are seeking to roll back some of the DISCLOSE Act's restrictions and regulations, arguing that unions should be treated differently than corporations. And a flurry of last-minute lobbying over the bill has erupted since news of the NRA's deal broke on Monday. "Currently we are discussing our concerns with members of Congress," said AFL-CIO press secretary Amaya Tune. According to Loveless, AFSCME is pushing for two major changes to the bill, which will require campaign ads to disclose all the names of the corporations, unions, and other groups that fund them.
AFSCME is trying to exempt state and local political organizations that accept soft money—that is, unrestricted contributions from individuals or groups—from being regulated under the bill. Under the DISCLOSE Act, such groups, which often receive union backing, would have to disclose their donors if their campaign ads reference a federal candidate. AFSCME opposes having to out itself as the backer of these state and local campaign efforts. "The problem is that we have local union affiliates—we have 4000 of them—that could make a contribution to one of these entities…which could trigger these very detailed disclosure requirements," said Loveless. He said that AFSCME was "trying to protect these local affiliates" from having to make such disclosures.
Asked whether the new rules might curb union donors' willingness or ability to influence state and local candidates, Loveless responded that such efforts "have nothing to do with federal elections" and thus shouldn’t be subject to the same rules. (Under the legislation, unions—and any donors that contributed to them—would have to be disclosed if they backed campaign ads in federal elections.)
AFSCME is also pushing back against the bill’s 35 percent tax on soft-money-backed campaign ads—known as "independent expenditures"—sponsored by labor unions and other nonprofit groups that explicitly advocate for or against a candidate. "It's not just for labor organizations...We have major concerns about this," said Loveless. The tax would certainly put a damper on the big money that unions have begun pouring into campaign ad buys since the Citizens United ruling came down in January, such as an ultimately unsuccessful $10 million campaing to defeat Sen. Blanche Lincoln in Arkansas' Democratic primary.
In its current lobbying effort, however, AFSCME is playing down the ways that it and other labor unions have benefitted from Citizens United, insisting that it's still committed to curbing the excesses of the Court’s decision. Though AFSCME had previously welcomed the ruling—and publicly vowed to avail themselves of the new campaign finance landscape it opened up—Loveless insists that the group never fully supported decision. "We've had major concerns with this ruling—it’s not something that we’ve supported," he said. "Corporations have outspent unions 8-to-1, 10-to-1. We've been very critical of the Supreme Court ruling." Unions like AFSCME argue that they simply want to level the playing field. And that's why they're trying to position themselves to take fullest advantage of a post-Citizens United world.

Exclusive NRA Deal for Campaign Law? 15JUN10 & Feinstein Slams House Democrats For NRA Deal 16JUN10

THE NEO-NAZI, FASCIST, COWARDLY PIGS OF THE NRA ARE AT IT AGAIN....NOW DEMANDING THEY BE EXEMPTED FROM THE PROPOSED DISCLOSURE RULES SO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC CAN'T FIND OUT WHAT POLITICIANS THEY ARE BUYING AND WHAT RIGHT-WING CAUSES THEY ARE FUNDING HYPOCRITES! I REALLY WISH THESE PEOPLE WOULD EXPERIENCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICS AND POLICIES UP CLOSE AND PERSONAL. SOMEDAY IT WILL HAPPEN TO THEM AND THEY WILL EXPERIENCE THE PAIN AND AGONY AND SORROW THEY HAVE FORCED ON SO MANY OTHERS. AND SOMEDAY THE SPINELESS POLITICIANS WILL EXPERIENCE THE CONSEQUENCES OF KOW-TOWING TO THE NRA TOO.

The introduction of new campaign finance legislation in the House has met with mixed reviews owing primarily to the disclosure exemption added for the National Rifle Association. But despite the criticism expressed by a host of good government groups -- some of which have begrudgingly said they would support the legislation -- the effort didn't seem to be in much political peril.
Until now, perhaps. On Wednesday morning, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Cali.) became the first Democratic lawmaker to publicly come out against the NRA deal, in a statement provided to the Huffington Post.

I strongly oppose any special exemption for the National Rifle Association in the DISCLOSE Act. The purpose of this bill is to make sure that elected representatives are not beholden to special interests, yet here is special interest # 1 receiving a deal to exempt it from an otherwise very good bill.
This is bad policy. The law should apply to the NRA, just like any other group. If the NRA, or any similar group, is going to spend millions on political ads, the American public has a right to know who is funding them.
The bill is the DISCLOSE Act, not the 'Everyone Except the NRA DISCLOSE Act.'
The NRA claims they need an exemption to protect their First Amendment rights, but that argument simply doesn't hold up. The Supreme Court has stated clearly that although all are free to speak and advocate their positions, when a group runs ads for and against candidates, disclosure requirements are appropriate.

Democrats can ill-afford Senate defections on this legislation. Already, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has come out against the DISCLOSE Act, criticizing its authors for cutting a deal with the gun lobby and expressing traditionally-conservative complaints about the broader "restrictions" on free speech. It stands to reason that a large chunk of the GOP caucus will echo his complaints.
Senator Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) is tasked with moving parallel legislation through the chamber. And aides say he too understands that an NRA exemption is likely needed to keep that group from lobbying against the measure. But if Feinstein (a longtime gun-control advocate) is to defect -- and if she is to be joined by a handful of other Democrats -- the party could very well find itself short on votes.

Story continues below

There is likely some time to find agreement. A Senate aide tells the Huffington Post that the chamber would like to move the bill forward between now and the upcoming recess two weeks away. But they will wait for the House to pass its bill first. And if that doesn't occur by the end of the week, the calendar for Senate consideration is unclear.

Exclusive NRA Deal for Campaign Law?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-helmke/exclusive-nra-deal-for-ca_b_613285.html?ir=Daily%20Brief

In a demonstration of blatant political cynicism, the NRA now has no problems with campaign finance donor disclosure laws -- as long as it gets exempted.
To the NRA bosses, it's not just "the guys with the guns make the rules," but the guys with the undisclosed money sources make the rules -- particularly when everybody else's donors have to be disclosed. It's no longer just guns that they say will have to be pried from their "cold dead hands." It's their donor lists, too.
In a shameful and outrageous move, the NRA has pressured the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives to exempt it -- and apparently only it -- from proposed legislation that would require corporations, unions, and advocacy and lobbying groups to reveal donations used to support political campaigns.
Under H.R. 5175, every other group or corporation would have to report the names of people who donate at least $600 to expenditures directed at or available for election activities. Every. Other. Group -- such as the Sierra Club, the AFL-CIO, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Gun Owners of America, the National Right-to-Life Committee, and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Every group -- except the NRA.
The original bill, authored by Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, is a response to the 5-4 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year that basically allows corporations to spend as much money on political activities as they want -- any time they want.
Van Hollen's proposal sought to bring transparency to the process by requiring that corporations, and other groups doing political advocacy, report major sources of funds for expenditures late in the campaigns of federal candidates for office. But in an effort to get the support of the NRA, and the elected officials they shower money on, the latest proposal now exempts them from disclosing their larger contributors: groups with more than a million members who raised 15 percent or less funding from corporations. Meanwhile, smaller groups across the political spectrum must their reveal their contributors.
The NRA, with more than $322 million in revenue in 2007 and a claimed four million members, appears to be the only group that fits these new criteria. This makes Congress' "cure" for the Citizens United Court decision so outside the spirit of what Congress says it is trying to do that any real supporter of campaign reform should be embarrassed to vote for it.
People are already cynical about the connections between big money and Congress. Now, the big dollar guys would get to avoid the rules once again while the small groups would still have to jump through the hoops in the law.
Given the recent unwillingness of Congress to give D.C. residents a U.S. representative with a vote without also having their court-approved gun laws gutted, and now this reluctance to do campaign finance disclosures without exempting the well-heeled NRA, it seems there is a new condition that must be met before almost any federal legislation is allowed to proceed: Make sure the legislation doesn't upset the gun lobby bosses.
What this deal ultimately would do is create a two-tier system for political speech -- one for the NRA fat cats and the other for everyone else. I strongly urge House members to reflect deeply upon whom it is they are supposed to represent and protect, and oppose this tarnished legislation. I urge every American who wishes to be heard on the most important issues of our time to contact congressional leaders and urge them to stop this proposal.
Paul Helmke is president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. Follow the Brady Campaign on Facebook and Twitter.

