Skip navigation

Category Archives: Dirty side of Politics

So we can see with clarity that Mitch McConnell is useless and not a legislator, he is without a doubt a self serving politician whose legacy will be remembered in the harshest terms. He is the true definition of a :Snollygoster”.MA
08/02/17 11:28 AM

By Steve Benen
The last major overhaul of the federal tax code was in 1986. It was the result of a multi-year effort, which was largely bipartisan. That’s not to say it was easy – the process was excruciating at times – but the Democratic House and Republican Senate eventually reached an agreement, which the Reagan White House accepted.
With this in mind, the Senate Democratic minority acknowledged yesterday that another tax-reform push is poised to get underway, and they released a letter presenting some benchmarks, including a package that doesn’t cut taxes for the top 1% and doesn’t increase the deficit.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) didn’t exactly welcome the Democratic recommendations. Politico reported:
Senate Republicans are sticking to their plans to pass a tax bill with 50 Republican votes, despite Democratic pleas not to be sidelined as they were on health care.
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell on Tuesday reaffirmed the GOP’s long-standing intention to shield any tax overhaul from a likely Democratic filibuster by using the procedural protections of budget reconciliation.
The GOP leader pointed to the Democrats’ letter as a justification to exclude Democrats from the process. Politico’s report added that, as far as McConnell is concerned, Dems are “not interested in addressing” Republican priorities.
McConnell added, “I don’t think this is going to be 1986” – which is true, because apparently he doesn’t want it to be like 1986.

It’s worth emphasizing that House Republican leaders have, at least in recent months, suggested they don’t want to use the reconciliation process, because they want permanent changes to the tax code, and reconciliation opens the door to temporary changes (such as the Bush/Cheney tax cuts approved in 2001).
In other words, this will be something GOP leaders will have to figure out among themselves while working on the legislative blueprint.
Either way, however, Democrats seem prepared to play a role in the process, and Mitch McConnell appears to have a different plan in mind. It’s an inauspicious beginning to the broader tax-reform push.
The MaddowBlog, Economy, Mitch McConnell, Tax Policy, Tax Reform and Taxes

Please Donate

Apparently there is no honor among the “alt-Right” especially if a member of  their ruling party is a person of integrity and not a blind follower. No matter that Mr. McCain is a loyal party member for all of the right reasons, his loss will harm us all as we have too few “statesmen” left in the Congress. MA

Alexander Nazaryan

Newsweek 15 hours ago

Most Americans met Wednesday night’s news that Arizona Senator John McCain was facing a dire diagnosis of brain cancer with shows of respect for the elder statesman and former prisoner of war. But to some on the extreme right, the longtime Republican is a traitor worthy of scorn, presumably because of his willingness to work with Democrats, as well as his criticism of President Donald Trump.
The attack on McCain–a war hero who spent more than five years in a North Vietnamese prison—is faintly reminiscent of the early days of Trump’s presidential campaign. During a family values summit in Iowa in the summer of 2015, just a month after he’d announced his seemingly quixotic bid for the White House, Trump lashed out at McCain: “He’s not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured.”
At the time, Trump was angry because McCain had complained that Trump “fired up the crazies” during an anti-immigration rally in Phoenix.
Trending: Paul Manafort Under Investigation by Robert Mueller Over Possible Money Laundering
Trump has in no way endorsed or encouraged the alt-right’s attacks on McCain, which have thus far been limited to the fringes of digital discourse. Trump sent a statement of support for McCain on Wednesday. “Senator John McCain has always been a fighter. Melania and I send our thoughts and prayers to Senator McCain, Cindy, and their entire family. Get well soon,” that statement said.
The attacks came regardless.
“The last president for McCain will be Trump. There’s some godly justice right there,” wrote one user on the “Politically Incorrect” message board of social media network 4chan, a hothouse of right-wing memes.
“I’m pretty sure that God is punishing him,” wrote another 4chan user. “God made it pretty clear that he supports New Right now.”
Don’t miss: How to Remove a President: What Nixon Might Tell Us About Trump’s White House
“John McCain = a war mongering, never Trumper whom I dislike,” wrote a user on Gab, another social media network popular with the alt-right.
The attacks, for the most part, focused on McCain’s willingness to work with Democrats during his three decades in the Senate. Those attacks, some of which are too tasteless to mention here, speak to the utter debasement of civic discourse, particularly on the internet.

