The Chicago Way

Obama’s “financial reform bill”  is full of paybacks to Obama constituencies

Principal among them is a measure to make it easier for unions, environmental groups and other activist organizations that hold shares to put their representatives on the boards of directors of every corporation in the United States.

The so-called “proxy access” provision, which activist groups say they will use to try to improve oversight of corporate financial practices, has provoked a backlash from the Business Roundtable, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other major non-Wall Street business groups.

This is one of the “reforms” that threw Britain into a tailspin in the fifties through the seventies; institutionalizing the control of unions and other pressure groups over other aspects of British society; it ensured the acceleration of Britain’s decline.

Other provisions of the financial legislation, which goes before the full Senate on Thursday for a vote and likely passage, favor Democratic constituencies directly by requiring banks and federal agencies to hire and do more business with them.

The bill would create more than 20 “offices of minority and women inclusion” at the Treasury, Federal Reserve and other government agencies, to ensure they employ more women and minorities and grant more federal contracts to more women- and minority-owned businesses.

The agencies also would apply “fair employment tests” to the banks and other financial institutions they regulate, though their hiring and contracting practices had little or nothing to do with the 2008 financial crisis.

“The interjection of racial and gender preferences into America’s financial sector deserves greater media exposure” before Congress debates and passes the massive 2,400-page bill, said Kevin Mooney, a contributing editor for Americans for Limited Government’s daily newsletter.

Right – but to “expose” it would “expose” them to the same charges of “racism” that greets every voice of dissent.

33 thoughts on “The Chicago Way

  1. It is shocking how little the smart people learned from history, whether it be of socialized Europe or even Detroit. When you run the people who create and do out of your economy, soon you have nothing left or at least not enough of it to tax. I don’t feel sorry in the least for the “big banks” – if you are going to play with that much of Uncle Sam’s money, don’t be surprised that folks from Big Government might want you to put their niece or nephew or mistress on the payroll. Asians, straight white guys and Conservatives need not apply.

  2. Now Mitch, it’s 2400 pages. They have to pass it so we can find out what’s in it. It’s like a surprise party! And we haven’t even unwrapped all of the Obamacare bill yet! Isn’t this fun?

  3. There are issues that come up once in awhile which the GOP fights against (the refusal to allow the negotiation of drug prices for Medicare reciepents comes to mind), where I have a hard time reasoning out a justification.

    This is highly instructive. Who doesn’t want our financial institutions to follow best practice lending policies? Well no one, but as this piece illustrates, that isn’t the thrust of this legislation.

    Bottom line: If a Democrat is in favor of a thing, no matter how shiny it looks, it’s still shit.

  4. “Bottom line: If a Democrat is in favor of a thing, no matter how shiny it looks, it’s still shit.”

    I’m sure that saves you a lot of time that you would waste otherwise reading, Swiftee. Things like oh, legislation, felon voting studies, LOL. You can just rely on your comforting assumptions instead, and skip the eye strain.

    Course, you’re missing a lot that way, but so long as you’re happy!

  5. I read plenty old girl. It’s not how much you read, it’s what you read.

    If you’re to be believed (I don’t advise that), you read “stacks” of information, and yet you trot over here and prove you’re still dumb as a stump.

  6. I’m torn on the shareholder initiatives; all too often, I see all of the same names as directors, even when the company is tanking, and it’s a sad thing to consider how much of the company is owned by institutional investors and mutual funds–more or less insuring that shareholder ideas are locked out.

    That noted, I’ve got to concede that a large portion of the initiatives are bad ideas for a company.

  7. swiftee wrote

    “I read plenty old girl. It’s not how much you read, it’s what you read.”

    Well, “old man”, if you’re believing the swill about voter fraud, you’re reading the wrong stuff, LOL. Try a few more primary sources, LOL.

  8. If you’re believing the swill about voter fraud, you are actually applying critical thought. And a healthy dose of incredulity. I wish people on the Left would give them both a try. We’d be a better country if they did.

  9. they’re fun. or factcheck.org

    I was thinking of original source documents, like the bills, studies, etc.

  10. I was going to say “Thank you for the clarification, Captain Obvious”, but then I noticed your comments have been much more succinct in this thread. Thank you!

