Senate votes are a tricky thing. They don't always mean what they look like they mean-- and, at times, they are meant to be deceptive for the casual viewer. The final vote on the CRomnibus-- which funds the government and regulates derivatives trading for the Wall Street banks and allows millionaires to take further control of the political parties (and, among other things, further reduces Pell Grants)-- shows it was agreed to 56-40. Democratic senators who wanted to both please their Wall Street financiers and to still appear to be taking the side of their own constituents were able to vote against the legislation. That's because by 10PM when the vote was taken, the decision was already set in stone. As we explained yesterday, a vote less than an hour earlier seemed like "just" a procedural one, but it's passage-- shutting off the debate and allowing the CRombinus to move for an up-or-down vote, decided the matter. Democrats who were serious about killing it voted against cloture-- and there were only six who did:
• Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)• Al Franken (D-MN)• Sherrod Brown (D-OH)• Bernie Sanders (I-VT)• Claire McCaskill (D-MO)• Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Yes, all six of them voted against the legislation when it didn't matter, but they also voted against shutting off debate-- which is when it did matter and it wasn't just a symbolic gesture. Let's take the two very corporate Democratic senators from New Jersey, Robert Menendez and Cory Booker. Look at that nice speech up top Booker made about why he opposes the give-away to banksters. And they both voted against the final legislation. When when it came to cloture, when they were needed to stop the legislation, both voted against the senators like Warren who actually were serious about stopping it. It's worth noting that in the last cycle, Booker was the #1 most favored candidate for Senate by the Financial Sector. They gave him $4,093,749. By way of comparison, their #2 most favored senator, Mitch McConnell, who guards their interests like no one else, and was in a fight for his life, was only given $3,639,493. Every single senator who was given over a million dollars by the financial sector in the 2014 cycle, voted to shut down debate and, in effect, give the banksters their deregulation. And that includes the ones who voted "against" it in the final count like Ed Markey (D-$2,385,102), Tim Scott (R-$1,276,584), and Rob Portman (R-$1,157,479). As for Menendez, he wasn't up for reelection in 2014 but his friendship for the bankster community is storied and over the course of his political career the Financial Sector has given him $7,132,21, almost as much as the $7,386,070 they've given phony-liberal Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) who is always desperate to appear progressive while supporting Big Business and Wall Street-- as she did Saturday night, voting for cloture and against the final legislation.We expect that of someone like Gillbrand. But not from Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Merkley is genuinely one of the best senators for working families... period. Within minutes of the votes he released this statement:
"Tonight the Senate voted on final passage of the 2015 spending bill. While there are many positive aspects of the bill, I voted 'no' because of my deep opposition to a provision that puts the Wall Street Casino back in business."This provision allows big Wall Street banks to get back in the business of making risky and exotic bets with government backing. These bets have no place inside a bank, putting our financial system at risk. And they certainly don’t merit government backing."Just six years ago, these types of bets melted down our entire economy with great losses in jobs and savings for middle-class Americans. We must not allow this to happen again. We can and must do better."
But he didn't really vote 'no,' at least not when it would have mattered and could have stopped the Wall Street deregulation he opposes. His statement didn't address the cloture vote and, when asked, his spokesman had no comment on it.Back to Booker for a second. He and Connecticut's liberal senator Richard Blumenthal had made a big fuss about another reason to oppose the CRomnibus a few days earlier, sending a letter to Harry Reid freaking out over a rollback in truck safety regulations that conservatives had snuck into the bill. "We are extremely disappointed that despite our grave concerns, this matter is moving forward through the appropriations process, rather than with extensive study and debate,” the y wrote. "This issue is far too important to have been altered outside of the committee of jurisdiction and without debate by the Senate. The current hours of service rules governing rest requirements for truck drivers are based on years of study and sound scientific research in addition to a review of public comments. They should remain firmly in place. In 2012 large trucks were involved in 3,700 accidents with close to 4,000 fatalities and 104,000 injuries. With so many crashes, we should be examining further limitations on hours of service, not suspending the rules currently in place. At the very least, hours of service requirements should not be suspended during further study, but rather maintained until evidence illustrates a change would not pose a threat to public safety." And like Booker, Blumenthal voted against the final legislation-- after he helped guarantee it would pass by voting for cloture just minutes earlier.Ironic that working families had a faster friend in generally conservative West Virginia Democrat Joe Manchin than in generally steadfast progressives like Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA). The next big Senate battle against the encroachments of Wall Street will be fought over the nomination of Antonio Weiss as a Treasury Under Secretary. Utah Republican Orrin Hatch, incoming head of the Senate Finance Committee, is determined to help Obama get Weiss confirmed. The tattered liberals who let Elizabeth Warren down on Saturday are lining up against the nomination. Here's a statement from Tammy Baldwin: "I do not believe Mr. Weiss is the right nominee to push for strong oversight of Wall Street and protect the interests of Main Street as Under Secretary for Domestic Finance. Based on his record and qualifications as a Wall Street investment banker I don’t have confidence that he will work to even the playing field for middle class families and small businesses who need a fair shot to get ahead. With Wall Street lobbyists and Republicans working harder than ever to gut the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, working families need public servants who are committed to remembering the hard lessons of the financial crisis. In addition, Wisconsin’s small businesses and homebuyers-- as well as the community banks and credit unions that serve them-- need a stronger voice in financial policymaking to provide services that work for Main Street, not Wall Street. Regrettably, I do not believe Mr. Weiss is the right choice for this position and I will oppose his nomination."And maybe she will. I'll count on Joe Manchin to stand with Warren on this one though. This was his statement on Thursday:
I represent and serve the great state of West Virginia, a rural state where we believe in common sense solutions and values. In the Mountain State, we understand the importance of leveling the playing field for community institutions and helping small businesses create and keep jobs. As the Senator from West Virginia, I was sent here to represent the people of Main Street.For those reasons, I rise today to explain why I must oppose the nomination of Wall Street investment banker, Antonio Weiss, for Under Secretary for Domestic Finance at the Department of Treasury.I cannot and will not support his nomination because I do not believe he possesses the characteristics and the background we need in an Under Secretary to push for strong Wall Street oversight and to protect our small businesses and financial institutions on Main Streets across America.The position to which Mr. Weiss has been nominated is one that would put him at the head of the Treasury’s decision-making on issues of domestic finance, fiscal policy, government liabilities, and other related domestic matters. He would oversee critical issues such as Wall Street reform, financing the national debt, housing finance reform, and small business credit.I have serious doubts that Mr. Weiss has the right experience to take on such a role. It is clear that as Global Head of Investment Banking at Lazard, Mr. Weiss is very talented and experienced in working in financial markets and economic institutions.But as an investment banker on Wall Street he does not have the experience for this particular oversight position.He has dealt almost entirely with European investment banking matters, not domestic finance, community banking, or regulatory issues of any kind, all of which falls under the jurisdiction of this important position.And besides not having the right background for the job, the fact that Mr. Weiss is a top corporate dealmaker with a specialization in international finances is in and of itself troubling.He has spent a good deal of his professional career working on mergers and acquisitions for the world’s largest corporations and he has spent time in Paris running the firm’s European division.This fits the Administration’s pattern of choosing Wall Street insiders to senior policy positions instead of those with strong consumer protection or community bank and credit union experience. Plainly spoken, people that have worked on Main Street.To make matters worse, the substantial compensation Lazard plans to offer Mr. Weiss upon his confirmation is another reason to be skeptical. The financial giant is planning to pay him $20 million if he were to win confirmation.This kind of an arrangement and human nature suggests he will be especially sympathetic to Lazard’s lobbying efforts. Public service is a noble cause, and a $20 million golden parachute makes it very hard to gain the public trust.With that being said, I do not believe Mr. Weiss can fulfill the duties of Undersecretary at the Treasury Department.Since joining the Senate Banking Committee, I have tried to make our banking and financial system work better for small businesses, banks and middle class West Virginians and Americans, and I will continue to so do. That’s why I cannot support this nomination.
And for those who keep track of this sort of thing, here's the full list of Democratic senators who voted against the CRomnibus after they made sure it would pass:
• Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)• Cory Booker (D-NJ)• Barbara Boxer (D-CA)• Maria Cantwell (D-WA)• Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)• Tom Harkin (D-IA)• Mazie Hirono (D-HI)• Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)• Carl Levin (D-MI)• Ed Markey (D-MA)• Robert Menendez (D-NJ)• Jeff Merkley (D-OR)• Jack Reed (R-RI)• Jon Tester (D-MT)• Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)• Ron Wyden (D-OR)
Their liberal credentials are not in order. When do progressives actually stand and fight-- like for real... and not for Wall Street but for the working families they purport to represent in Washington?And to Democratic leaders in the Senate...
