That banking bill is a warning to us. Look how it got to Obama's desk

[redirish28]

Both the house and Senate had it. No Public debate about it and No record of HOW the House and Senate voted

News on this bill being on the President's hit this morning and it is not until basically this afternoon we ar assured that the President won't sign the bill.


That's not the half of it. If Congress doesn't go into recess the bill goes back to them which than can become law if 2/3rds past the bill.



Honestly we have to stop a moment and start asking:

What if the Story on the Bill never hit, what than?

How is it that when there is Democratic control of congress that bill like this would past without being made public AND isn't this a tactic we expect from the Repugs? Think patriot Act Think back to the Bank bills passed in Capitalism -a love Story.

[Zenlitened]

1. K&R. The whole matter just reeks. - n/t

[zipplewrath]

2. I just can't identify the smell

3 possible "smells" come to mind.

1) The authors support was needed on something, and he needed this bill to go through to get something he needed. So the "fix was in" from the start with the knowledge that Obama would stop the whole mess.

2) They thought it could slip through unnoticed, once people found out, they called upon Obama to save them from their own doing. He certainly wasn't going to take the fall.

3) It was some kind of "trojan horse". There was something in the bill, or something about the bill that appealed to alot of people, and the underlying subtext was missed because it looked so good. Once someone started to pay attention, they realized their mistake. They call up the president and say "don't sign it, we screwed up".

[glinda]

25. or he was going to sign it until a lot of people found out about it....ouch

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

41. Yeah, let's all blame Obama for the bill he didn't sign.

Typical DU.

This stinker of a bill has been around since 2005, when no one could have predicted what is happening now. The Senate has been sitting on it since then. So the question should be why did the Senate suddenly vote on it.

[glinda]

53. not blaming him just wondering the logistics of this is all since we do not know

what all has happened in regards to this messy procedure.

[indepat]

40. The smell is the stench of corruption, lathered in mendacity, as we the people were in the process

of being shit upon, or such tactics would seem to indicate, all while glossing over massive fraud fbo of the fraudsters et al causing much of the economic and financial meltdown. ;)

[gratuitous]

3. But we can't get anything done on so many other bills

Yeah, I'm reminded of the Terri Schiavo fiasco. Hell, the Republicans even got Stupidhead back a day early from one of his innumerable vacations to sign that piece of excrement, allowing Congress to meddle in the muck. But a bill to keep people from starving in the streets, or to curtail the ongoing waste of billions of dollars monthly on illegal foreign occupations? Sorry, no can do.

[truedelphi]

4. Words are so often failing me that I have become uncharecteristically

Quiet...

Until I get energized.

And I think an entire segment of our population is going to be letting their Congress people and Senators, and others know that being an incumbent may be the kiss of death for most of 'em.

We really need to see to it that both of the Two Parties are taken back over for the good of the people. When you look at how well the Republican and Democratic parties worked for people back in the fifties and how neither party gives a piss in the wind for us now, it is more than disturbing.

And if they cannot be re-made, then we need a third party that works.

[Greyhound]

10. And just to be clear, when deciding which party to affiliate yourselves with;

Conservatives; those of you disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

The Republics are your party, your team color is red.

Liberals; Those favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

The Democrats are your party, your team color is blue.

[truedelphi]

34. See - that is part of my problem - as a little kid

I could never decide if I liked Blue or Red the best.

And sometimes when I was perturbed about this, I would decide to go with GREEN!

But it is good to know that even though both major parties have failed us, in regards to the working class, the unemployed, students etc, that at least both parties still stand firmly behind their traditional team colors!

[northernlights]

45. Oddly, in my state the Democrats this time around are all using

GREEN signs.

Dem for Governer -- green
Dem for Rep: teal green
other Dem candidates -- various shades of GREEN

Some of the republicans, on the other hand, have BLUE signs. Only one red. Some red, white and blue. The indies, red, white and blue, except one that's red, white, blue and green.