AMERICAN TAXPAYER FUNDED BAILOUT FOR BP, TRANSOCEAN AND HALLIBURTON? 21MAI10

Click the header to go to the website to contact your Senators and tell them BP must be held responsible for all the cost from their Gulf of Mexico oil spill!

As the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig continues to spill over 1 million gallons of oil into the Gulf every day, Republicans are demanding less regulation for companies like BP and Transocean while also looking for a taxpayer-funded bailout of BP.¹  Yeah, I'm serious.

After a month of oil spewing into the Gulf, the cost of cleaning up BP's mess is $542 million and counting. But a group of Republican senators lead by Lisa Murkowski of Alaska want the company to pay for only the first five days of the cleanup and put taxpayers on the hook for everything else.²

That's right, Murkowski and her pals want to "Bail out BP."

We need to tell Murkowski and her Senate colleagues that this is not OK. Can you send a message to your senators that it's time to end offshore drilling and focus on clean energy instead?

http://act.truemajorityaction.org/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=71

BP makes over $3.9 million EVERY HOUR.³ In the 31 days since the rig exploded, they've earned over $2.8 billion. Meanwhile, BP lawyers are working overtime to make sure that they are on the hook for only $75 million of the cleanup cost. And Murkowski and her allies think that's just fine because, to them, fewer rules are a good thing.

First, they wanted less regulation for Wall Street and the banks (look where that got us). Now, they want to do the same for oil companies. It's outrageous. We need oversight that protects our communities and environment -- not another taxpayer-funded bailout of the oil companies.

Congress needs another wake-up call to remind them that we're watching. Congress can't continue to let corporate America avoid responsibility and then bail them out when they can't clean up their own mistakes.

Tell your senators to say no to the BP bailout and to focus on clean energy solutions instead.

Thanks,

-Drew

Drew Hudson
TrueMajority / USAction

1 - cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20005333-503544.html
2 - reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6412H820100502
3 - washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/10/AR2010051004664.html

My letter to Sens Webb & Warner on this issue 21MAI10

Dear Senators,

The oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is a timely reminder that oil is a dirty and dangerous source of energy.

But some of your colleagues, lead by Sen. Murkowski, are proposing less regulation for companies like BP and Transocean and leaving taxpayers on the hook for cleanup costs when things go wrong. This is an outrageous bailout of BP and other big oil companies. BP, Transocean and Halliburton can not get away with sticking the cost of this cleanup and the environmental and economic damage on the American taxpayers like Exxon did after their spill in Prince William Sound. This is not going to be another BOHICA experience (Bend Over Her It Comes Again), we will not tolerate it and Sens Murkowski and Inhofe must not be allowed to place the corporate interest of these companies ahead of the physical, economic and environmental health of the nation.

Instead of risking our air, water, health and safety by perpetuating our addiction to oil, it's time to build a clean-energy economy that means more jobs, less pollution and real energy independence.

Please, oppose all plans to expand offshore drilling and limit oil company liability for spills and focus on clean energy instead.

Thanks,
Craig Schwanke

May 18, 2010 7:58 PM

GOP Blocks Oil Spill Liability Bill

Posted by Stephanie Condon

Republicans for the second time blocked legislation that would increase oil companies' liability for oil spill damages, setting off criticism from Democrats seeking to make BP pay for the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) on Tuesday blocked a bill Democrats have put forward to raise the liability cap from $75 million to $10 billion. He said on the Senate floor he agrees the cap should be raised, but the Senate should "wait and see where the cap should be."
"If you have it too high you are going to be singling out BP and the other four largest majors and the nationalized companies, such as China and Venezuela, and shutting out the independent producers," he said.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) blocked the legislation last week.
President Obama released a statement saying he is disappointed by the Republicans' objections.
"This maneuver threatens to leave taxpayers, rather than the oil companies, on the hook for future disasters like the BP oil spill," he said. "I urge the Senate Republicans to stop playing special interest politics and join in a bipartisan effort to protect taxpayers and demand accountability from the oil companies."
Roll Call reports that Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), one of the sponsors of the legislation, reportedly asked, "This is really about whose side do you stand on? Do you stand up with the taxpayers or with multibillion-dollar oil companies?"
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), another co-sponsor, similarly derided the GOP.
"What we're watching here is a sham," Lautenberg said, Politico reports. "We see our friends on the other side--correct that, the people on the other side... not friendly in this case, [and we want them] to stand up and say, 'Yeah. You did it? Pay for it.'"
Meanwhile, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said yesterday that a $10 billion cap is inadequate.

