[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rZL7Op0YTI]
–The DNC revives the famous McCain line to paint Republicans as irresponsible stewards of Wall Street and push financial regulatory reform.
–Bob Corker’s still optimistic: He expects a “70-vote bill” by Memorial Day.
–But he sounded pretty sour on the bill this morning on MSNBC, calling the notion that it was tough on Wall Street “laughable” and accusing the administration of weakening the resolution title he drafted with Mark Warner. Video:
[vodpod id=Video.3461136&w=425&h=350&fv=]
–Senate Dems plan to keep the $50 billion resolution fund for now. Though Treasury has never been wild about it (the FDIC was its big proponent,) it may be used as a bargaining chip to win Republican support down the road.
–To set the record straight on the resolution fund: Whether or not the financial sector pays to unwind big firms is not at stake. It’s when they pay that’s the issue. The fund would offer some upfront money to dissolve a “too big to fail” institution. Treasury would loan the FDIC money to cover additional costs and then the government levies a fee on the financial sector to recoup whatever they didn’t make back from liquidating assets. It’s either partially pre-funded or totally post-funded by big banks. Both the Dodd and Frank bills are explicitly designed to protect (non-bank) taxpayer dollars, ex ante fund or not. (They both have one.)
–For all the hubbub over resolution, the lobbying scrum has centered around Blanche Lincoln’s derivatives plan. Derivatives and leverage requirements present the biggest potential for major change.
—Noam Scheiber writes the financial sector has lost ground fast and the Goldman suit has put new pressure on Democrats to hold the line. It’s a well reported piece and he offers a taste of how the White House is feeling right now:
But, for the moment, the White House seems happier to make the banks and the GOP squirm. “Probably the way it’s playing out … [we’d] make them vote a bunch of times against [a tough bill], then compromise. You’d still have a strong enough bill, but peel off five to ten votes to get it done.” The idea is to force Republicans to pay a price for their reflexive opposition–“make them actually block it, not just say they’re going to block it”–before you finally throw them a lifeline.
–The White House has been aware of this for some time: Regulating “Wall Street” is more popular than regulating “large banks and major financial institutions.” “Wall Street reform” is to “health insurance reform” as “bank reform” is to “health reform.” Got that?
–Rahm Emanuel departed a bit from the talking points last night when he told Charlie Rose “this regulatory reform is not against Wall Street.” He also unequivocally confirmed those murmurs that he’s interested in being mayor of Chicago.
–Goldman is going to be the main topic at Carl Levin’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations hearings next week. His staff says there’s “another big shoe to drop.”
–For all the symbolic importance and media attention, the SEC’s legal case is fairly muddy.
–In a truly soap-operatic turn, Goldman has lawyered up with recently departed White House Counsel Greg Craig.
—Gasoline on the outrage fire: “Earnings for the Wall Street giant rose 91 percent in the first quarter of 2010, to $3.46 billion.”
–Democrat Chris Van Hollen and Republican Mike Castle plan to introduce a bill in response to the Citizens United v. FEC campaign finance ruling. They say it would keep foreign money out of elections and bring greater transparency to the process.
–And probably the first of many “Crist is isolating himself” stories.
What did I miss?