Financial Regulation, a Pay Cut for Congress and Kagan Missing in Action

1. FINANCE

The
Senate rejects
a move to cut off debate and further amendment on the financial
regulation bill sponsored by Chris Dodd (D-CT).

CEI Experts Available to Comment:
Director of the Center for Investors and Entrepreneurs John
Berlau on how the market dodged
a bullet during the amendment process.

“CEI and other free-market policy
groups, as well as organizations representing the angel investors
that put money into innovative entrepreneurial startups, decried the
rules that would have more than doubled the threshold for “accredited
investor” from $1 million to $2.5 million in net worth — using
the ridiculous rationale that “poor millionaires” needed to
shielded from startup risk. According to the Angel Capital
Association in Kansas City, these provisions would have reduced the
number of eligible angel investors by more than two-thirds and made
private placements of securities nearly as cumbersome as going
public.”

2. BUDGET

Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) proposes a
five
percent pay cut for members of Congress.

CEI Expert Available to Comment:
Journalism Fellow Ryan
Young on why the proposal
is largely symbolic.

“The
federal government is on track to spend about $3.8 trillion this
year. Trimming $4.65 million means that for every $816,502 the
federal government spends, it would save one dollar. Rep. Kirkpatrick
is proposing a 0.00122 percent spending cut. That’s not even a
rounding error. I do not intend to mock Rep. Kirkpatrick. Her
spending cut is better than nothing, and I am glad she is proposing
it. But placed in proper context, it is very, very small. It is a
largely symbolic proposal, and should be treated as such. A 5 percent
pay cut for Congress is no austerity measure.”

3.
LEGAL

Elena
Kagan did
not play a role
in the Supreme Court case challenging life sentences for juveniles.

CEI
Expert Available to Comment:
Senior Counsel Hans
Bader
on why Kagan was shirking
her duty
as Solicitor General by not defending federal law.

“As
dean of Harvard Law School, she banned
the military from Harvard,
challenging a federal law that granted equal access to military
recruiters. She claimed the law, which applied to recipients of
federal funds, was unconstitutional — a position unanimously
rejected
by the Supreme Court. Too bad she didn’t have similar zeal for
protecting crime victims in Monday’s Graham
v. Florida
case, which may well result in dangerous criminals being released who
will go on to commit more acts of violence.”