Huffpo's Ryan Grim: Senate Test Vote Shows Broad Support for Breaking Up Banks

[flpoljunkie]

Ryan Grim
Posted: April 23, 2010

Senate Test Vote Shows Broad Support For Breaking Up Banks

A test vote in the Senate Budget Committee on Thursday showed stronger support in the chamber for breaking up big banks than had previously been suspected. Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont who identifies as a democratic socialist, introduced an amendment to the budget resolution that would pave the way for the break-ups.

The legislative language was complex, but the vote was understood as a simple question: Should big banks be broken up so that they no longer pose a risk to the financial system?

Eight Democrats and one Republican joined Sanders, but the measure failed by a 12-10 vote. Four Democrats opposed the amendment, standing with the big banks: Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (N.D.), Bill Nelson (D-N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Mark Warner (Va.).

The vote was first reported in Thursday evening's HuffPost Hill newsletter.

Eight Republicans joined the four Democrats in opposition: Sens. Judd Gregg (N.H.), Chuck Grassley (Iowa), Mike Enzi (Wy.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), John Ensign (Nev.), Lamar Alexander (Tenn.) and John Cornyn (Texas). (Cornyn said he backed making the banks smaller just last week.)

Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) was the lone Republican to join the Democrats in support: Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Ron Wyden (Oregon), Russ Feingold (Wisc.), Bob Byrd (W.Va.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Ben Cardin (Md.), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.) and Jeff Merkley (Oregon).

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) didn't vote.

more...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/23/senate-test-vote-shows-br_n_549571.html

[denverbill]

1. Best thing about break them up is CEO's can't command 8 figure salaries.

A bank making $1 billion/year in profits can justify paying the CEO $40,000,000. That's tough to do when a bank is only making $100,000,000 in profits.

[Andy823]

2. I hope it gets to the floor!

Republicans have been complaining the bill won't do enough, that it won't stop "to big to fail", well breaking the big banks up would take care of that problem, so how could they vote against it when that's what they say they want, to put a stop to "to big to fail"?

I wonder if that's part of the strategy on the left, to force the republicans into a corner with their BS about the bill not doing "enough", and then the democrats put in even stricter rules and regulations, break up the banks and then force the republicans to vote "against" the tougher things they say they want. It would sure put them in a bind trying to explain voting NO if the democrats make the bill even tougher! :evilgrin: