And don't forget Mitt Romney now has to be counted on to cooperate

I can just see it now.

Mitt Romney, Lisa Mercowskie and Susan Collins will form the trio of stooges broken by the death of John McCain to stand in the way of Mitch McConnell.

Well, at least Jeff Flake and Bob Corker are out of the equation.

Once again Republicans refuse to even THINK of cutting spending in order to cut taxes

Reported here:

The Senate parliamentarian ruled Thursday that a fiscal "trigger," important to winning deficit-wary Sen. Bob Corker's support for the GOP plan, will not work under Senate rules. Republican senators are now looking to find new ways to address the concerns of Corker, a so-called deficit hawk Republican from Tennessee.

"It doesn't look like the trigger is going to work, according to the parliamentarian," Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters, according to Politico. "So we have an alternative, frankly: a tax increase we don't want to do to try to address Sen. Corker's concerns."

Retiring Sen. Bob Corker demands Republicans raise taxes in order to cut them

We had to destroy the village in order to save it.

Bombing is the only way forward.

We had to have a war between the States in order to save them.

Export subsidies are necessary in order to preserve free trade.

I have abandoned free market principles in order to save the free market system.

The London Interbank Overnight Rate system had to be suppressed in order to save the banking system.

We had to bail out the banks so that we could sue them. 

Mark Levin did a great job eviscerating Republican hypocrite Bob Corker in the show's first hour tonight

As Levin says, we have Bob Corker's defiance of the constitution to thank for Obama's Iran deal.

The Washington Times had a nice summary of Corker's malfeasance from Jed Babbin, here:

He sponsored a measure that required the president to submit the agreement to the Senate but turned the Constitution upside down. Under Article 2, Section 2 the president must get a two-thirds vote in favor of any treaty to make it a part of the law of the land. Instead, Mr. Corker’s provision required opponents of the deal to muster a two-thirds vote — 66 senators — to vote against it. It was a pretense to conceal another Republican cave-in to Mr. Obama. Mr. Corker’s provision passed the Senate by a vote of 98-1, Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, being the only negative vote. In an entirely predictable result, when the time came for a disapproval vote, Republicans couldn’t even overcome the Democrats’ filibuster to get a final vote on disapproval. After that, it was a small matter for the president to take the Iran deal to the U.N. Security Council, which eagerly approved it. What Mr. Corker had done was to enable Mr. Obama to claim Senate approval of his deal even though the Senate hadn’t done anything of the sort.

Like Jeff Flake, Corker won't be standing next year for reelection to the Senate.

Spineless Republicans Cave On Cordray Nomination, CFPB Spying On Citizens

Republican Sens. Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Tom Coburn (Okla.), Susan Collins (Maine), Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.), Johnny Isakson (Ga.), John McCain (Ariz.), Rob Portman (Ohio), Roger Wicker (Miss.), Orrin Hatch (Utah), Bob Corker (Tenn.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) voted with Democrats to confirm Cordray. ... Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), ranking member on the Senate Banking Committee ... pointed out that Republicans want to replace Cordray's director position with a bipartisan “board of directors with staggered terms.” He also expressed concern over recent reports that the bureau is conducting “unprecedented data collection.” “The CFPB [Consumer Protection Financial Bureau] is collecting credit card data, bank account data, mortgage data and student loan data,” Crapo said ahead of the vote. “This ultimately allows the CFPB to monitor a consumer’s monthly spending habits.”

More here, if you need to puke.

Sen. Harry Reid wins.

Rule By The Rich: Do They Really Need Their Salaries of $3.83 Million?