Please Donate

It is unfortunate that our Neer do well Congress is intent on hurting the people they purport to represent, the long noses are insisting that they are doing good work for us. I offer that we let them know that we are not as dumb as they would assume we are. MA

The Plum Line | Opinion
The dumbest criticism of single payer health care
By Paul Waldman
July 6, 2017 at 12:59 PM

Democratic politicians are rapidly embracing single payer health care, and as they do, they’re being met with an utterly bogus criticism. Unfortunately, it’s coming not only from Republicans but also from misinformed members of the media.
So before this goes any farther, we need to get a few things straight.
To see how this is happening, take a look at a recent exchange between some CNN personalities and Randy Bryce, the mustachioed ironworker challenging Paul Ryan in Wisconsin, as reported by the Post’s David Weigel. Bryce favors single payer, and has said he supports a plan that Rep. John Conyers has been offering in Congress for years:
This week, Bryce beamed into CNN to keep up the momentum — and ran straight into a question about whether he, like a growing number of Democrats, supports European-style universal health care.
“You want to raise $32 trillion in taxes?” asked CNN’s John Berman.
“There’s a lot of people not paying their fair share in taxes,” Bryce said. “There’s corporations getting away with a lot.”
“That would be quite a tax hike,” said CNN’s Poppy Harlow. “That’s an astonishing number, $32 trillion over a decade.”
Ugh. We saw a similar discussion in 2016 around Bernie Sanders’ single payer plan, and while I had numerous criticisms of that plan, this is the single dumbest response to single payer that you could possibly come up with. We shouldn’t be surprised to hear it from Republicans — if there’s an enormous number they can toss around while screaming “Democrats are gonna raise your taxes by a zillion percent!” they’ll do it. But no self-respecting journalist should fall into the trap of repeating something so inane.

There is simply no critique you can make of single payer health care that is more wrong than “It’ll be too expensive.” That is 180 degrees backwards. Single payer is many things, but above all it is cheap. And what we have now is the most expensive system in the world, by a mile.
If we were to institute some kind of single payer system, what we’d be doing when it comes to money is changing how we pay for health care. But when you say, “Hoo boy, it would mean trillions in new taxes!”, you’re acting as though we’d be paying all those taxes on top of what we’re already paying. But of course we wouldn’t.
Let’s look at what we’re paying now. In 2016, we spent $3.4 trillion on health care. That spending is projected to rise an average of 5.6 percent per year over the next decade. If you do the math, that means that between 2018 and 2027 we’ll spend $49 trillion on health care in America. That’s the current system.
That $32 trillion number the CNN folks are tossing around comes from an analysis of the Conyers bill, which is basically a placeholder — it’s only 30 pages long, which for bill texts is like an executive summary of an executive summary. If we get to single payer, the Conyers bill won’t be it. Nevertheless, Republicans have seized on the $32 trillion number to scare people into thinking that Democrats want to raise their taxes some insane amount (“When you look at the majority of House Democrats, they support a single-payer, $32 trillion bill backed by Bernie Sanders,” says Sean Spicer). But if we’re going to spend $49 trillion under the current system, and single payer would cost $32 trillion, doesn’t that mean we’d be saving $17 trillion? Congrats on all the money you’d be getting back!
It wouldn’t work out that way precisely, of course. But the point is, if we were to shift to a single payer system we’d be changing how we pay for health care, not just paying more. Right now if you’re like most working-age Americans, you pay thousands of dollars every year to insurance companies. If we switch to a primarily government-funded plan, you’d pay for it with taxes, but you’d be relieved of what you now pay to insurers.
But Republicans would like you to believe that any cost of single payer would be on top of what you already pay, which is completely false. Now here’s the truth: Republicans don’t object to single payer because it’s expensive, because compared to what we have now, it isn’t. Their objection is philosophical: they don’t think it’s government’s role or obligation to provide health insurance.
We should have a robust debate about whether it is or not. But Republicans don’t really want to have that debate, because the last few months have proven something that chills them to the marrow of their bones: Americans like government health coverage. Medicare is spectacularly popular, and it turns out Medicaid is popular, too. Most people have no problem going on a government health plan, if it provides good benefits. They don’t think that being kicked off Medicaid makes people “free.” They aren’t hoping for some glorious Randian future where the noble rich get health coverage and the weak and sick are left to their own devices. That may be Paul Ryan’s fantasy, but for most people, it’s a nightmare.
There are two more points I’d like to make about single payer as a policy and political matter. The first is that “single payer” is not well defined, and people use it to refer to a range of very different health systems. In a pure form, it would mean that the government pays for all health care and there are no private insurers; Great Britain’s system is the one that comes closest. But there are very successful systems that achieve universal coverage and have a role for private insurers, whether they’re hybrid systems built on a basic government plan that covers everyone but that also include private supplemental insurance (as in France), or systems built on private but tightly regulated plans from which everyone chooses (as in Germany).
As Democrats start advocating more strongly for single payer, they need to think seriously about which of these systems they favor and how to get from where we are now to there. I’d prefer a hybrid system built on an expanded Medicaid, but there are arguments to be made for each of them. Any Democrat who says “I’m for single payer” should be prepared to answer the follow-up question, “What kind?”
Second, Republicans are going to try very hard to scare Democrats into retreating into a milquetoasty vagueness on this issue, particularly in 2018. Right now Democrats are debating among themselves about whether it’s more important to just be anti-Trump or to have a clear and identifiable agenda voters can understand. The answer is: Yes! Being anti-Trump is incredibly important, particularly to 2018, since success in midterm elections comes from turning out your base. But those base voters also need to know that Democrats know what they want to do the next time they have the power to enact their own policies, and voters in the middle need a sense of what their agenda is.
The nice thing about single payer is that unlike previous Democratic health care reforms, it’s not that hard to explain. But if they’re going to get the chance, they’ll have to bat away some bogus attacks from Republicans — and, sadly, from the news media too.

