Thursday, January 15, 2015

Martin Heinrich Joins Republicans To Repeal Wall Street, Big Bank Reforms

Now that those Republicans who are liberal on social issues, I mean, Democrats, are out of power in congress and there's no danger of anything they propose becoming law, they're running around saying we should pass liberal policies like taxing Wall Street and giving Americans paid sick leave. Those two proposals are part of a slate of proposals Democrats are calling their "action plan." The deep irony of that name is described by veteran journalist Dave Lindorff of the media collective This Can't Be Happening.

The cynical Democratic populist blather has George Zornick over at The Nation, the voice of progressive Democrats, doing some hand wringing over whether this means Democrats "heard the message" of the mid term elections and decided to become the party of working people. LOL.

This Can't Be Happening has compiled a list of 13 Democratic senators who sided with Republicans last week to defeat liberal Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warrens' attempt to save the Dodd-Frank regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. Those rather mild reforms addressed some of the more egregious gambling and illegal practices that led to the Wall Street and big bank bailouts. Among the 13 who helped Republicans repeal Dodd-Frank was New Mexico's Martin Heinrich.

That's right. So-called Democrat Martin Heinrich has said to Wall Street and the big banks, Happy Days are Here Again! Gamble all you want with the peoples' money. We'll pick up the tab and send it on the the ignorant working stiffs who vote for us thinking we're actually on their side. LOL. While you're at it cut me a nice check. At the least don't come after me when I run for re-election in 2016.

Watch these 13 to see if they continue to side with Republicans on critical votes when real Democrats try to block Republican bills.


  1. Here is a note I got from Martin Heinrich on his vote. I had asked him about it.

    I can fill you in when we have coffee, but it was not a "Wall Street" vote. It was a vote to treat commodity speculators as inherently risky, and commodity end users as less so.

    As an example, Southwest Airlines needs to be able to reduce their exposure to rapidly changing fuel costs as part of their core business plan, but when speculators (ie people who don't actually use jet fuel) play in that same market they can drive costs up and create unnecessary risk.

    Sent from my iPhone

    1. Fair enough.

      I've been reading about this on obscure web sites. It's about excusing the "end user" (those like Southwest) from some of the requirements of Dodd-Frank, the mild Wall Street reforms intended to put some curbs on speculators.

      Dodd-Frank requires people investing in derivatives to have margin requirements, kind of like posting a bond, and other things that added costs that Southwest and other end users didn't think they should have to incur. I've not read anything to indicate that anyone had a problem with excusing end users from the Dodd-Frank requirements.

      Elizabeth Warren, whose amendment to remove this provision from an unrelated bill is what Martin voted against, was apparently concerned that this constituted a back-door change to Dodd-Frank, outside the committee process. Martin and the other Democrats who voted against Warren's amendment apparently weren't concerned about that, or concerned enough to vote for Warren's amendment to strip the provision.

      What I haven't come across is any discussion about why most Democrats voted for Warren's amendment, or about what it portends down the road that Martin and the others broke ranks with them. The article I linked to listed them and said they were senators to keep an eye on.

      Here's a tally of the vote:

      By the way, Martin's gaining a reputation for being frugal. I've read about him sleeping in his office and showering in the senate gym. When you have coffee with him don't let him stiff you with the bill.