Finally, a REAL filibuster!

Apparently, trying to get those much needed changes to the financial regulation bill aren't that important. After threatening to literally hold votes throughout the night, Republican leadership just announced that they would agree to let the bill come to the floor for debate. Senators got to get some sleep.

Let's hope the Republicans didn't succeed at getting rid of the $50B resolution authority, paid for by special taxes on big banks. They call it a "bailout fund" when it really allows the Feds to purchase the failed bank, own it for a couple of hours to a day or two and then sell the assets to another more stable banking institution (most likely at a loss) hence the need for the fund.

But again, let's say Bank of Ernie goes under. The entire board of directors gets fired, the shareholders and their investments are wiped out, all of the staff are fired -- unless the bank that's purchasing my bank wants to keep them. The $50b in the fund goes to protect the depositors who are insured under FDIC and goes to soften the debts to counterparties that would be of systemic risk to the U.S. economy as a whole. Then Bank of Ernie ceases to exist.  See? No bailout here, just a "selling a bankrupt bank probably isn't going to garner a profit" fund.

Are you kidding me?!?

This afternoon, all 41 Republican Senators and Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska voted to stop cloture which would have begun the debate on Financial Reform.

This stall tactic is just an excuse to further water down the bill until a suitable "compromise" is reached, which will happen which will then allow Republicans to maneuver politically and say that they really fought to end "Too big to fail," when in reality what they're doing is trying to weaken the independent consumer protection agency and stronger regulations aimed at PayDay loans which charge exorbitant interest rates -- as much as 400% -- for advances on pay.

To be fair, some Republican senators like Bob Corker of Tennessee have been negotiating with Chairman Chris Dodd in good faith and are working on some fair compromises while trying to achieve real reform.

Let me be clear, I do not want a political win here for the Democrats.  If they craft the perfect bill with no compromises it will fail on a party-line vote and there will be NO financial reform which this country so badly needs.  This November Democrats are headed for historically consistent losses, and then some, due to the weak economic environment.  A party-line vote for solid financial reform would give them a strong narrative to paint themselves as fighting the titans of Wall Street and the Republicans who chose to defend them instead of the people they represent (How NYC Dems will vote will be an interesting thing to watch as Wall Street is their constituency!).

However, unlike the John McCain of 2010, I put my Country First and a moderate, bi-partisan financial reform bill passing sooner rather than later is better for the country.