Cost of oil spill could exceed $14 billion

Tom Bergin

LONDON

Sun May 2, 2010 3:54pm EDT

Related News

• U.S. pressures BP over oil spill as Obama visits Gulf
  
  Sun, May 2 2010
• Obama to visit U.S. Gulf to push anti-slick efforts
  
  Sun, May 2 2010
• Obama to visit US Gulf to push anti-slick efforts
  
  Sat, May 1 2010
• Obama to visit scene of Gulf oil spill
  
  Sat, May 1 2010
• U.S. fights to protect shore from massive oil spill
  
  Fri, Apr 30 2010

Infographic

Oil slick forecast

LONDON (Reuters) - The total bill related to the oil spill drifting toward Louisiana from a well operated by BP Plc in the Gulf of Mexico, could exceed $14 billion, analysts said. 2MAI10

U.S.  |  Green Business  |  Gulf Oil Spill

Since an explosion almost two weeks ago on the Deepwater Horizon rig, a disaster scenario has emerged with hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil spewing unchecked into the Gulf and moving inexorably northward to the coast. The responsibility for the cleanup operation lies with the owners of the well, led by 65 percent shareholder, London-based oil company BP Plc.
BP said last week that it was spending $6 million a day on the clean up but admitted this figure would rise sharply when the slick hits land.
Neither the company or its 25 percent partner, explorer Anadarko Petroleum, have put an estimate on total costs, although BP CEO Tony Hayward told Reuters in an interview on Friday that he would pay all legitimate claims for damages.
The final bill for cleaning up the spill could be $7 billion, Neil McMahon, analyst at investment firm Bernstein said.
Analysts at Morgan Stanley put the figure at $3.5 billion, while analysts at Citigroup, Evolution Securities and Panmure Gordon put cleanup costs at under $1.1 billion.
Compensation that must be paid to those impacted by the slick could also amount to billions of dollars.
The cost to the fishing industry in Louisiana could be $2.5 billion, while the Florida tourism industry could lose $3 billion, Bernstein predicted.
BP will also have to spend $100 million to drill a relief well to try and stem the flow of the well, while the loss of the Deepwater Horizon well represents a hit of around $1 billion for its owner, Swiss-based drilling specialist Transocean.
COMPENSATION FOR WORKERS
Eleven workers are missing, presumed dead, following the rig explosion and compensation will have to be made to their families.
BP was forced to pay out $2 billion in compensation after 15 workers died in an explosion at its Texas City refinery in 2005, although Peter Hitchens at Panmure said it was likely liabilities related to the rig would be Transocean's responsibility.
BP and its partners in the oil block where the leaking well is located will have to cover the cleanup costs and damages on a basis proportionate to their shareholdings, which will leave BP with 65 percent of the bill.
The company self-insures through its own insurance company, named Jupiter. Contrary to press reports, Jupiter does not lay off risks onto reinsurers or syndicates at Lloyds of London, a spokesman said on Sunday.
Hence, BP will end up paying any costs out of its own pocket.
However, it is possible BP and Anadarko could seek to reclaim any damages from Cameron International Corp, the supplier of the well head equipment which has been blamed for the accident or companies involved in maintaining the drilling machinery.
The oil is leaking because a shut-off valve that should automatically kick in when a problem occurs, has not functioned.
The valve, known as a blow-out preventer, was supplied by Cameron and operated, as an integral part of Transocean's rig.
Oil services provider Halliburton said it performed a variety of work on the rig.
If BP could prove that Halliburton or Cameron did something wrong, they could lay part of the blame on them, Mike Breard, an energy analyst with Hodges Capital Management in Dallas said last week.
Shares in BP have fallen around 13 percent since the accident, wiping out $20 billion of the company's market value.
Shares in Anadarko, Transocean, Cameron and Halliburton have also been hit.
If regulators find any wrongdoing or incompetence on the part of the companies involved, it could levy fines, although analysts said that going by previous fines, these would likely be in the range of tens of millions -- immaterial to the total bill.
In such a situation, the courts could also award punitive damages.
Exxon Mobil was hit with $5 billion in punitive damages after the its tanker Valdez leaked 258,000 barrels of heavy crude into Prince William Sound in Alaska in 1989. The award was based on the fact Exxon had not taken due care when it employed a man with a drinking problem to skipper its tanker.
However, the damages against it were subsequently reduced to around $500 million on appeal.
All analysts agreed that the final bill for the Deepwater Horizon incident will depend on how much damage is caused.
Bernstein said the experience from the first Gulf War in 1991 suggested the damage across Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi
and Florida could be less than many expect because of the warm water in the area.
"The Iraqi army opened valves on the Sea Island terminal, dumping up to 450 million gallons (around 11 million barrels) of crude into the sea in order to obstruct a potential landing by coalition forces," McMahon said in a research note.
"While the magnitude of the spill was vastly greater than the Exxon Valdez, it actually did relatively little long-term damage, as it dispersed in the warm waters," he added.
(Reporting by Tom Bergin, editing by Bernard Orr)