Please Donate

The Governor is a microcosm of the Trump administration except Ruiner appears to be a bit less “Tweet” prone. It seems that the GOP is destined to disrupt Democracy as we currently know it and as it was originally framed. History has proven time after time that in general the GOP has appeared more anti American people than the Dems no matter what they try to assert as a party for the people (not of the people). Neither group is doing their best work but this a classic case of the lesser of two evils. MA

Associated Press

July 10, 2017

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) — The state’s Democratic treasurer issued Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner an unsolicited to-do list for staving off fiscal failure Monday, directing the Republican to get behind the state’s first budget in two years and “dial down the rhetoric.”
Treasurer Michael Frerichs, at times sounding like a boarding-school headmaster, told a Chicago news conference that Rauner must go to New York. There, Frerichs said, the multimillionaire former private equity investor must persuade credit-rating agencies that he’s committed to the $36 billion spending plan that lawmakers enacted last week over his vetoes and to hold off on knocking Illinois’ creditworthiness to “junk” status.
Rauner’s office rejected the call and refused to pledge support for the enacted budget — which ended the nation’s longest state budget standoff since at least the Great Depression — and instead labeled it out of balance and urged lawmakers to continue negotiating. Frerichs said such a response “signals the possibility that the governor will not implement the budget package, thereby inviting downgrade.”
Two major bond houses gave Illinois a reprieve last week after approval of a budget built on $5 billion income tax increase. A third, Moody’s Investors Service, warned that despite the expected infusion of cash, the Prairie State’s $14.7 billion heap of overdue bills and $130 billion deficit in employee pension accounts still invited calamity. Junk status would force the state to pay even higher rates of interest on its debt.
“The governor is a very successful investor. As such, he understands the danger of junk bond status,” Frerichs said. “I also believe that he has never navigated the hallways of government, because he has never served in government; he made his fortune taking significant risks, but always with the ability to walk away.
“The nuance of legislating and budgeting was, is and remains foreign to him,” the first-term treasurer said. “We need to embrace pragmatism. The governor has yet to do that.”
Frerichs was pointedly partisan but his remarks lacked the malice that continues to pervade the Capitol. Rauner has named the income-tax increase, a 32 percent jump in the personal tax rate, for his nemesis, Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan of Chicago. In retaliatory fashion, when addressing the past-due bill pile which has tripled in 2 ½ years, Democratic Comptroller Susana Mendoza references the “Rauner Backlog.”
“Dial down the rhetoric,” Frerichs said. ” … Such vitriol is not productive.”
Rauner was having none of it Monday.
“Madigan’s 32 percent permanent tax increase will not solve the problems created by decades of unbalanced budgets, unfunded pension liabilities, borrowing and high debt,” spokeswoman Eleni Demertzis said in a statement. “Even with the tax increase, this budget remains $2 billion out of balance.”
Rauner announced an office shakeup Monday. He named 34-year-old Kristina Rasmussen chief of staff. Rasmussen was president and CEO of the conservative Illinois Policy Institute, to which Rauner is a major contributor. She replaces 33-year-old Richard Goldberg, who leaves the $180,000 post to return to private-sector consulting.
Other Frerichs prescriptions for Rauner include taking advantage of budget-law authority to borrow $6 billion. The interest rate would be at a premium, but far less than the 12 percent annual late-payment interest attached to the overdue bills
And he wants Rauner to make clear his intentions on an education-funding overhaul the Legislature overwhelmingly endorsed in May. The budget requires that no general state aid go to schools unless it’s through the legislation’s newly crafted formula to get more money to poorer schools with fewer resources. Rauner promises a veto, saying it’s too generous to cash-strapped Chicago Public Schools.
Associated Press writer Sophia Tareen contributed from Chicago.
Contact Political Writer John O’Connor at . His work can be found at’connor


