Yet More Suckitude From John Carney
He is terrible. Today, our ‘Honorable’ voted with the Rethugs and 35 other phony D’s to “exempt many private equity fund advisers from a provision in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law which required advisers with more than $150 million in assets under management to register with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.”
What earthly public purpose could be served by such an exemption? None, none at least that makes sense from a progressive perspective.
John, you were elected under the false pretense that you are/were a Democrat.
You’re not. You’re a tool of this nation’s greediest.
Do everyone a favor and retire. Time for a real Democrat.
WTF? This is ridiculous. It is like he doesn’t give a flying fuck.
And no statement either I’ll bet. His office is terrible. They are phoning it in.
>It is like he doesn’t give a flying fuck.
And you’re surprised why?
He is bought and paid for by big banks, which has been the custom in DE since Pete duPont was elected Governer.
I hope that people realize that anyone investing in private equity is required to be a qualified investor. Joe Q. Public dropping a few bucks in a mutual fund would not be a concern in this scenario.
I love the Brock Landers username. It’s not often you see a Boogie Nights reference in a political forum.
Here’s the issue for Delaware Democrats
You have a Congressman who doesn’t vote for Democratic issues, and yet who is basically invulnerable to a primary challenge.
You have an Attorney General who won’t come clean about his health, and yet who is basically invulnerable to a primary challenge.
You have an Insurance Commissioner who is blatantly anti-consumer, who has already survived one primary attempt and will probably survive the next one.
You have a State Treasurer who [well, fill in the blank here] actually got his job by successfully primarying the incumbent and who (I’m taking bets here) has a good chance to survive a primary ala KWS.
You have a Lieutenant Governor who is a good guy and has done a lot of good things, but has spent the last five years being invisible and never really taking a public stand on anything. So there isn’t a lot of evidence he has the stones to take on the corporate/corrupt establishment.
You have a Governor who is immensely personally popular, but who consistently stiffs State Employees, rules by secret AG opinions, doles out tens of millions in corporate welfare, and has done about as much for DE education as Dubya did for the nation with No Child Left Behind, and he could nevertheless easily get elected for a third term if such were legal.
You have a Mayor of Wilmington who has no clue how to combat crime in the city, and yet who will pretty easily get re-elected when the time comes.
Your potential nominees for Progressive MVP in the other thread include Trey Paradee (who voted against marriage equality, IIRC) and Patti Blevins (who brokered the deal allowing Highmark to come to DE and be exempted from $145 million in reserve requirements and severely limited any power of the AG’s office to oversee their operations).
I will spare you talking about Senator Carper’s record, but no matter how he votes he is basically invulnerable.
The premise of one-party rule is that you’ll actually primary and drive out the people who are pretty much DINOs, except … at the highest levels of office the DINOs and the corrupt seem to flourish instead of going down in defeat. I will grant you that in the freshman and sophomore levels of the GA you’ve actually got a few of what you consider “real” Dems or Progressives in there, but it’s gonna be awhile before a Bryan Townsend or Karen Peterson is ready to take on your corporate shills and cronies, if only because all the people mentioned above have gazillions in their war chests.
So what’s your plan for taking back control of your own party?
(Note: this is a serious question.)
Upon hearing this news my domestic partner replied “he lost my vote, I will never vote for him again.”
All I can do is keep pointing stuff out and supporting people who I see as progressives. Highlighting admirable initiatives and highlighting crapola like what precipitated this thread. Getting involved in those rare contests (Townsend vs. DeLuca) where progressives have a clear choice.
I’ve tried to use the platform of DL to help promote a progressive agenda. I think we’ve seen some serious grassroots successes, especially in the General Assembly, but I think that Carper and Carney, especially, represent a Democratic Party that no longer cares about the core constituencies the Party used to embrace and support.
I believe that a lot of Democrats feel the same way. I also believe that, the more they know, the more they’ll come to agree with us. And, someday, we’ll have better representation.
Not much of a plan. But it’s a plan.
I’m not a Democrat for the reasons El Som cited above. Vote for whores & you’ll get whores.