BP facing a wave of pressure, but not from its balance sheet
By Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 11, 2010; A12


Standing outside BP's Houston offices Thursday, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar said that the company's "life is very much on the line here."
BP's financial wounds from April 20 drilling-rig explosion might be serious, but they probably won't be fatal. One analyst report, issued by Citigroup, even declared in its title, "Reaction to the Gulf of Mexico oil leak is a buying opportunity."
Even though most investors have soured on BP, driving down its stock price by 19 percent and wiping out $36.7 billion of its market value since the explosion, the business remains a behemoth. The company has a market value of $152.6 billion, bolstered by a global marketing network, a lucrative oil venture in Russia, a promising contract to boost production in a giant Iraqi field and scores of other large interests. It remains the largest oil producer in the Gulf of Mexico. Measured by revenue or assets, it is among the world's five largest companies.
Citigroup analysts said stockholders' reactions seem "disproportionate to the likely costs to the company." It noted that punitive damages against Exxon for the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil-tanker spill were originally set at $5 billion in 1994 but were reduced on appeal. The company agreed last year to pay less than $1 billion, including interest.
For now, at least, BP's prodigious costs combating the oil spill in the Gulf are outweighed by prodigious profits.
On Monday, BP said it spent $350 million in the first 20 days of the spill response, about $17.5 million a day. It has paid 295 of the 4,700 claims received, for a total of $3.5 million. By contrast, in the first quarter of the year, the London-based oil giant's profits averaged $93 million a day.
The amount of oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico has been estimated at 5,000 to 25,000 barrels a day. In the first quarter, BP produced 2.5 million barrels of crude oil a day worldwide -- and it received $71.86 for every barrel.
BP has strong borrowing capacity, too. Analysts say it could get as much as $20 billion without exceeding its debt targets. "Even a pretty large digging into the pockets would be within our capacity to handle," said Andrew Gowers, a BP spokesman.
The company does, however, have large needs -- with a $20 billion capital spending plan for this year and $8.4 billion needed for acquisitions, mainly of assets from Devon Energy.
Now, cleanup costs must be added. Relief wells being drilled to intercept the damaged one could cost more than $100 million each. Scores of lawsuits have been filed. Legislation passed in 1990 after the Exxon Valdez accident makes BP and its partners responsible for cleanup costs and up to $75 million in damages.
BP officials said Monday that they expect to exceed that. "A $75 million liability is not where our head is at this moment," said David Nagel, an executive vice president.
On Friday, Standard & Poor's affirmed BP's credit rating but revised its outlook to "Negative" from "Stable." "Provided BP can stem the well and clean the spill within a reasonable time, the company has adequate liquidity and financial headroom to meet immediate costs," said a report by S&P credit analyst Simon Redmond. "However, it is still too early to estimate with any degree of confidence the full future impact on BP from the spill."
BP will survive, analysts say, but damage caused by the rig disaster that killed 11 workers was still huge. Fadel Gheit, an oil analyst at Oppenheimer, said the accident was "a major disaster with catastrophic implications not only for the companies involved, but also for the offshore oil industry and the economies of the Gulf Coast."