[Plucketeer]

46. My feelings

EXACTLY!

[BrklynLiberal]

5. I doubt if they will able to vote on this bill in secrecy again....

[femrap]

6. Just wait until around the holidays....

that's when Congress does it best dirty work. Everyone is shopping and partying and NOT watching the news. It's a very dangerous time...right before Xmas.

I'm glad we caught this. I called and emailed the White House. Today it worked. We must always be on the lookout.

[kentuck]

7. In my opinion...

And Dylan Ratigan touched on the subject this afternoon.

But these banks knew many of the mortgages they were selling were no good. They were fraudulent.

The banks are moving to protect their asses. They want to make their illegal activities legal. They wanted the House and Senate of the US to pass a law so they could maneuver these mortgages out of individual state jurisdictions to those states that would look at their actions more friendly. That is why they wanted electronic interstate notarifications in the bill. They are trying to pull a quick one.

Somebody needs to go to jail for this maneuver to defraud the citizens of this country, in my humble opinion.

[hedgehog]

8. From what I can make out, the bill sounded like an innocent routine

effort to tidy up a minor point in inter-state commerce. It was only when the larger context of banks screwing up foreclosures that the real effect of the bill emerged.

It was only a few weeks that the scandal of the day was the Republican senator blocking all bills until his staff had a chance to evaluate them. Maybe he was doing the right thing for the wrong reason!

[Greyhound]

9. But, but, but, we can't get anything done as long as any of those evil Republiks are in office!

:rofl:

[Winterblues]

11. What got done?

Sounds like it is dead on arrival...

[Greyhound]

12. Article 1 Section 7. No signature and it becomes law unless Congress adjourns first.

Article 1, Section 7 states:

If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a Law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a Law.

Now who is it that can adjourn Congress again?

[Diamonique]

20. That article doesn'st apply.

The bill becomes law if it's not returned within 10 days. But he *is* returning it within that time period.

[Greyhound]

26. Is Congress adjourned?

[polmaven]

36. The House is adjourned.

And since that is where the bill originated, that is all that is necessary. There was a thread about this yesterday. There is precedent for this.

[G_j]

13. K&R

[LiberalAndProud]

14. Or it could choreographed.

October surprise kind of feeling to it, maybe.

[Telly Savalas]

54. To what end?

It makes the President look good and Congress look bad. How does this help anyone's prospects a month from now?

[kentuck]

15. Nancy has called for an investigation...

as have others.

Thousands of affidavits were not signed legally from other states and there is something very shady about this whole deal.

[Luminous Animal]

16. So, is Obama going to veto it? All I heard is that he won't sign it. Not signing without a veto

would make it law.

[Junkdrawer]

18. Pocket Veto: I thought a bill not signed automatically is vetoed...

:shrug:

[Junkdrawer]

19. OK, I looked it up. It depends if Congress adjourns in the next ten days...

If they adjourn and Obama doesn't sign, it's a pocket veto. If they DON'T adjourn and Obama doesn't sign, it becomes law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto

[pnwmom]

49. The House has adjourned and that's why it will be a pocket veto. n/t

[Luminous Animal]

24. Nevermind. I just did some more research and it looks like this bill in this form is dead.

Yay!

[bahrbearian]

17. What is scary is that it wasn't Vetoed, It is still waiting to be signed.

[redirish28]

21. Your right NO word from the Obama administratian it would be veto

He doesn't do anything for ten days it does go back to congress who can pass it again in that sly fashion.

[phasma ex machina]

22. Still more light needs to shine on how the powers-that-be appropriate government. nt

[Canuckistanian]

23. It's an inoccuous bill if you don't know the backstory

Arcane rules on Notary documents being recognized across state lines? Who cares? It almost sounds like a GOOD law.

UNTIL, you realize that that Notary documents NOT being recognized THWARTS shady foreclosure actions, then you suddenly realize what's going on.