Please Donate


WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are touting lower premiums under their health care legislation, but that reflects insurance that would cover a smaller share of the cost of medical bills.
The fine print is getting lost in the translation.
Consumers might pay less up front every month, but if you break a bone or get hospitalized for a serious illness, you could be on the hook for a bigger share of the bill.
Premiums under the Senate bill would average about 30 percent lower in a few years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said in its analysis this week. Overlooked is that the lower premiums envision a switch to “bronze” plans that now come with a $6,000 individual deductible, much higher than the current standard “silver” plan with a $3,600 deductible.
Another caveat: Not everybody would see lower premiums.
Insurers will be able to charge older adults up to five times more, compared with a three-fold difference under current law, the health care overhaul passed under former President Barack Obama.
Also, the GOP would give lower-income people less financial help from the government, which means many might not be able to afford coverage. Lower-income people get less assistance with premiums in the Senate bill and the GOP would also phase out extra help that many receive with deductibles and copayments.
“I think there’s some fine print,” said Cori Uccello of the American Academy of Actuaries, a group representing professionals who make long-range economic estimates on health and pension programs. “Premiums are going down for a couple of reasons: the plans are getting less generous … and the age distribution of people purchasing coverage would be younger.”
The 2010 Affordable Care Act was intended to solve problems of access and affordability for millions of Americans who don’t have job-based insurance. Instead, it’s been a roller-coaster ride, and not only because of entrenched political opposition from Republicans.
Double-digit premium increases have hit many states. While consumers who get federal subsidies are insulated, several million are taking a direct hit: Those who buy individual policies outside the program, or make too much to get financial help. It’s this group that some GOP lawmakers had in mind when they launched their self-proclaimed health care “rescue mission.”
“It will bring affordability to people across this country who are suffering under the curse of high premiums, and high deductibles and high out-of-pocket costs,” Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., said of the Senate GOP bill.
But Uccello and other experts caution that cost problems might just continue, only in a different form.
One longtime “Obamacare” critic says Republicans risk making some of the same mistakes that Democrats did with their original legislation.
Industry consultant and blogger Robert Laszewski says lawmakers should start over and try to design a system along the lines of the Medicare prescription drug benefit, a collaboration between the government and insurers that has solid bipartisan support, even if its cost to taxpayers is a problem.
“The way to fix insurance markets is to get a much higher sign-up rate and the Republicans are going in the opposite direction,” said Laszewski.
Republicans “are not bringing costs down — they are only bringing the front-end premium down,” added Laszewski. Healthy people looking at a plan with a $6,000 deductible might just decide to roll the dice and remain uninsured.
The Congressional Budget Office says insurance markets will be stable in most areas under current law or the Republican legislation. But trade-offs lurk beneath that 30,000-foot level assessment.
What’s gotten most attention is the CBO’s projection that at least 22 million fewer Americans would have health insurance under either Republican bill, the one that passed the House or the Senate version. A table at the end of this week’s report delves into greater detail, looking at how costs would change for hypothetical individuals at different income levels in 2026.
Math alert: This example involves a few numbers.
Take a hypothetical 40-year-old making a modest $26,500 a year. Under current law, that person would face a sticker price of $6,500 a year for a standard “silver” plan. Premium subsidies would reduce the net premium to $1,700. Because of extra subsidies for deductibles and copayments, the plan would cover 87 percent of expected medical costs.
Under the Senate bill, the 40-year-old would see the sticker price silver plan premium drop to $6,400. But their premium subsidies would be significantly lower, and they’d end up paying $3,000. Caveat: It wouldn’t be the exact same plan, because extra subsidies now provided for deductibles and copayments would be gone. The new plan would only cover 70 percent of expected medical costs.
What’s the option?
The consumer could switch to a “bronze” plan, the new standard under the GOP bill. The sticker price would be $5,000, and after subsidies, the net premium would be $1,600. But the plan would only cover 58 percent of expected medical costs.
Some Republicans recognize they have more work to do.
“We’ve got to be able to help people with these very high expenses,” Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., said Wednesday. Maybe the standard plan should be more generous, he suggested. Or maybe older adults should get a break.
Associated Press writers Josh Boak and Erica Werner contributed to this report

