Banks' Favorite Dem Set To Chair Banking Committee

[Amerigo Vespucci]

Source: The Huffington Post

If Senator Tim Johnson ascends to the chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee, the biggest winners will be Wall Street, pay-day lenders and credit card companies. The biggest losers: widows and orphans.

No, really.

In late 2006, the South Dakotan spoke out against an effort by his fellow Democrats to cap the interest rates that members of the military pay for short-term loans. "This time it's military. Who's to say it isn't going to be widows and orphans or other sympathetic groups in the future?" he griped in an interview with the American Banker.

That's the man who's next in line to lead the Banking Committee if the current chair, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), as expected, vacates the position to take the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chair left empty by the death of Ted Kennedy.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/01/banks-favorite-dem-set-to_n_273237.html

---

[Autumn]

1. I'm impressed.

Not really. What an asshole he is.

[strategery blunder]

2. Ugh. Someone else, PLEASE.

Senator John Kerry? I can dream, can't I? Otherwise you may as well hand that chairmanship straight to the Republicans; they would do less harm chairing that committee than this credit card whore. :evilfrown:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

3. Another Red Dog chairman from a tiny populous.

The plan is working perfectly.

[No Elephants]

4. Great. Let's make sure the Purple Wolves get important chairs. We want to make

sure they always have the funds to get re-elected again and again and again, forever and ever, amen.

Thanks, Harry (and those who elected him).

[fascisthunter]

5. another corporate whore

[BonnieJW]

6. Who decides who will chair which committee?

Harry Ried?

[marmar]

7. Harry Reid's corporate puppetmasters.

n/t

[laughingliberal]

8. Yep

My inept Senator. I'll be writing him today

[onenote]

9. The Democratic Caucus

which typically follows the lead of the Democratic Steering and Outreach Committee. The DSOC's members include:


Sen. Debbie Stabenow (Chair)
Sen. Harry Reid
Sen. John F. Kerry
Sen. Daniel Inouye
Sen. Robert C. Byrd
Sen. Jay Rockefeller
Sen. Patrick J. Leahy
Sen. Christopher Dodd
Sen. Tom Harkin
Sen. Max Baucus
Sen. Richard Durbin
Sen. Kent Conrad
Sen. Carl Levin
Sen. Herbert Kohl
Sen. Barbara Boxer
Sen. Jeff Bingaman
Sen. Mark Pryor

Teddy was also a member. Have not heard if/when he will be replaced

[rollingrock]

10. Senators from tiny red states control the congress

Why does each state get two senators, regardless of their population?
What a terrible idea and totally undemocratic.

[Jansen]

11. Seriously?

1000+ posts on DU and you don't know? Words fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate

[rollingrock]

13. I'm asking what the reasoning is for it

can you provide an intelligent answer to the question?

it's a very undemocratic way of doing things. a state with less than a million people shouldn't get the same number of votes as a state with 10 or 20 million people.

[SpartanDem]

12. Becuase big states get population based represetation in the House

you might want to open a history book every now and then.

[rollingrock]

14. History books do not explain the reasoning for it

and neither are you

[Jansen]

15. By what logic?

The house is based on population. States with large population centers have more representatives than states with very little population. The electoral college votes are doled out to the states based on population and roughly reflect the number of seats in congress each state claims. Ideally the house reflects the will of the people.

The senate is 2 seats per state. 100 senators + the vice president who serves as the president of the senate and votes in cases requiring a 101st vote for breaking ties. As I understand it, this was intended to serve as the counterbalance to the house in that small states aren't automatically steamrolled by big states.

The senate should only be half the picture. IMO, the real problem is not the number of senators per state, but when the elected Democrats are serving corporations and not their constituency.

[SpartanDem]

16. Actually they do

The Connecticut Compromise, also known as the Great Compromise, was an agreement between large and small states reached during the Philadelphia Convention of 1787 that in part defined the legislative structure and representation that each state would have under the United States Constitution. It proposed a bicameral legislature, resulting in the current United States Senate and House of Representatives.

On May 29, 1787, Edmund Randolph of the Virginia delegation proposed the creation of a bicameral legislature. Membership in the lower house was to be allocated in proportion to state population, and candidates were to be nominated and elected by the people of each state. Membership in the upper house was to be allocated in the same way, but candidates were to be nominated by the state legislatures and elected by the members of the lower house. This proposal was known as the Virginia Plan.

Less populous states like Delaware were afraid that such an arrangement would result in their voices and interests being drowned out by the larger states. Many delegates also felt that the Convention did not have the authority to completely scrap the Articles of Confederation<1>, as the Virginia Plan would have<2>. In response, on June 15, 1787, William Paterson of the New Jersey delegation proposed a legislature consisting of a single house. Each state was to have equal representation in this body, regardless of population. The New Jersey Plan, as it was called, would have left the Articles of Confederation in place, but would have amended them to somewhat increase Congress' powers.<3>

On July 16, 1787, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, both of the Connecticut delegation, forged a compromise for a bicameral, or two-part, legislature consisting of a lower and upper house.

In favor of the larger states, membership in the lower house, as in the Virginia Plan, was to be allocated in proportion to state population and candidates were to be nominated and elected by the people of each state. A census of all inhabitants of the United States was to be taken every 10 years. Also all bills for raising taxes, spending or appropriating money, and setting the salaries of Federal officers were to originate in the lower house and be unamendable by the upper house. In exchange, membership in the upper house, however, was more similar to the New Jersey Plan and was to be allocated two seats to each state, regardless of size, with members being chosen by the state legislatures.<4> Members of the Upper House, or Senators, were elected by the State Legislature until the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment, which called for the direct election of Senators by the people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut_Compromise


This is like fifth grade social studies info

[rollingrock]

18. Terms like 'bicameral legislature' are not taught to 5th graders

LMAO.

again, you fail to answer the question.

[Jansen]

19. The question answered:

I believe you've received a response to your original question:

"Why does each state get two senators, regardless of their population?"

Seems like you've gotten an answer.. so - you don't understand or you disagree with the reasoning?

[rollingrock]

17. Reid, Baucus, johnson, etc.

Notice how the most powerful committees in the Senate are almost always exclusively chaired by senators from tiny red states?

-----------------
* The Senate Appropriations Committee, another very powerful committee: the last three chairmen were from WEST VIRGINIA, MISSISSIPPI, and ALASKA.

* Reid from Nevada, population 2 million people, and is Majority Leader of the Senate

* Max Baucus, from Montana population <1 million, is Chairman of the most powerful committee in the Senate, the Seante finance committee.

* Tim Johnson, senator from South Dakota, population 800,000, set to chair the powerful banking committee.

[Zorra]

20. Will Harry Reid suddenly develop vertebrae and choose to appoint someone

with a more objective perspective on the banking industry than Johnson?

When pigs fly, maybe.