I suspect that most members of Congress and the House just didn't realize the implications by passing a "routine housekeeping bill"

It's like Conyers said in M.Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" - "We don't read most of these bills"

[reggie the dog]

27. pocket veto

vote the law without wasting time on debate then veto it and seeing as we have 59 senate seats it will not override a veto

[B Calm]

28. Now imagine if we had a republican president!

[metapunditedgy]

31. This is why we need a Democratic Congress! n/t

[The Uncola]

29. Back to the original topic of this thread.

HOW DID THIS PIECE OF CRAP END UP ON THE PRESIDENT'S DESK WITHOUT ANY DEBATE?


If that doesn't scare you, it ought to.

[pnwmom]

50. Because until the whistle-blowers came forth recently,

and various Attorneys-General began to investigate the use of notaries in their state, this would have looked like a perfectly innocuous bill. It was originated, by the way, in 2005, before MERS even began. And until very recently, there would have been very little reason for the states NOT to trust each other's notary public seals. In fact, it is done routinely.

[The Uncola]

55. You completely sidestepped...

... my question. Not that I am surprised. I've come to expect blind partisanship from some of those on both sides of the aisle. This bill didn't go to the POTUS in 2005, it happened this week, without debate, with Democrats in the majority of both Houses of Congress. That sir, is completely unacceptable. Save the Beltway Speak for someone a whole lot more gullible than me.

[Kablooie]

30. and this combined with the Democrats telling their base to shut up.

What the hell is going on?

[metapunditedgy]

32. How can Joe Lieberman have so much power? How??? n/t

[polmaven]

35. Actually, the House IS in recess,

and, since it is there that the bill originated, that it will determine that this is indeed a pocket veto. There is precedence for this. Both cambers do not need to be in recess...only the one from which the bill origninates.

[Gman]

37. DO NOT assume they are stupid. This was brilliant!

It was handled perfectly without the distracting fight it would have caused in Congress. Without Republicans whining about people getting something for nothing. They've effectively been caught off guard. And Democrats get to hammer Republicans with this, as they are doing by calling for investigations. Note how Republicans have been very silent on this. They don't know what to do.

This was brilliant.

[onenote]

38. The confusion and misinformation in this thread is stunning,

First, the veto issue: the bill was presented to the president on September 30, 2010. By that point in time, the House had adjourned for a recess that is scheduled to last until mid November. Once a bill is presented to the president, it can be vetoed by returning it unsigned to the chamber that originated it (in this case the House). If that chamber has adjourned, the bill is "pocket vetoed" if the president simply doesn't sign it within ten days of receiving it. Now, there is a long standing dispute between the executive and legislative branches over whether a bill can be "pocket vetoed" when Congress has not adjourned "sine die" at the end of a session of Congress, but merely has taken an intrasession recess. The executive branch thinks it can, the legislative branch disagrees. If the executive branch is correct, not signing this bill means it doesn't become law. If the legislative branch was right, then the bill would become law if it wasn't signed or "returned" without signature within ten days. So, the solution that the executive branch has come up with is to announce that it is pocket vetoing the bill but, at the same time, also engage in a "protective return" of the bill by sending back to the Clerk of the House. This appears to be what the Obama administration is doing here. It will say it pocket vetoed the bill and the Congress will say the bill was the subject of a regular veto. The only difference is that if the House is right, they could try to override the bill, while if the administration is right, the bill couldn't be overriden, although a new, identical bill could be introduced and passed. So, for all intents and purposes, there really isn't much of a difference and in this case, since Leahy has made it clear he doesn't support the bill in its present form, there is no chance that it will be the subject of either an override vote or will be re-introduced with a new bill number.

Second, the passage without debate issue. I have the feeling that not too many people commenting on this issue have actually read the bill. Its just a few paragraphs long and on its face appears to be pretty innocuous and, indeed, even beneficial to everyone by reducing uncertainty as to whether a document notarized in one state will be accepted in another state. It was not "secretly" drafted to help the banks screw people in foreclosures. In fact, the exact same language was introduced in 2005, long before there was a foreclosure crisis and again in 2007. At that time, it was described by John Conyers as a "common sense" measure to reconcile conflicting state laws. And while the bill was passed by voice vote in the House and unanmious consent in the Senate, that is not a particularly unusual practice. Indeed, at least the bill was presented as a stand alone measure and not buried as two pages in the midst of a 1000 page appropriations bill or some other measure. The bill that was passed by this Congress was introduced in October 2009 and taken to the House floor in April; the bill was "managed" on the House floor by Tammy Baldwin, who (like Conyers) isn't my idea of a right wing hack. She, and the repub manager, Rep. Smith,described the bill before it was put to a vote. A link to their description of the bill and its purposes can be found here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=all&page=H2919&dbname=2010_record

The problem was that while the bill looked innocuous and was introduced with good intentions, it was, in light of recent revelations about foreclosure abuse, a classic case of legislation with unintended consequences. The good news is that, unlike a lot of situations where the full implications of a piece of legislation aren't recognized until after it becomes law, this one was caught and its not becoming law and the leadership in Congress has made it clear that the bill needs to be fixed.

Was it a fuck up? Yes. Was it a particularly unusual fuck up? Not really, exceptfor the fact that such fuck ups usually do become law and this one didn't.


Disclosure: while I had nothing to do with this bill (and didn't even know of its existence until yesterday) I have spent several decades working as a legislative counsel, helping draft and analyze legislation and following its process through the Congress. I've suggested language that seemed completely reasonable only to have it pointed out that it would cause some unintended problem. I've both identified examples of such screw ups in reviewing and analyzing bills and I've missed examples. It happens. Not everything is a big stinking conspiracy. This was a five year old bill that Congress thought that they could get done before they left town and in their rush, they simply screwed up by not understanding its ramifications. It passed the House in April and I don't recall a word being said by anyone about it.

[pnwmom]

39. It might have sounded innocuous YEARS ago when the HOUSE passed it.

(It was first introduced in 2005.)

But the Senate should have known better.

[onenote]

47. the house passed it in 2005 and again in 2007 and again in 2010

It sounded (and if you read it looked) innocuous each time. I'm glad it was vetoed, but if it was so obviously a bad bill, where was the outrage about it when it was passed in April? People just didn't get it until they realized what the bill might mean in the context of the foreclosure problems that were coming to light. No one looks good. But that doesn't mean there is some grand conspiracy afoot amongst those supporting (or failing to object) to the bill inside or outside of Congress.

[pnwmom]

48. I agree. Without knowing about all the paperwork abuse

that has been going on -- which came to light, I believe, because of some recent whistle-blowing by bank employees -- this would have looked like an innocuous bill, easing business between the states.

[davidwparker]

42. Isn't funny how both houses of Congress can get things

done when it is in the best interest of those who pay them.

Guess the thing to do is to scan HR and Senate bills which are done without debate and without roll call voting and broadcast what is in it.

I give Obama credit for announcing so soon it would not be signed. Had he vetoed, it could have been overridden. Let's see what happens after the November elections.

One word for the Dems and the President. That bill had better NOT become a law.

[smiley]

43. us against them...

them being our own congressional leaders - who seem to be working only for the benefit of the corporations.

[bullwinkle428]

44. *cough* *CatfoodCommission* *cough*

:hide:

[Marr]

51. Yeah, it's amazing how easily bills slide through the system, when

they service big money interests.

Most of the people in Congress are there specifically to make the crimes of the wealthy legal. They're little more than legal aids for Wall Street.

[SmileyRose]

52. THIS WAS PURE BRILLANCE !!

Now the sucker's dead unless the repukes can muster 2/3's

good luck with that buckaroos.

AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA


I absolutely love Obama's sense of humor.