Carper exempts staff from ACA? http://news.yahoo.com/harry-reid-exempts-some-of-his-senate-staff-from-obamacare-exchanges-192925037.html
…The offices of Ron Wyden, Tim Johnson, Barbara Boxer, Patty Murray and Thomas Carper, all Democrats, said they were exempting some of their staff. Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, has not responded.
Carney’s failings are documented here, but I look at the poll giving him a grade, and “A” is the most popular letter. Obviously he has folks who think he is doing a bang-up job. I like John, but I am not one of them.
So maybe you want to take another look at the DE Treasurer’s call for the same kind of disclosure from these people. Let’s hear how that is totally different.
@LeBay – “And you’re surprised why? He is bought and paid for by big banks…
Carney was elected by Democrats. I clearly remember some excitement and optimism about his run for Congress. At the Markell primary victory party a chant of “Congressman Carney!” went up right after a the chants of “Governor Markell!” He was a very approachable candidate who said a lot of great things to progressive. He was (and continues to be ) well liked by organized labor. He doesn’t have to be the financial industry stooge that he is determined to be.
@Another Mike- Carney’s failings are documented here, but I look at the poll giving him a grade, and “A” is the most popular letter.”
This poll, like all internet polls, is being freeped. There is no way he is getting a legit “A” from DL readers.
@SteveN –“Your potential nominees for Progressive MVP in the other thread include Trey Paradee.”
You overplayed your hand. Your other points were good ones, but he MVP nomination process is an open one and I’m sure we have people here who have no idea that “progressive” in this context doesn’t mean car insurance.
@ Steve – This is also bullshit:
I did a little digging. Just a little. I stayed away from right or left leaning media. Unlike the Daily Kos. This is what I found.
The CBO says that the SEC will still have oversight.
“The bill would direct the SEC to adopt rules requiring exempt advisors to maintain records and provide reports to the commission as deemed necessary based on the fund’s size, governance, risk, and investment strategy. Under current law, investment advisers do not have to register or report to the SEC if they advise only venture capital funds that meet certain qualifications”
This bill just removes the requirement that you have to re-register every time you hit $150 million in assets, which could happen numerous times in a year as many advisers jump from contract to contract. In essence, the bill takes away the “mandatory” filing requirement for private equity fund advisers managing more than $150 million in assets, but to make up for it, the bill calls for the SEC to require that “all” advisers maintain certain and specific information in the event that the SEC chooses to investigate said adviser. Once you become a fund adviser you are already registered with the SEC so it is not like the bill gives them freedom to roam Wall Street in the dark. It simply rolls back an unnecessary regulation and gives the SEC more freedom.
This is a bill that needs to be explained… not one that can be fully understood by reading headlines.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44409
The people/institutions arguing for rolling back ‘unnecessary regulation’ are those who, to a large degree, created the mess that requires more regulation.
Here’s what Rep. Steven Lynch of Mass. said:
“”One of the most important lessons that we did learn during the financial crisis is that systemic threats seem to always bubble up from the opaque and unregulated segments of the market,” said Rep. Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.). “Giving this exemption will allow threats to once again grow in the dark corners of our financial system, only showing themselves when it is too late to prevent serious harm to the American taxpayer.”
‘Unnecessary regulation’ in this case is both oxymoronic and moronic.
To call all regulation necessary is just as silly as calling all regulation unnecessary. I’d expect more from you El Som.
Rep. Lynch gives no specifics as to how this can happen, much like you and the folks commenting, he just says that it inevitably will with no practical reasoning. It is simply based on the ideology that Dodd Frank is perfect and any further analyzing of that bill is a kin to weakening the system. Furthermore, neither he nor you mention that the regular filings of these advisers when they reach this arbitrary figure of $150 million rarely, if ever, result in SEC investigations. If the SEC wants to investigate a fund adviser they still have the ability to do so. If the fund advisers have not maintained the records as required by the SEC, they will be in trouble. They will not be operating in the dark because they will have already registered with the SEC. This does nothing to weaken the system. If you disagree, please explain how.
‘Unnecessary regulation’ is the mantra that led to disastrous deregulation that has led to stuff like, well, the fiscal implosion that this legislation is designed to prevent from repeating. Your first paragraph is disingenuousness at its finest.
