This is about as close as the Washington Post ever comes to calling a politician an liar:
Nelson said he had opposed starting debate on the bill because he objected to consumer-protection provisions that could harm “Main Street businesses” back home, including dentists, whose patients often borrow to finance major procedures that their insurance policies don’t cover, and auto dealers.
But after talking with Nelson, Dodd said, “Dentists and auto dealers did not come up.”
Instead, Dodd said, Nelson had spoken with him about making a change to the derivatives portion of the bill. Nelson favored including a provision that would exempt owners of existing derivatives contracts from having to post additional collateral, as required in the legislation.
Warren Buffett, Ben’s #1 constituent, has written more than $44 billion [pdf] in good old-fashioned derivatives, including puts on the S&P 500 and credit default swaps. Warren and other employees of Berkshire-Hathaway, Warren’s company, have also given Ben $75,500 in campaign donations. I guess Berkshire-Hathaway’s address must be on Main Street in Omaha.
DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal)
It looks like Warren has to buy his influence just like the rest of the rich guys and gals out there. I wish our reps had to wear NASCAR-type uniforms with their sponsors logos on them.
There is partying on Wall Street and poverty on Main Street. Ol’ Ben knows who writes the big donation checks and it ain’t the little guy.
bob h
The irony is that Buffett has been the most prominent critic of derivatives and the danger they pose. I don’t think he will appreciate this publicity at all.
Buffett, who has a stake in Moody’s, should be grateful the fraudulent raters are not touched at all.
MikeJ
It seems strange to criticize Berkshire-Hathaway for betting that the housing market was going to crash. If you had had the money to make such a bet, wouldn’t you have? It seemed obvious that it was coming.
Was Berkshire-Hathaway doing all the other sleazy things like telling the rubes stuff was going to go up while privately betting it would go down? If all there bets were honest, up front bets that the economy was going to hell, what’s wrong with that?
mai naem
I know Buffett is put up as some kind of saint by the left because of his position on estate taxes but got turned off a little by Buffett when he endorsed Ahnuld Schwarzenegger because Ahnuld was going go with bonds which were going to benefit Buffett.
BTW I wonder if Nelson has ever done anything that benefits average Americans. It seems like this guy does everything for rich pigs. DINO. I used to think that at least he wasn’t as bad as Lieberwhore because he wasn’t out there cutting down the Dems on teevee everyday, but hell, what’s the difference if you continually vote against your supposed party?
The Grand Panjandrum
This will work out for Ben about as well as the Medicare carve out worked for him. Newsflash Ben: That lipstick doesn’t change the fact that you still look like a pig. Oink oink, motherfucker.
kay
@MikeJ:
It isn’t that. It’s that Warren Buffett called for regulation, and then lobbied for an exception that was worth 8 billion dollars to him.
Buffett would have had to put 8 billion dollars aside.
Nelson flipped when the provision was struck, and voted “no”, then made up some nonsense about being concerned about dentists who finance patient’s dental work.
MattF
Well, that explains that. Too bad it’s not in anyone’s interest to make an “issue” out of it.
demo woman
Ben Nelson and the other GOP members do not want open discussions on the floor because it might show the real Americans who they support the most.
How’s that open transparency working for ya.
cleek
i blame Obama. and Rahm. mostly Rahm.
Bill E Pilgrim
So the bill is actually very popular, a pretty big majority of the public in polls showing that they’re in favor of the Democrats’ position in wanting to pass this.
So I guess we’ll be hearing now about how the Republicans are “shoving their filibuster down the throats of the American public”, right?
Boy, I bet that phrase is going to be all over cable and network news shows, right?
Right? Hello?
dm
I wish we had a better explanation for Nelson’s perfidy than $75,000 in campaign contributions. Are our politicians really that inexpensive?
kay
@dm:
I agree, but I don’t know how you look at this any other way.
He inserted the exception, and when it was stricken, he voted “no”, which was (supposedly) a surprise to the other Democrats.
If he had concerns about dentists, presumably he could have addressed those concerns in the legislation: he inserted the Warren Buffett Exception Clause. Why didn’t he insert the Dentist Exception Clause?
It’s an absolute bargain, right? 75k in contributions is worth 8 billion dollars. Vastly more than that, because the exception would apply to all existing contracts.
cleek
@Bill E Pilgrim:
and then they’re gonna cloture my caucus and frank you in the gerrymander – without even a pocket veto in return!
aaiiiee!
Ash Can
@kay: I don’t see how it could have been a surprise to anyone. It would make more sense that the Dems figured this was the landscape for this stage of the bill, and would take things from there. What’s news here is that the WaPo did a stand-up job on calling Nelson on his bullshit.