2009's top congressional millionaires consist of ten senators and twelve representatives, in order from top to bottom as follows:

1. Sen. John Kerry, D-MA, $188.6 million

2. Rep. Darrell Issa, R-CA, $160.1 million

3. Rep. Jane Harman, D-CA, $152.3 million

4. Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-WV, $83.7 million

5. Rep. Michael McCaul, R-TX, $73.8 million

6. Sen. Mark Warner, D-VA, $70.2 million

7. Rep. Jared Polis, D-CO, $56.5 million

8. Rep. Vern Buchanan, R-FL, $53.5 million

9. Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-NJ, $49.7 million

10. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, $46.1 million

11. Rep. Alan Grayson, D-FL, $31.1 million

12. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, $21.7 million

13. Sen. Jim Risch, R-ID, $20.1 million

14. Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-NJ, $19.9 million

15. Rep. Gary Miller, R-CA, $19.4 million

16. Sen. Bob Corker, R-TN, $18.3 million

17. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-MO, $15.7 million

18. Rep. Kenny Marchant, R-TX, $15.6 million

19. Rep. Nita Lowey, D-NY, $15 million

20. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-NY, $14.1 million

21. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-ME, $12.6 million

22. Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-TN, $12.1 million.

Altogether they represent wealth of $1.15 billion. Twelve are Democrats, seven of whom are in the top ten and six of whom are in the senate, worth $744.7 million. Ten are Republicans, worth $405.4 million,  three of whom are in the top ten and four of whom are in the senate.

TheHill.com has the complete story here and here, published annually.

The Dodd Bill Makes Moral Hazard Government Policy

An Opinion from The Washington Examiner

Run against Wall Street

By: Michael Barone

Senior Political Analyst

04/01/10

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd, after spending some time negotiating with committee Republicans Bob Corker and Richard Shelby, has decided to advance major financial regulation legislation without bipartisan support. Democratic spin doctors will try to portray the fight over this legislation as a battle between Republicans favoring lax regulation of Wall Street and Democrats favoring tough regulation.

But is the Dodd bill really tough legislation, particularly in its treatment of the major financial entities? My American Enterprise Institute colleague Peter Wallison argues that it is not, because it gives Too Big To Fail status to the big entities—Citigroup and JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. This is done by setting up a resolution process for a failing firm which protects creditors more than ordinary bankruptcy proceedings would. Wallison writes:

“From the perspective of its effect on the economy, it does not matter what happens to the company, or to its shareholders and management. The only thing that matters in a government resolution of a failing company is what happens to the creditors--because it's the creditors that will provide the funds preferentially and at favorable rates to large companies rather than small ones.

"In this respect, the Dodd bill does it again--it signals to creditors that they will get a better deal if they lend to the big regulated firms rather than their smaller competitors, and it does this by making it possible for creditors to be fully paid when a too-big-to-fail financial firm is liquidated, even though this would not happen in bankruptcy. There are a number of ways that this can be done, including through a simple merger with a healthy firm. As a prescription for moral hazard, this can hardly be surpassed. The creditors will line up to provide cheap money to the too-big-to-fail firms the Fed will be regulating.”

Wallison is not alone in taking this view. Clive Crook, writing in National Journal seems to agree:

“You do not deal with ‘too big to fail’ by keeping a list of systemically significant institutions: By itself, that makes things worse. You do not deal with it by promising to let most failing financial firms, including those on your list, go bankrupt: Nobody will believe that promise. You deal with it by combining early FDIC-like resolution for all financial firms, banks and nonbanks alike, with stricter and smarter requirements on their capital, liquidity, and leverage.”

Libertarian economist Arnold Kling suggests an even tougher approach, though he doesn’t say how to put it into effect: break up the big banks.

I think as a matter of both policy and politics, Republicans ought to oppose the Dodd bill’s provisions that effectively grant Too Big To Fail status to a handful of financial institutions (and perhaps to other companies, Wallison has argued). They should oppose giving preferred status to the very largest firms as compared to smaller competitors. They should be prepared to argue that the Democratic bill gives vast advantages to firms whose employees have gotten huge compensation (and who, as it happens, tend to give more money to Democrats than Republicans). The cry should be, no favor to the big Wall Street fat cats. Mainstream media is unlikely to transmit this message but, as we have seen in the health care debate, messages can get through without them.