He doesn't need a bill; he only needs to enforce existing laws. He should start with some Dems, to avoid the political accusations. He should do it before the elections. He should announce to the American people that he has asked the Justice Department to pursue these prosecutions because, faced with a government so inappropriately and disproportionately influenced by business, particularly the financial sector, it has been nearly impossible to get effective financial market regulation sponsored, much less passed, so he is going to the next obvious tactic, agressively enforcing the regulations already in place.
But he won't do any of that because he hasn't persued effective regulation of the financial sector, because he is part of the problem.
Don't get me wrong, I don't subscribe to this notion so common at the re-election cycle, that they're all the same, that it makes no difference. I think there are fundamental differeces between the conservative and progressive points of view about the role of government in America. What I think they have increasingly in common is the influence of the private sector on how they act upon those points of view. The line between big government and big business has all but disolved; they are on in the same. In a way, the progressives are worse; they believe in a balance of influence and opportunity, but they take the money and do the favors anyway. The occupy movement and the Tea Party have the same enemy; they're just not smart or organized enough to see it. If they ever do, a couple of pretty lame protest movements will merge into a revolution. Hopefully a non-violent one. But if Wall Street and K Street are not both shaking a bit, it's just because they're too busy feasting on America to notice the rabble out back, chewing on the bones they've tossed in the trash.
Tim