And once again, it’s not even the crime, it’s the cover-up. If Ben Nelson were a person of character — not to mention halfway decent at his job — he could have figured out a way to praise the “contributions” made to our economy by folks like Buffet, figured out a way to spin the exemption as a positive, and defended his vote on that basis. But no, he’s too incompetent and dishonest to do that. He deserves to get kicked around for this.
Too bad the political alternatives to him in ND are all worse.
Incertus (Brian)
@dm: Are our politicians really that inexpensive?
Yes. SATSQ.
Napoleon
I am surprised no one said this, but I don’t know if it is worse that he is doing Buffets bidding or the fact he used a complete BS talking point of the Republicans as cover for what he did which has the effect of lending credence to it.
asiangrrlMN
@DougL (frmrly: Conservatively Liberal): I second the patch idea. I want to know who is paying for which congressperson, please. And, damn. I was beginning to like Buffett.
Violet
@dm:
Yeah, that’s not really all that much money in PoliticianLand. What other dealings does Nelson have with Buffett? There’s gotta be more to it than that.
Alternatively, has Nelson been chosen to take the fall on this one so that other Senators can keep their cushy Wall St. relationships or something?
I’m all for following the money, but in PoliticianLand money, this is like a foot long trail of nickels and dimes. Doesn’t go far enough.
arguingwithsignposts
Okay, serious question: are we sure it was Buffett who put in the call and not some ordinary douche at Berkshire-Hathaway?
ETA: A grandfather clause is not necessarily a bad request, but the “optics” definitely stink to high heaven.
Poopyman
@dm:
YES! Yes they are. Plus, they’re looking to more in the future. That, IMO, doesn’t mean they’re not cheap. But compared to billions of dollars, every legal contribution is going to look cheap in comparison.
BTW, Berkshire-Hathaway is on Farnam Street. That’s a block off Dodge Street, which seems to be Omaha’s Main Street. This is apropos of nothing, since Ben was tossing out whatever chaff he could think of to try to obscure the obvious.
Waynski
Buffet plays the “aw shucks” I’m Andy Griffith act to hide the fact that he’s just as much a gorilla as the rest of the assholes on Wall Street. Don’t believe the hype. He’s just as greedy and corrupt as the rest of them.
jwb
@Incertus (Brian): Depends on who you are. Buffett can buy Nelson for $75K, but I’d be surprised if one of us mere mortals could buy him for that, and of course there is the DFH premium to pay. That’s one of the benefits of having billions in your back pocket—and Nelson keeps Buffett happy not just for his $75K but also to keep money from flowing to his opponents. I’ll add that at least Buffett is one of Nelson’s constituents, so there is actually a case Nelson could have made on that basis, as @Ash Can suggested. But, no, Nelson can’t be bothered, and I really can’t imagine that Buffett is particularly pleased with the ham-fisted way that Nelson handled this.
asiangrrlMN
@arguingwithsignposts: Lady Smudge (from earlier “Ben Nelson is an asswipe” thread) is growing up to be such a beauty! The sleeping on your head thing, though, does not fade with age. I’m just saying.
cleek
maybe Nelson’s being paid by the GOP to make the Dems look (even more) corrupt and stupid.
want to paint the Dems as the party of big business? get one of their Senators to fall on his sword for Wall Street. tada!
Kirk Spencer
In tracing the money for Buffett to Nelson, don’t forget the negative.
If Mr. Buffett decides Senator Nelson is ineffective or even harmful to his interests, how much damage can he do to Senator Nelson’s re-election by funding ‘the other guy’?
DanF
I am forever amazed at just how cheap it is to buy a Senator. $75,500 – pocket change to a guy like Buffett.
ksmiami
Tourre is such a smug little twerp isn’t he? Check out his “statements” in Bloomberg today. The Fabulous FAB – ass… He really thinks people like Goldman!
PanAmerican
@cleek:
If only Duncan Black was running the lege operation out of the West Wing. A couple of snarky rejoinders and….PROBLEM SOLVED!
Seriously. I saw it on The West Wing at least 3 or 4 times.
DanF
@PanAmerican: What is with all the Atrios hate around here lately? From what I can see, Duncan Black is firmly rooted in reality. You may not like his snark or his tactical approach to politics, but there’s no denying that he is an astute observer of the American political landscape. I would say Atrios is one of the bloggers who has done the most over the years to bring attention to the right-wing bullshit in the MSM. He doesn’t offer magical pony solutions and is, indeed, quite critical of magical pony thinking. Your comment is way off base and is a gratuitous dig.