Please Donate


Arthur A. “Art” Fletcher was an American government official, widely referred to as the “father of affirmative action “… As head of the United Negro College Fund, Fletcher coined the famous slogan, “A mind is a terrible thing to waste.” . This quote was taken over by President Nixon as his own creation with no credit to Mr. Fletcher. Now we see a similar minded POTUS taking credit for Jobs and the economy which are the result of his predecessors administration . It take months to assess the effects of policies that affect job and economic growth or lack of. It is unfortunate that talking a good show is not the same as producing one. The Job  of President is not to be adored but to move the country ahead in ways that offer security and well being for ALL!  Where we are at this point is our TOTUS is busily looking for ways to be applauded instead of looking for ways to implement the better parts of his plans(?). His cabinet is more like “his” friends rather than making choices that improve the nation and benefit the people who elected him. His cabinet reads more like a who’s who of antigovernment (thereby anti citizen) possibly fringe members of business and government. It seems to be that he was looking for anyone who is or was anti Obama but not pro-American citizen. We are looking  at a possibility of  the rollback of many laws that affect all of us including his base. He still enjoys pockets of staunch supporters who overlook hos rhetoric and actions without realizing that what he does has an effect on everyone. The rash tweet storms, the meetings with selected press coverage and the grand flourishes of signing executive orders repealing previous executive orders with no thought of the long range effects on all of us. All of us (AMERICANS) have a stake in the good or poor decisions made by our Congress and the White House. It is important  that we all pay attention to our elected officials as the current administration has shown that they are not on our side but more on our backs.


Please Donate

The Damnation of America is in the hands of the Majority party and a small minded despot. It is of no import that Washington is broken but what is important are your personal beliefs and politics if they are based in facts. Neither major party can be perfect for anyone but the key to understanding is to look closely at the individual members and their personal agendas. The key people are the reason for nothing being accomplished during the Obama years. The Majority party pushed the agenda of Obamacare being bad but it is only bad due to the legislators not doing their jobs instead of obstructing progress. Many of us have benefitted from The ACA (aka Obamacare) yet the Congress is busily touting repealing and replacing but with a law that takes, limits and eliminates benefits. All the while many have jumped on this bandwagon without realizing it has faulty wheels. Just today I read that one less than illustrious member of Congress who earns 174,000.00 annually wants 30,000 more as a housing allowance. This is just one of many whose health benefits may not be changed by this new Health care bill. If as a voter you are not disturbed then it is possible that you have not kept up with the daily news output from almost everywhere. If you are a devotee of Fox (FAUX) news then you are definitely under or uninformed. This is one of many ways the political world is coercing support with bogus information. It is time to get woke!

The current hearings on Russian interference, omissions and misdirected Governance have grabbed the headlines for too long. In the background of all of this are the real issues where our majority party is trying to strip any rational programs that benefit the oft quoted (without permission) “American People”. The ACA which only required the correct actions of tweaking it (as Legislators should have done) is in danger of being replaced or ruined by the less than candid people we elected to serve(?). The way it should be or at inception was supposed to be, legislators were (are) supposed to represent the people who elected them not themselves. The personal agenda of a representative is not why they are elected (or is it?). What has happened over the years is the manipulation of information that inflames the public to win an election and blame other people for any adversities. We now have a sitting President whose incompetence in the office is being used to stretch the American people over a barrel and hoping we will like it. These are tactics that have been used before and too many of us accepted it because we thought (or were told) that we could do nothing about it. If you are a registered voter you need to vote based on facts, not opinion. If you are not a registered voter, you need to register no matter what your political persuasion maybe. In this age of information it is difficult to determine what is correct and what is not however if you look at several  sources of information you will find the truth among them and become an informed voter. Keep in mind that modern politics is like a popularity contest with the biggest LIE being the contestants. Get informed and the lies do not look the same. Lets not do what our politicians do, that is “blame someone else”