John Carney, a green eyeshade guy if there ever was one, especially when it comes to the ‘necessity’ of spending cuts, just goes on as if the fiscal implosion never happened. Not sure if he ever got off of the ‘unnecessary regulation’ bandwagon, even when it became clear that only regulation could keep the billionaire thieves and their institutions somewhat in check.
He does not represent the concerns of ordinary citizens, NONE of whom are pushing for this bill. He represents the already-discredited special interests who are. Why is he so quick to take up their cause while looking for the ‘grand bargain’ that would lead to cuts in Social Security, Medicare, food stamps and the like?
He consistently votes with that small group of D’s who are beholden to the financial industry. Which makes him unworthy of holding elective office as a D.
BTW, Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect. It should be stronger, and not subject to erosion like this bill would do.
You said a lot of stuff El. However, none of it said much. I’m not here to defend John Carney’s past. While I agree that stripping of certain regulations does cause fiscal disaster, I am not gullible enough to buy into the mantra that all regulations are good, or that rolling back certain regulations is evil.
This discussion is about this particular bill. Simply saying that
“BTW, Dodd-Frank isn’t perfect. It should be stronger, and not subject to erosion like this bill would do”
does not answer the question as to how this bill would erode Dodd Frank or create a blind spot in the system.
El, good sir, if you do not know how it would erode Dodd Frank or create a blind spot in the system, just say
“Black Cobain, I’m a fan of the Daily Kos and am inclined to believe what they write if it ties in with my beliefs about Republicans or Moderate Democrats. I have neither the time nor the patience to actually dissect this bill to uncover the truth of its intent or operation. It’s much easier for me to copy the blog link and rally the mob”
At least I could understand that…. lol
You also fail to mention that Carney did vote for the Democrats amendment that would have simplified the filing process. However, that amendment did not pass. Since simplification failed, I would imagine that the only next plausible step would be supporting the bill that would simply get rid of the regulation all together while simultaneously providing the SEC with the ability to create a new format that is easier for them to go after these guys. Sounds like moderation to me. Such a dirty word.
@jason If you think my comment re: Matt Denn is BS (and I know you’re a fan), then when didn’t you react to El Som on the other thread when he said:
A question. I’m a big Matt Denn guy, but what did he do this year to earn inclusion? Serious question, not snark.
So eliminate my comments of Denn and Paradee, you’re still left with 85%+ of my argument that the Democratic Party in Delaware consistently supports and elects corporatists and corrupt pols to high office.
This is not in the bill:
Which means that your so-called bit of moderation-spalining is now quite suspect. This is what the CBO says:
So these investment advisors still get to operate in the shadows under these conditions and the SEC gets to require *reports* from these folks, but not actually regulate their activities as Dodd-Frank required.
The genuine bit of moderation here would have been for Carney and the folks voting for this was to make this bill clear that these advisors are liable for their behavior and their impacts to the economy in the case of dodgy investments. And to say that they’ll never be eligible for any taxpayer help in case of misbehavior. Keep the intent of Dodd-Frank and let these cowboys do what they do. Just make sure they are dead if they jump off of a cliff.
In addition to what Cassandra and El Som said, this is another vote that shows Carney is simply not a team player. Would it kill him to vote on the side of Democratic unity once in while?
That said, I guess if the financial industry is your team – you might view him as a solid team player.
@Steve – El Som got me warmed up, but your comment got me off th3e dime.
You are really wrong Cass. lol The original Dodd Frank requirement did nothing but ask these advisers the fill out paperwork when they advise certain companies that control over X amount of assets. My comment, that you said was now quite suspect, is nothing more than the result of what the regulation did, not something that was written in the bill. The reason that this bill was necessary was to correct that problem which arose when the bill was implemented. These guys are not operating in the dark. They are already registered with the SEC. In fact, I could make the argument that this would actually expand the scope of Dodd Frank because under current law, investment advisers do not have to register or report to the SEC at all if they advise only venture capital funds that meet certain qualifications. This bill would require the SEC to adopt rules requiring ALL exempted advisers to maintain records and provide reports to the commission as deemed necessary. You just don’t have to reregister and file new paperwork based on the arbitrary $150 million dollar mark. It would hold all advisers to the same standards. smh… Again, you are just reciting talking points. Not explaining a position. Explain to me how this weakens Dodd Frank. Please..