PanAmerican
You’re right. Capping urban freeways is more magical unicorn than pony.
arguingwithsignposts
@DanF:
Um would that be political reality? Because I’m not SUPERTRAINS seeing that.
SiubhanDuinne
Ben seems to have a different story for every interlocutor. Saw this at DailyKos:
Or maybe he’s a terrible *person* or something.
gbear
@Bill E Pilgrim:
Last night on the way home from work, All Things Considered characterized it as ‘Republicans held together to prevent the Democrats from pushing their financial reform bill through…” That’s as far as I got before I switched channels.
My commute is only 3 miles but I NEVER make it all the way home without switching away from ATC.
LGRooney
I actually agree with Buffett on this. I think it unfair for legislation to act on a contract that was placed prior to enactment of the legislation because it changes completely the whole valuation of the contract. IANAL but I would venture to guess it wouldn’t necessarily hold up in court. However, perhaps Ben-Folds-For-A-Five Nelson can run this by Buffett: we’ll exclude current contracts from this new requirement but we will remove any government guarantees from current contracts and any negative aspects resulting from bets gone bad will specifically not be subject to any government protections. Would Buffett buy that?
J
And of course, it’s worse than just being wrong about the merits of the bill. Ben Nelson has adopted the view now common among the senate’s prima donnas: if I’m not happy with a bill, then not only will I vote against it, I’ll vote with a minority to prevent the bill from coming to a vote or even being debated by my colleagues.
Fleas correct the era
I dunno … even with cats as fat as Congresscritters (litterally as well as figure-it-ively) … who would have enough room?
Tonybrown74
I’m not one to argue for ideological purity in the Democratic Party, but Sen. Nelson needs to go. He is absolute poison. And he is fucking stupid to think that, in this day and age, he woill not be found out.
Sentient Puddle
I won’t bring up how moronic Ben Nelson is by cravenly throwing out all kinds of weak-ass excuses as to why he voted against moving forward with the debate. It’s sort of boring to talk about. Because Nelson’s a moron.
So I’ll talk policy.
The exemption strikes me as really really bad policy. Leaving existing derivatives in place still presents the risk posed by whatever bad shit is still in the system, and we want that shit gone. Especially if resolution authority is going to be weakened as everyone expects, and you have no good way to deal with new failures. That’s a good way to bring down the system all over again in the very near future.
That all said, I’d put more trust in the security of Buffett’s derivatives than those of other banks. He knows which are good bets and which are weapons of mass destruction. So maybe it’d be worth it to drill down a bit and leave some kinds of derivatives exempt. Stuff like futures, yeah, those are OK, not too worried about them. Stuff like swaps, bring down the fucking hammer on them.
Church Lady
@mai naem: Buffet made sure that the Estate Tax would never touch him – he gave all his money to the Gates Foundation. Once again, a matter of “better thee than me.” Seems a lot of that goes around.
Sentient Puddle
@Church Lady: …which sort of is the point of the estate tax: make that money do something better than provide for a life of inherited sloth.
Not exactly sure what the issue is there.
liberal
@DanF:
Have you been reading the comment sections around here the past few months? Anyone with the temerity to criticize Obama is summarily excommunicated.
catclub
@LGRooney: #34
“I think it unfair for legislation to act on a contract that was placed prior to enactment of the legislation because it changes completely the whole valuation of the contract.”
Of course, you could argue against the Emancipation Proclamation on the same terms.
This argument was also used to oppose Bankruptcy courts being allowed to modify mortgages (successfully, natch).
So it is unfair, let a court decide if there are damages.
liberal
@LGRooney:
Boo frickin’ hoo. The FIRE sector here and in other developed nations has pretty much torpedoed the entire world economy, and you’re upset over this? Futhermore, IANAL but I find it hard to believe this kind of thing doesn’t happen all the time. If “government cannot do anything that would modify the value of an existing contract” were enforced, government would grind to a halt.
liberal
@catclub:
Heh.
sstarr
Ben Nelson will certainly be replaced by a raving loon Republican the next time he’s up for re-election. His vote for HCR was the death warrant for his political career in Nebraska.
Oddly, one of the legitimate uses for derivatives is commodity insurance for farmers. Why Nelson did not bring this up I have no idea – it sounds much better than lying about dentists. My guess is that the legislation somehow exempts farmers – legislation usually does.
And stop picking on Buffet! He’s an OK guy, as far as super rich financiers go these days. Of course, that’s like saying that Dexter is a nice guy for a serial killer….
Sly
Gotta admit, though. After the shitstorm over the “Cornhusker Kickback,” Nelson has to have a set of titanium balls the size of the Mutual of Omaha HQ to pull this kind of shit again.