By this time we all know how very very difficult it is to get anything done in the U.S. Senate, so it is not surprising that Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., was upset about President Obama’s proposals regarding banks—what businesses they can or cannot be in under certain conditions and how big they should be.

One can understand the annoyance of the soon to be retired senior senator from the Nutmeg state who is chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.  After all, members of his committee have been paired off for months working on different facets of financial reform so that the Senate can have a bipartisan solution to hold up to the world.

Never mind that by the time Dodd’s committee finally puts something out, whatever the plan is will have taken longer to gestate than an elephant.  And the similarity, friends, is not likely to end there. 

So much time will have gone by that we will almost have forgotten what the impetus for financial reform was—and maybe that’s the point.  After all, banks are minting money again (although still not lending it), bank bonuses are in the pre-meltdown range (if not higher) and money from bank lobbyists is gushing. 

It’s obviously ‘What, me worry?’ time again in the good old U.S.A.

So what does the president do when these months-long negotiations between Banking Committee members are reaching a critical point?  He comes along and crashes the party.

I guess he didn’t realize just how delicate these negotiations are, how their fragility could be shattered by wanting too much from the legislation.

The New York Times quoted Dodd as saying that the administration was “’getting precariously close’ to excessive ambition for the legislation.” 

Dodd added: “I don’t want to be in a position where we end up doing nothing because we tried to do too much.”

While I feel your pain, senator, I’m also thinking that maybe the president has seen how unrewarding it has been to pretty much hand over major initiatives on health care reform and financial services reform to Congress.  Maybe he has seen the error of his ways and decided to start flexing a bit of executive power.

Maybe he just wants to get something done.  And let’s face it, that hasn’t seemed to bother you or your fellow committee members very much.

I know you are probably getting tons of advice from all corners about what you should do now in the aftermath of the upset election of Scott Brown, a Republican, as a senator in the bluest of states, Massachusetts.

You, and we, are hearing from the punditocracy that it was a repudiation of your overreaching agenda, of health care reform and of all those other “ultra-liberal” causes you’ve espoused since being sworn in exactly a year ago.

Democrats are indulging in paroxysms of hand wringing (the Chicken Little thing), while Republicans are ecstatic beyond belief (What me worry?).  Meanwhile, the country is waiting to see what you’re going to do.

Here, sir, is my advice: Take off the gloves.

Let us see what you really believe in instead of leaving us to fathom what it is that we think you believe in.  And when you’ve shown us what you believe in—then fight for it.

Enough with the bipartisanship already!  If it isn’t obvious by now that you’re not going to get any support from across the aisle—for pretty much anything—then something is wrong with your receptor.  We know you have the fire in the belly and know how to fight.  You overcame long odds to become president after all.

But because you haven’t really fought for anything all out since taking office, and have mainly given half-hearted support to your initiatives, the opposition has been able to get away with its unending chorus of “No!”

Case in point: Health care reform.  I’ll be damned if I know—and I cover it!—where you stand on the issue.  And that’s the problem, sir.  For someone so articulate, you have a way of fuzzying up, if not hiding altogether, what your goals are and what it is you really want to accomplish. 

You and I know that “No” is not going to solve any of the problems that face this country.  In the language of the schoolyard, you’ve got to make your opponents “put up or shut up.”  And if they can’t or don’t “put up,” then start pounding them for doing nothing.  Harry Truman did it.  Bill Clinton did it.  You can do it.

You were elected in large part to change things, if I might remind you of your mantra, sir. 

It’s true you inherited the biggest mess of any president since FDR.  But messes make the man, if you get my drift.

A couple of other things: I don’t think you’ve got a grip on the amount of rage that’s out there.  People want jobs and security for their homes and families. They want to see a sense of fair treatment prevail.  They want to know that the country’s not giving away the bank—to the banks!

If you don’t get on the right side of this rage, you’re going to be a one-term president.

So, take on the big banks, which are the focus of so much of the rage.  But don’t propose measures as a bureaucrat.  And, sir, calling a bevy of bank CEOs “fat cat bankers” one time is just not going to cut it.  As in anything else, practice makes perfect.  So, once more with feeling!

If the country is still limping along a year from now, with unemployment still sky high and people feeling you’re not doing much about it, there’ll be nobody to blame but yourself.

You can look at the Massachusetts election as a reason to run for cover or as a wake-up call.  I sincerely hope you decide to do the latter.  But remember one thing about wake-up calls, sir.  They don’t do any good unless you get out of bed.

My blood started boiling as I read a Dec. 15  article in the New York Times  coming in to work about how executives of three large banks—Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup–did not show up at the White House for a meeting with President Obama that was to deal with getting these institutions to make more loans to small businesses and consumers.

Their excuse?  Bad weather prevented their flights from getting to Washington from New York on Dec. 14.

So, they had to participate in the hour-long meeting by speaker phone.  This is one case where you can literally say “they phoned it in.”

A year ago, these same banks were all too anxious to get to Washington because that was where the money was that would pull their butts out of the disaster they had created through their risk-taking folly.

Now, however, that they seem to be on a sounder financial footing, and have paid back the bailout funds that were so constricting their bonus and compensation schemes, they let some fog or otherwise inclement weather interfere with meeting with the president.

I ask you, if you knew you were supposed to meet with the president on a Monday morning, wouldn’t you have enough sense as the CEO of a multi-billion dollar institution to check what the weather was supposed to be and, if forecast was poor, go to D.C. the day before?   And if you were too busy as said CEO to do so yourself, couldn’t one of your assistants have done it?

But perhaps you were too busy either counting your expected compensation (since your bank was no longer under TARP restrictions) or bemoaning the fact the public outrage had forced you to forego a cash bonus in favor of stock.

This episode, along with the year-long dithering that has just seen the House pass a financial services reform bill and is still waiting for something to emerge in the Senate, makes me believe that not only has nothing changed, but that thing have actually gotten worse.

It is no secret that the banks that took bailout money last year were in a rush to pay it back because of the salary and bonus restrictions for executives that came with the bailout funds.

Some of these banks are stronger than others and could very well be in a position where they could justifiably pay back the money they owed and then some.  

But it is also no secret that some of these banks, such as Citigroup and Bank of America, are in not in a position to do this.  Nonetheless, the Treasury Department has given its approval to every one of the banks that have said they intend to pay back what they owe because they’re strong enough.

Some banks have raised the money to pay back the funds by issuing stock, others through trading profits.  In any case, many analysts have grave doubts about the condition of some of these mega-monsters.  There is still a lot of garbage on their balance sheets that has not seen the light of day but will have to be accounted for in terms of massive losses, probably sometime next year.  Apparently these doubts don’t extend to anyone in charge at Treasury.

There’s been no twisting of arms that I can see.  And further, these banks know that should they approach the brink again, Treasury is there for them, wouldn’t dare to let them fail.

It really is past time for Treasury to get out of bed with Wall Street and start thinking about the rest of us.  And if some bankers sticking their fingers in the president’s eye won’t do it, what will?