Again… Jason…
You also fail to mention that Carney did vote for the Democrats amendment to the bill that would have simplified the filing process. However, that amendment did not pass. Since simplification failed, I would imagine that the only next plausible step would be supporting the bill that would simply get rid of the regulation all together while simultaneously providing the SEC with the ability to create a new format that is easier for them to go after these guys. Sounds like moderation to me. Such a dirty word
I’d really love to be deemed this site’s official moderate voice in the comments section. lol
Also – stop clearing your cookies. Your 25 votes for “A” aren’t impressing anyone.
There isn’t a requirement to *re-register* every time you hit $150M in advised assets.
But the bill Carney voted on changed the advised assets level from $150M US aggregate to:
They changed the bar for reporting from an aggregate amount to a standard based on the debt of the advised fund. So instead of reporting based on the level of work the advisor does, it is now a standard that relies on debt reporting of the advised fund. Why would you do that? It isn’t too hard for an advisor to gather up clients worth in total more than $150M. They’ve changed the risk measure to one of fund debt, meaning that they are letting far more of these investment advisors operate in the dark. The remove the opportunity for the SEC to regulate these folks and just rely on reporting.
And I’ve done more explanation and reading of this stuff than you have, Black Cobain. So run back and tell the Carney people giving you this bad info and talking points that they aren’t smart enough for this.
How are they no longer regulated? They just don’t have to file once a year. There is little difference in the level of scrutiny that they faced before. You act as though when advisers did their annual mandatory reporting there was some guy in the basement of the SEC evaluating each one and uncovering crimes. There wasn’t. Whats the difference in saying that the SEC can request documentation when needed verses.. you have to report once a year? Either way, if the SEC wants to investigate you they still have the ability to do so. The SEC has a mandate to create their own regulations in that regard.
There is a different level of reporting and disclosure required of advisors who are registered vs those who are not (exempt). The reporting and disclosure that had been required would at least let regulators review financial activity rather than just let it happen in the shadows.
And there isn’t anything moderate about advocating for financial operations occurring without some sunshine.
What are you talking about? The reporting that they are talking about is with regard to the advisers, not the institutions. Deals between institutions is not in question right now and is not affected by this. When the advisers submitted their yearly reports do you really think that the SEC was reviewing financial transactions? If you do, I have a bridge to sell you.
I’m not talking about the institutions, I’m talking about reporting done by registered vs exempt advisors.
So, you really don’t know what you are talking about then. You can go away now.
lol.. ok Cass. If you have so much faith that the SEC was checking those yearly reports, why would you not believe that they would still go after dirty advisers if given the ability to write their own compliance regulations. smh…
Time to primary his ass
And, I’m still here:
Instead of dancing on this — Chip Flowers-style, you should either ask me what I mean here or go away.
@jason
Here’s my serious take on Matt Denn: First, I like and respect the guy. I have worked on many of the same special education projects (I won’t claim we have worked together, but we have corresponded at some length at various times over the years). Of all the available Democratic bench, from which we WILL choose our next governor whether I like it or not, Matt Denn is the best bet, hands down.
That said, even recognizing that LtGov is a difficult position because you are supposed to support your boss and you have no real power other than the parole board, I have been severely disappointed at Matt’s silence or absence from many issues over the past few years. Markell has left us with a legacy that is going to have to be cleaned up rather than admired, and I really don’t want to hear somebody tell me that he’s his own man, or that he had different ideas even way back when when those ideas were never expressed.
You can argue, with considerable justification, that my expectation of Matt in this regard is too high. I’ll give you that. But recognize that it is the fact that I have a high level of respect for Matt that makes me so disappointed in his performance. He’s not corrupt, and he’s not a corporatist (that I can tell), but he’s also been silent for too long.
I’m surprised that so many people seem surprised that Carney sucks.
I’m not. It wasn’t a given that he was going to suck. His real dad was a good hearted guy. He seemed like a decent guy from a loving family.
His adoptive dad, Tom Carper, is the emperor. I’m tempted to blame Carper outright, but you can’t exculpate Carney. He is a grown ass man making his own choices in life.