That, my friends, is change we can believe in. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
CNBC's apparently losing its shit over this, if that's any indication. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Apparently trying to blame Waxman for the Big Three stocks sliding, even though they actually went up a bit after it was announced. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
At first, it looked like Waxman was going to use the hearing the way he usually does: to hammer his unfortunate witnesses. Twice in his short opening statement, he pointedly mentioned that each of the five hedge fund managers had made more than $1 billion in 2007. But then Waxman asked his first question, and suddenly the tenor changed. "Do you believe that the collapse of large hedge funds pose systemic risk?" he began. "And does this justify greater federal regulation?" That question, in turn, provoked one of the most amazing hearings I've ever attended, not because sparks flew but because the hedge fund managers responded with answers I never thought I would hear in my lifetime. They all agreed with Waxman, and with the other Congressional questioners, that in certain cases hedge funds could indeed pose systemic risk. All but Griffin said they would favor at least some regulation of hedge funds. They all agreed on the need for more disclosure. They said they had no problem turning over now-hidden information about their portfolios to a federal regulator. Simons and several others (though, again, not Griffin) said that if Congress changed the tax laws in ways that caused them to have to pay more taxes, they would be O.K. with that. I almost fell out of my chair. As the hearing approached its end, Waxman happily ticked off all the things they had agreed to. Though they may all wake up tomorrow and wonder what had come over them during their testimony, what's done is done. They can't take their words back. ... Later, after the hearing was over, Waxman shook hands with Simons. "Thank you," he said. "It was a good hearing." Then he broke into a wide grin. "Very substantive," he added. He sounded surprised. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/14/business/wbjoe15.php
"Do you believe that the collapse of large hedge funds pose systemic risk?" he began. "And does this justify greater federal regulation?" That question, in turn, provoked one of the most amazing hearings I've ever attended, not because sparks flew but because the hedge fund managers responded with answers I never thought I would hear in my lifetime.
They all agreed with Waxman, and with the other Congressional questioners, that in certain cases hedge funds could indeed pose systemic risk. All but Griffin said they would favor at least some regulation of hedge funds. They all agreed on the need for more disclosure. They said they had no problem turning over now-hidden information about their portfolios to a federal regulator. Simons and several others (though, again, not Griffin) said that if Congress changed the tax laws in ways that caused them to have to pay more taxes, they would be O.K. with that. I almost fell out of my chair.
As the hearing approached its end, Waxman happily ticked off all the things they had agreed to. Though they may all wake up tomorrow and wonder what had come over them during their testimony, what's done is done. They can't take their words back. ... Later, after the hearing was over, Waxman shook hands with Simons. "Thank you," he said. "It was a good hearing." Then he broke into a wide grin. "Very substantive," he added.
He sounded surprised.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/14/business/wbjoe15.php
Longtime Head of House Energy Panel Is Ousted By JOHN M. BRODER NYT Published: November 20, 2008 WASHINGTON -- Representative Henry A. Waxman of California ousted Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan from his post as chairman of the influential Committee on Energy and Commerce on Thursday, giving President-elect Barack Obama an advantage in his plans to promote efforts to combat global warming. By a secret vote of 137 to 122, House Democrats ended Mr. Dingell's nearly 28-year reign as his party's top member on the committee. In doing so, Mr. Waxman's backers upended the seniority system to install a leader more in tune with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a variety of issues. Although Ms. Pelosi did not formally endorse Mr. Waxman, members of the Democratic caucus understood that she could have stopped him if she had wished. The incoming Obama administration had also signaled its direction when it named Philip Schiliro, a longtime and loyal aide to Mr. Waxman, as the new White House director of Congressional relations. Besides seating a committed environmentalist as head of the energy committee, the vote also removes one of the auto industry's best friends from a key leadership post -- further evidence of how much power the American car-makers, whose executives have been pleading for federal money, have lost in Congress. -Skip- The chairmanship of the Committee on Energy and Commerce is a key post, since the committee will handle legislation on climate change, energy and health care that President-elect Obama is hoping to move through the new Congress.
By JOHN M. BRODER NYT Published: November 20, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Representative Henry A. Waxman of California ousted Representative John D. Dingell of Michigan from his post as chairman of the influential Committee on Energy and Commerce on Thursday, giving President-elect Barack Obama an advantage in his plans to promote efforts to combat global warming.
By a secret vote of 137 to 122, House Democrats ended Mr. Dingell's nearly 28-year reign as his party's top member on the committee. In doing so, Mr. Waxman's backers upended the seniority system to install a leader more in tune with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on a variety of issues.
Although Ms. Pelosi did not formally endorse Mr. Waxman, members of the Democratic caucus understood that she could have stopped him if she had wished. The incoming Obama administration had also signaled its direction when it named Philip Schiliro, a longtime and loyal aide to Mr. Waxman, as the new White House director of Congressional relations.
Besides seating a committed environmentalist as head of the energy committee, the vote also removes one of the auto industry's best friends from a key leadership post -- further evidence of how much power the American car-makers, whose executives have been pleading for federal money, have lost in Congress.
-Skip-
The chairmanship of the Committee on Energy and Commerce is a key post, since the committee will handle legislation on climate change, energy and health care that President-elect Obama is hoping to move through the new Congress.
The Blue Dogs are really pissed. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Which may even be true, but it's a smooth micro-coup, even so.
Waxman was smart about the campaign for it. While Dingell was busy holding press conferences, Waxman was keeping his mouth shut and lining up votes behind the scenes. The Hill staffers say he had Pelosi's backing, and I suspect there was some arm-twisting from the Obama camp, given that Waxman's agenda lines up more than Dingell's with Obama's platform and the fact that one of Waxman's long-time aides is now working for Obama.
The Blue Dogs, who would be the anti-Waxman crowd, didn't do terribly well in the election, especially compared with the Progressives and the New Dems.
On the whole, this is consistent with the movement in the House, which has generally been leftward since the election. The House also doesn't have issues like the filibuster to deal with, anyway, so it's going to be easier to get things through.
It's the Senate that's almost completely dysfunctional. But there are a few factors working in our favor there. We've probably got Arlen Specter's vote on key issues (probably health care, definitely Employee Free Choice), since Pennsylvania went big for Obama and he's in danger of losing his seat in two years (polling at only 40%). We can also probably squeeze another vote or two out of Maine, and I'm sure there are a couple others.
So there's an annoying but still reasonably clear path to 60, even if things don't come through for Franken and/or Martin. And the fact that the Republicans are more vulnerable two years from now in the Senate than the Dems should be helpful. WHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Can't be true, because I think he received more than half the votes (137/~260)...
