Big Banks counting on Blanche Lincoln to water down derivatives provisions in Dodd's banking bill

[flpoljunkie]

Excerpt from 'Street Fight'
Obama can get everything he wants on financial reform--if only he gets tough.
Noam Scheiber

For the last several months, the big banks, who make billions of dollars trading derivatives, have tried to arrange it so that these proposals would apply to as few transactions as possible. Their efforts have been somewhat successful—the financial reform bill that passed the House in December featured a reasonably broad exemption to the new regulations (though the industry still has its share of gripes). But the language Dodd moved through his Banking Committee last month is significantly tougher, and the administration has expressed its support.

And, yet, when you talk to industry representatives, they don’t appear overly troubled by the recent turn of events. Most continue to regard the derivatives provision in Dodd’s bill as a placeholder, which will almost certainly be nudged aside by a compromise negotiated by Democrat Blanche Lincoln and Republican Saxby Chambliss. (The two senators run the Agriculture Committee, which shares jurisdiction over derivatives.) As one lawyer involved in the derivatives industry told me last week, “If they try to push the Dodd bill as currently written on derivatives—it can’t fly.”

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/street-fight?page=0,1

[Enthusiast]

1. If they don't regulate derivatives

we might as well just forget reform.

Just as with the HCR bill they have the process rigged to divert blame from a poor excuse for reform.

The only thing transparent about this process is that it is so obviously slanted for the interests of the investor side at the expense of the tax payer.

[flpoljunkie]

2. Scheiber's conclusion: Dems have ability to force Wall Street to move their way--if they use it

The outcome the industry fears most is that Democrats pass a tough bill on an overwhelmingly partisan vote, isolating Republicans as reflexive defenders of Wall Street. “Everyone in the industry, their line is very simple,” says another administration official. “They want a bipartisan bill.”

According to this same official, the administration doesn’t expect to have trouble finding one or two Republican senators to break a filibuster, even for a hawkish bill. “Frankly there’s a category of (Republican) who is fed up with the party on the issue. They’ve told me so privately,” the official says. “They don’t want to be caught on wrong side of it.” Which means Democrats have the ability to force Wall Street to move their way—not just on the consumer agency, but across the board. The only question is whether they use it.

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/street-fight?page=0,2

[Enthusiast]

5. And this is what disturbs me.

That the Democrats could pass up an opportunity to stick it to the anti-regulation opposition. That and the necessity of regulating the crazy stuff they are pulling at our expense.

Honestly, I would like to slap our guys around and make them tighten the reins on regulation. I get the distinct impression the white house does not want to step on any powerful investment toes.

[Grand Taurean]

7. I see nothing wrong with partisan laws.

Partisan laws are regularly passed in countries with parliamentary systems.
That is how democracy works, the MAJORITY sets the agenda.

[Supersedeas]

3. DINO with a RW Agenda

[ChoralScholar]

4. Looks that way, dunnit?

[denimgirly]

6. Quite sad when almost all Dems are really DINOs

They only use republicans as excuses to water down bills so they can continue to do as their corporate puppet masters tell them. It's very difficult to tell the difference between both parties.

[brentspeak]

8. Arkansas voters need to know that Lincoln is working is for Wall St. and against them