  11. Dog Gone doesn’t do well at critical thinking. One of her “primary sources” about the ACORN scandal was an independent “study” written by a democrat law firm paid for by ACORN.

  12. Dog Gone – I skimmed your column at Penigma but I’m more confused than ever. Can you clarify your position in short sentances for me?

    Speaking specifically about persons who have been convicted of a felony and whose civil rights have NOT been restored:

    Should they be allowed to vote? Are you arguing for a law change giving them voting rights despite their convictions?

    If they should not be allowed to vote, would you care whether they had voted? Are you saying that even if it were true that unrestored felons had voted, a few illegal votes here and there isn’t enough to bother about?

    If they should not be allowed to vote, and they should not have voted, would you support an inquiry to determine whether they had, in fact, voted when they shouldn’t have – not an inquiry to overturn the results of last election, but to determine the magnitude of the illegal voter problem so we can decide whether structural reform to the electoral process might be warranted?

    If an inquiry showed that 1,000 unrestored felons had voted in the last election, would that be enough illegal votes for you to consider changes to the election laws to prevent those votes in the next election? Or is 1,000 illegal votes too small to bother about?

    Does your analysis turn on whether they voted DFL?

  13. Try a few more primary sources, LOL.

    Then you get into selection bias.

    Sorry, DG; for those of us who work day jobs and take care of kids, finding analysts who go through the source materials themselves is pretty useful, and adds no biases that you and I don’t bring to the questions ourselves.

  14. Doggone, I think that the MN GOP has done a good job by going through voter rolls and matching names of released felons with voter registration names, don’t you think? That would be about as primary as a primary source can be.

    Franken; the Senator endorsed by more convicted felons!

  15. anyone who uses LOL in a response deserves to be shunned. Unless deegee is a 20 something female, and even then…

  16. I think that it is important to remember why felons are, traditionally, not allowed to vote. It’s not punishment, it’s because a felon has betrayed the trust of society. Politics is harmed if felons have a say in how we govern ourselves. They have no interests we should care about.
    The definition of felon has changed legally over the years (too many crimes are felonies these days, imho), but this is the core reason why felons are not allowed to vote.

  17. a felon has betrayed the trust of society
    Kinda like Barack (cough) Obama (cough).

  18. Obama’s “financial reform bill” is full of paybacks to Obama constituencies

    I am shocked! Shocked I tell you!

  19. Pingback: links for 2010-07-16 « Marty Andrade

  20. Acgtually Terry that doesn’t appear to be the reason behind disenfranchisement of felons.

    More significantly, if we are to believe that for example the drunk driving mistakes of Emmer are something he moves on from to success, then the same holds true for felons. Or are you saying Emmer didn’t violate the trust of society in making those mistakes?

    More significant is that there is a strong correlation to voting after a felon receives their votng rights back and not committing any more crimes. It appears that when the dems are involving former felons in the political process and those felons begin to feel they have a stake in their communities they are far far less likely to reoffend. So the dems are doing something with this consitutency very much like what Mr. Emmer did for himself. So either that is a good thing for everyone – or it isn’t.

    In this country and worldwide the trend is to restore voting rights. Worldwide the trend is to allow voting even for people in prison, for most crimes (except voter fraud ).

    Reading up on the history of voter rights and felony convictions is a very interesting one; it surprised me, and it changed some of my opinions on the subject.

  21. “Doggone, I think that the MN GOP has done a good job by going through voter rolls and matching names of released felons with voter registration names, don’t you think? That would be about as primary as a primary source can be.”

    Apparently not, given how many names have been thrown out in the course of the ongoing investigation. That list doesn’t address things like shortened probations for example which are giving back voting privileges earlier. Many other released felons receive their voting rights back at the time of release.

    Bacmann is calling for a DoJ investigation and making the statement that over 300 felons voted illegally for Franken. 1. She hasn’t documented that over 300 felons voted illegally AT ALL; 2. She can’t know how many did or did not vote for any candidate. The studies document trends in which a past felony is only one factor in how someone votes. It is a trend, not proof of how any individual votes. Those votes she is questioning were by individuals, not trends and not statistics. SOME Former felons vote for Republicans — so? It means nothing. It certainly doesn’t mean anyone votes for either party illegally.