Please Donate

My Comment: In America free speech is protected so our Elected Officials are free to say almost anything since the advent of Donald Trump’s Presidency. “Telling it like it is” has been the rallying cry for this Presidency along with the rise of seemingly Administration sanctioned Racism and bias. The  majority  party is using the out of touch Presidency to work it’s own agenda for its own gain , not it’s constituency. The article below states what many Americans and possibly politicians feel about this and administration’s actions and lack of action by the majority party. MA

Julia Munslow
Yahoo News June 9,2017

Former South Carolina Rep. Bob Inglis fired off a series of tweets Friday challenging a claim by House Speaker Paul Ryan that Republicans wouldn’t try to impeach a Democratic president accused of the same actions as President Trump.
Inglis, who served on the House judiciary committee that impeached former President Bill Clinton, wrote to Ryan: “You know that you would be inquiring into impeachment if this were a D.”

Inglis told Yahoo News on Friday that he hoped that Ryan and his party would put country over party and take the investigation seriously.
“We just need to be honest and … call it like it is,” Inglis said, describing the allegations against Trump far more serious than those against Nixon or Clinton. “It’s beyond a break-in at the Watergate. It’s beyond sex with a White House intern. It is the substance matter is really serious. … This investigation deals with the interference of an American election by a hostile foreign power.”
Inglis’ tweets followed former FBI chief James Comey’s testimony Thursday that included a number of explosive allegations, including that Trump fired him because of his agency’s probe into whether any Trump campaign associates colluded with Russia to influence the 2016 election.
During a press conference, Ryan said after the testimony that Republicans wouldn’t point to impeachment if Comey had been testifying about a Democratic president. Meanwhile, some Democrats have already called for Trump’s impeachment, claiming that Trump obstructed justice.
Ryan, who called Trump’s alleged request for Comey’s loyalty “obviously” inappropriate Wednesday, had told reporters Thursday, “No. I don’t think we would [pursue impeachment], actually. I don’t think that’s at all the case.”
Trump’s lawyer denied that Trump sought to influence any FBI probe and claimed that the president never demanded Comey’s loyalty.
But Clinton was sent to trial in the Senate in 1998 for “matters less serious than the ones before us now,” Inglis tweeted.
Inglis, who had voted in favor of all four articles of impeachment against Clinton, which included allegations of perjury, obstruction of justice and abuse of power, nevertheless said on Twitter that Ryan should focus on the Russia probe rather than “draft articles of impeachment.”
It’s not yet clear whether Trump obstructed justice and should be impeached, Inglis said.
“[The investigation] should sound like very serious lawmakers who are looking into very serious allegations at the heart of our republic. That’s not what I’m hearing yet [from my party],” Inglis told Yahoo News. Inglis now runs, a group that pushes conservative policy solutions to climate change.
Inglis concluded his tweets with a final message to Ryan and the rest of his party: “Put the country first.”

Please Donate

If the banks and insurance companies were more trustworthy there would be no need for Dodd Frank or Volcker. Our Dupublicans do not have the interests of the oft quoted American people in mind when the legislate.MA

WASHINGTON, June 8 (Reuters) – The U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday voted largely along party lines to replace the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform law, a move that is expected to die in the Senate but open the door to revamping or eliminating regulations that came out of the 2007-09 financial crisis.
The bill, called the CHOICE act, was approved by a vote of 233-to-186. Authored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling, a Republican, it gives banks a choice between complying with Dodd-Frank or holding onto more capital.
It also restructures the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created under Dodd-Frank to guard individuals against fraud in lending. Democrats are fiercely opposed to restructuring the CFPB.
The U.S. Senate is not expected to take up the bill in its entirety, even though it has the backing of President Donald Trump, a Republican, largely because of the threat that Democrats will use a filibuster to stall it.
The Congressional Budget Office, a non-partisan evaluator of legislation, estimates the bill would save the federal government $24 billion over a decade, mostly due to the lifting of the government’s authority to step in and unwind failing institutions.
The legislation also rescinds the Volcker rule that limits the type of trading banks can do with their own money and the ability of government regulators to designate non-bank institutions, mainly insurance companies, as “systemically important,” which triggers increased oversight and requirements to hold more capital.
(Reporting by Lisa Lambert and Sarah N. Lynch; Editing by Leslie Adler)

Please Donate

%d bloggers like this: