Last week, Sen. Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) “cram-down” amendment — which would rewrite bankruptcy law to allow judges to renegotiate mortgages with banks — was rejected 45-51 by the Senate. Twelve Democratic senators voted against the bill, after furious lobbying from the mortgage and banking sectors. The financial sector had funneled millions into the coffers of Democratic senators who voted nay, leading Durbin to decry that banks “own” Congress.

This weekend, on the Bill Maher Show, Maher suggested to Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) that progressive Democrats fighting against moneyed interests form a new party: “Let’s be honest, the Democratic party, starting in the 90′s, also became the party of business and Wall Street. So what we really need is another party that’s the progressive party.”

Frank objected, saying, “We who don’t feel that Wall Street should call the shots are in the majority of the Democratic party.” Frank then suggested that the “minority” in the party that is blocking progressive financial reforms break away to form a third party:

FRANK: Yes, I agree with you that I wish there were more Democrats on one side. But what you’re saying on the Democratic side, who are on the side you want, should leave to become the second party. No, I’m the first party. Let the minority, who doesn’t agree with us, let them become the second party.

Frank suggested six times during the interview that Democrats cozying up to the financial sector form their own voting bloc. Watch it:

Even with the setbacks, Frank said that progressives should be happy that legislation protecting credit card holders against abuses — which “the banks hated” — passed the House. “If the Senate doesn’t do that, people have a right to be frustrated. But again, the answer is, kick out the minority, don’t kick out the majority,” he urged.

Notably, the influence of big business is also causing centrist Democrats to attempt to neuter President Obama’s ambitious health care reform and clean energy economy proposals.

In November — when America’s domestic automakers first received aid from the federal government — Fox News was adamant in its belief that the funding should have been withheld because the autoworkers’ union wasn’t making enough concessions. At the time, Fox contributor Jonathan Hoenig called government efforts to prevent the auto companies from entering bankruptcy “thievery,” while decrying the health benefits that union autoworkers receive.

When the automakers’ plans for viability were due three months later, Fox went at it again, claiming that the Big Three should enter bankruptcy because the union hadn’t made significant concessions.

So, now that Chrysler has been pushed into bankruptcy by a few hedge funds that were unwilling to compromise — and with GM potentially set to follow — Fox should be pleased, right? Wrong. Because bankruptcy is evidently also too good for the unions.

Bloomberg reported today that GM’s bondholders are balking at the auto company’s latest offer, and that President Obama will attempt to “safeguard union health-care benefits” if GM were to file bankruptcy. This led Fox News anchors Bill Hemmer and Megan Kelly to go on the offensive, claiming that the administration is “pushing GM toward bankruptcy to benefit the unions.” Watch a compilation:

Even Fox’s correspondent at a shuttered Chrysler plant wasn’t having it, reminding the anchors that the autoworkers worked for and earned the benefits in question. Harold Myerson completed this point:

Shareholders and bondholders knew they were taking risks when they invested in the company, but workers were flatly promised pensions and health benefits in retirement, payments for which were deducted from their paychecks. In sum, even as the administration’s policy toward the banks has a bias toward capital, its policy toward auto has a bias toward labor. Which, in the latter case, is entirely as it should be.

For Fox, meanwhile, any situation in which the union comes out with its jobs and benefits intact is evidently unacceptable.