    Seriously – if this had any legs, Norm Coleman would have brought it up druing the challenge to Franken. There is a reason he did not.

    It is an irresponsible statement by Bachmann. And by T-Paw.

  22. Sorry, DG; for those of us who work day jobs and take care of kids, finding analysts who go through the source materials themselves is pretty useful, and adds no biases that you and I don’t bring to the questions ourselves.

    Sorry Mitch, but those ‘analysts’ don’t seem to have gone through the source material at all.

    You have time to put together that excellent analysis on the funding of Dayton – or did someone else do that for you?

  23. Btw. Mitch, Pen has a day job, has to travel for his job as well sometimes. He also is involved in raising his family. HE had time to read the same material I did before forming an opinion. It isn’t long, it isn’t strenuous reading.


  24. Acgtually Terry that doesn’t appear to be the reason behind disenfranchisement of felons.
    More significantly, if we are to believe that for example the drunk driving mistakes of Emmer are something he moves on from to success, then the same holds true for felons. Or are you saying Emmer didn’t violate the trust of society in making those mistakes?

    This is nonsense.
    First try to read a little history. People convicted of serious crimes put their civil liberties at risk. Goes back to the Romans, imported into English common law, transplanted to the US.
    Second, avoid the cheap rhetorical tricks. Not every betrayal of society’s trust is a felony or we would disenfranchise people for speeding tickets.

  25. DUIs are more serious than speeding tickets. But the whole subject of what is a sufficiently serious breach of trust with society to merit loss of the right to vote is apt — many of those who currently are disenfranchised would not have been at a different time in relatively recent history – as in thirty, forty years ago.

    I have actually now read up a bit on the history of disenfranchisement, including the Romans, and can tell you as a result that prior to 1972 which was the date selected for the Uggen study, the percentage of the population which was disenfranchised was dramatically smaller. It is the crux of the Uggen study. Uggen, pronounced you-gun; thought you’d like the name.

    We didn’t use to disenfranchise so many people.

    I can also address the subject of how the number of people who had the right to vote expanded and how the restriction of the right to vote tracked with felons during that expansion. Can you?

  26. if you want to go to the history from other countries and how it translates into the US legal system, I think you will be finding that DUIs are regarded more seriously not less, btw. Certainly in many other countries they are MUCH tougher on that crime. It is one which does a lot of damage.

  27. Ben Says:

    July 16th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
    anyone who uses LOL in a response deserves to be shunned. Unless deegee is a 20 something female, and even then…
    ______—

    Yeah, right Ben. LOL is bad, somehow, apparently; but not emoticons?

    I know plenty of peole who use both Ben. If that is what you are using to form your opinion of people, you have a lot of room to improve.

  28. Quoting myself:The definition of felon has changed legally over the years (too many crimes are felonies these days, imho).
    So we agree on that point.
    As for DUI’s being considered more serious in other countries . . . WTF? What does that have to do with anything? If you want to make DUI, or alcohol abuse or whatever, a felony, do what you can to make that happen.
    “Felons lose their franchise in some states, some other countries consider DUI a more serious crime than some US states do, therefore in the US people with a DUI should lose their franchise” is incredibly silly, and you don’t really mean it outside of the context of Emmer. Hispanics have a much higher arrest rate for DUI than whites, for example. Should they lose their franchise?
    Don’t you ever think these things through before you comment?

  29. “DUIs are more serious than speeding tickets.”

    Wow, deegee, thinks a .06 DUI is worse than a sober 16 year old doing 110 in a 55 in heavy traffic while on the phone.

    “Don’t you ever think these things through before you comment?”

    Obviously not.

  30. K-Rod, the worst thing about DG’s attempts to justify her personal political beliefs by means of reason is that she does it so badly. In this thread she seems to be trying to make the argument that Emmer’s pair of decades-old DUI’s should disqualify him for government office, while Mark Dayton’s struggles with alcoholism — including a “relapse” while he held the people’s office as US Senator — have no bearing on his ability to be chosen for elective office.
    This is ludicrous and does not warrant serious discussion.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.