I sent an email to Senator Scott Brown thanking him for his vote for the Senate Financial Reform bill.

He sent me the following reply:

Dear Mr. Greenberg, Thank you for expressing your thoughts on financial regulatory reform. As always, I value your input on this and other issues, and strive to keep you updated on the important issues facing us today. There is little disagreement that significant and forward thinking action is needed to properly address regulatory concerns in the financial industry. I am pleased that since joining the Senate we have moved on legislation to begin the process of repairing a regulatory system that did not work as it should have and contributed to the economic meltdown that shook our economy in 2008. This action, long overdue, will make sure that our regulatory structure catches up with the realities of today’s market to provide a safer and more secure economy to protect the financial future of all Americans. Although no bill will ever be perfect, and I remain deeply concerned that we need additional action to prevent another financial crises, this bill takes important steps towards greater market transparency and stronger consumer protection. Despite the contentious beginning to the Senate debate, I was pleased that there was an earnest effort by both parties to work together to amend and improve the bill on the floor. Without this compromise, taxpayers would still be completely on the hook for bailing out “too big to fail” firms in the future. After our experience with the $700 billion in emergency TARP fund which found its way into the hands of entities that were not entitled to it, we can all agree that we do not want taxpayers to be forced to bail out Wall Street again. The legislation takes steps to address several key issues that were at the heart of the recent meltdown, including systemic risk oversight, transparency in the derivatives market and the safety and soundness of banks. The bill also eliminates a government bureaucracy – the Office of Thrift Supervision – that was partly to blame for the financial crisis, and consolidates multiple consumer protection agencies into a single bureau within the Federal Reserve. Further, amendments that were agreed to sharply curtailed the Bureau’s ability to use a heavy hand in regulating our nation’s small businesses, which are critical economic engines and job creators. This bill in no way raises taxes, due to the elimination of a $50 billion bank slush fund, nor does it spend taxpayer money or allow the government the right to arbitrarily seize private property. Instead, it updates the rules of the road so that our financial sector watchdogs have the ability to regulate Wall Street traders that helped lead us into the financial crisis. The bill provides for a robust audit of the Federal Reserve’s unprecedented actions during the financial crisis, but does so without giving politicians the ability to interfere in future monetary policy. As many of you know, the Senate debated this bill for more than four weeks on the floor. During the process, I proposed or cosponsored 27 amendments, eight of which were agreed to by the Senate. In addition, as the process continued, I clearly stated that I would not go forward with bringing debate to a close until I received concrete, written assurances that any final bill would not include language that could potentially cripple insurance companies, mutual funds, banks and small businesses located throughout the country that had nothing to do with the financial crisis. I fought hard for these assurances, as these institutions are a critical component of the Massachusetts economy, and unfairly subjecting them to new restrictions could lead to further job loss at a most critical time. Only when I was satisfied with the progress of debate and received the appropriate guarantees from the Administration and leaders on the other side of the aisle, including the Senate Majority Leader and the House and Senate chairs of the Banking Committees, that the final legislation would address my concerns, could I support it in good conscience. I promised my constituents that I would look at each and every piece of legislation with an independent mind to see whether it would benefit our state and country, create jobs and help get our economy back on track. I felt that the financial reform legislation met these criteria, and I believe that the bill will continue to be improved by the bipartisan conference process with the House of Representatives that will resolve the differences between the two versions. Again, thank you for sharing your comments with me. As the legislative process continues on the financial regulatory reform bill, I will be sure to keep your views in mind. If you have any additional questions or comments, please feel free to contact me or visit my website at http://scottbrown.senate.gov.

Sincerely, Scott P. Brown United States Senator

Before his compromise there was a $50 billion fund paid for by the financial industry to close down failing banks. The money was not raised through taxes on individual taxpayers.

After the compromise, this fund, erroneously called a tax paid slush fund, was eliminated. It was not tax paid, and it was not a slush fund. Now the Federal Government will be on the hook to pay up-front costs to close failing banks with the hope of getting paid back when the pieces of the bank are sold off. So now the good Senator has assured us that the resolution of failing banks will be paid by the taxpayers, at least initially.

So despite the phony Republican rhetoric about not costing the taxpayers any money, the compromise does exactly the opposite of what they claim.

I guess it was too much to expect from Senator Brown that he could vote correctly and forego the obfuscation. Too bad, I could have almost liked the guy.

Rob Kall has posted this article on his opEd news web site.

A large part of the article is a plea for the President to take action to make sure the public is aware of all that is being done to solve the problem.

Such an open policy will help enlist ideas for solutions to the problem that may not have devised yet by BP and our government.

The article points out that it is also time when mentioning that these problems were inherited from the previous administration is no longer adequate.  The President has to start talking more about what he is doing to fix the problems whether inherited or not.

There are numerous suggestions in the article for fixing the situation.

Follow this link to the article by Peter Beinart in The New York Review Of Books.

As Rod Serling would say, “For your consideration”.

Follow this link to the article by Ray McGovern, former CIA analyst.

Among the arguments against conventional wisdom on Iran are the following paragraphs.

Many Washington insiders were shocked last Oct. 1 when Tehran agreed to send 2,640 pounds (then as much as 75 percent of Iran’s total) of low-enriched uranium abroad to be turned into fuel for a small reactor that does medical research.
.
.
.
The conventional wisdom presented in the FCM today has it that Tehran backed off the deal. True; but that is only half the story, a tale that highlights how, in Israel’s set of priorities, regime change in Iran comes first.

The uranium swap had the initial support of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And a follow-up meeting was scheduled for Oct. 19 at the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna.

However, the accord soon came under criticism from Iran’s opposition groups, including the “Green Movement” led by defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who has had ties to the American neocons and to Israel since the Iran-Contra days of the 1980s when he was the prime minister who collaborated on secret arms deals.

Strangely, it was Mousavi’s U.S.-favored political opposition that led the assault on the nuclear agreement, calling it an affront to Iran’s sovereignty and suggesting that Ahmadinejad wasn’t being tough enough.

Then, on Oct. 18, a terrorist group called Jundullah, acting on amazingly accurate intelligence, detonated a car bomb at a meeting of top Iranian Revolutionary Guards commanders and tribal leaders in the province of Sistan-Baluchistan in southeastern Iran. A car full of Guards was also attacked.

In case you are wondering about the acronym FCM, it stands for Fawning Corporate Media.

Follow this link to the article posted on the McClatchy News web site.

British Petroleum announced today that it has fired its top engineer for safety design and replaced him with Jody McNamara, age 12, a sixth-grade honors student at the Dwight Eisenhower Middle School in Tulsa, Okla.