Jim Lindgren points out multiple problems with Chris Dodd's original draft. My only reassurance - the current plan has moved beyond that.
And his insight on the housing slush fund is an eye-opener - the original Dodd language called for 20% of the profit on each sale to be diverted to the Dem slush fund; this is far different from 20% of *net* profits. In a net profit scenario, losses on some sales would offset gains on others. Under Dodd, any profit is immediately subject to diversion, regardless of whether there are other, greater losses. That is not taxpayer protection. What it is is absurd.