May 6, 2010--Bipartisanship?
Bipartisanship is breaking out in the Senate.
As the bill to reregulate financial institutions is finally being debated, it appears that Democrats and Republicans are actually working together on shaping it. What's going on here?
Didn't Republicans vow to resist any and all of Obama's legislative initiatives after the Democrats passed the health care reform bill by reconciliation? Actually, haven't GOP senators all along been voting in total lockstep against every piece of Obama-proposed legislation even before that happened? Haven't they been guided by the words of South Carolina's Jim DeMint when he vowed that, "We will do everything to bring him down." Didn't he predict that the health care bill would be Obama's Waterloo?
So, again, what happened to bring about all the working together? Just the other day, for example, the New York Times reported that senators from both parties are working in comity on the bill that would, among other things, end too-big-to-fail.
Weren't these the very same Republican senators who were engaging in a successful filibuster to not even allow the bill to come to the Senate floor for debate? Wasn't it Minority Leader Mitch McConnell leading the way, saying that the bill the Democrats were attempting to enact was really a stealthy way to continue to leave taxpayers on the hook to bail out failing financial institutions in spite of the fact that that was patently false? Yes, there was to be a $50 billion fund to help liquidate defaulting banks, but all of that money was to be put up by the banks themselves.
In fact, even Obama was against that provision and it was about to be plucked out of the eventual bill even without the threat, much less the reality, of a filibuster. Wasn't what we were seeing just more intentional Republican intransigence designed to, again, bring down Obama?
Well, it was.
That is until the Goldman Sachs boys were paraded before the Senate Government Affairs Sub-Committee On Investigations after the newly-awakened Securities and Exchange Commission brought its civil fraud suit against the financial giant. Even Republicans, who up to that point were not inclined to agree to any new regulating, quickly did a U turn and joined the growing public demand that something be done to reign in the excesses that almost brought down the world's economy and destroyed the savings of tens of millions of innocent Americans.
Lloyd Blankfien, Goldman's CEO, and his minions were so outrageous in their unwillingness to take any responsibility at all for what they helped to bring about, they were so morally corrupt, that some of the harshest interrogation came from Republican members of the committee.
This was because one thing Republicans are good at is reading the polls that measure public sentiment. When they saw that two-thirds of Americans were clamoring for legislation to end banking shenanigans, they ended their filibuster and ranting about the Democrats socialistic agenda and joined in the discussion to work on a bill that will, with its limitations, bring about some measure of control of this important sector of our economy.
This outburst of bipartisanship, no matter the source of its motivation, is actually improving the bill. For example, rather than setting up the $50 billion fund, through negotiations, Democrats and Republicans are agreeing to something better:
It would be the FDIC that will finance the liquidation of failed financial institutions. Since 1934 it has performed this function for banks and, if the bill passes (as it now surely will) they will do this for non-bank corporations such as Bear Stearns, using the bankrupt companies' assets to help fund the costs associated with the liquidation. This would mean that shareholders and creditors, not taxpayers, would be stuck with the loses. Just what the free market calls for.
Isn't this the way things are supposed to work? With both parties working together to hammer out deals for the sake of all Americans? Of course. But we shouldn't hold our breaths expecting more of this. The Republicans see a political advantage to clamor onto this bandwagon; but after this bill passes, it will be time to get back to the real agenda--bringing about Obama's Waterloo.
As the bill to reregulate financial institutions is finally being debated, it appears that Democrats and Republicans are actually working together on shaping it. What's going on here?
Didn't Republicans vow to resist any and all of Obama's legislative initiatives after the Democrats passed the health care reform bill by reconciliation? Actually, haven't GOP senators all along been voting in total lockstep against every piece of Obama-proposed legislation even before that happened? Haven't they been guided by the words of South Carolina's Jim DeMint when he vowed that, "We will do everything to bring him down." Didn't he predict that the health care bill would be Obama's Waterloo?
So, again, what happened to bring about all the working together? Just the other day, for example, the New York Times reported that senators from both parties are working in comity on the bill that would, among other things, end too-big-to-fail.
Weren't these the very same Republican senators who were engaging in a successful filibuster to not even allow the bill to come to the Senate floor for debate? Wasn't it Minority Leader Mitch McConnell leading the way, saying that the bill the Democrats were attempting to enact was really a stealthy way to continue to leave taxpayers on the hook to bail out failing financial institutions in spite of the fact that that was patently false? Yes, there was to be a $50 billion fund to help liquidate defaulting banks, but all of that money was to be put up by the banks themselves.
In fact, even Obama was against that provision and it was about to be plucked out of the eventual bill even without the threat, much less the reality, of a filibuster. Wasn't what we were seeing just more intentional Republican intransigence designed to, again, bring down Obama?
Well, it was.
That is until the Goldman Sachs boys were paraded before the Senate Government Affairs Sub-Committee On Investigations after the newly-awakened Securities and Exchange Commission brought its civil fraud suit against the financial giant. Even Republicans, who up to that point were not inclined to agree to any new regulating, quickly did a U turn and joined the growing public demand that something be done to reign in the excesses that almost brought down the world's economy and destroyed the savings of tens of millions of innocent Americans.
Lloyd Blankfien, Goldman's CEO, and his minions were so outrageous in their unwillingness to take any responsibility at all for what they helped to bring about, they were so morally corrupt, that some of the harshest interrogation came from Republican members of the committee.
This was because one thing Republicans are good at is reading the polls that measure public sentiment. When they saw that two-thirds of Americans were clamoring for legislation to end banking shenanigans, they ended their filibuster and ranting about the Democrats socialistic agenda and joined in the discussion to work on a bill that will, with its limitations, bring about some measure of control of this important sector of our economy.
This outburst of bipartisanship, no matter the source of its motivation, is actually improving the bill. For example, rather than setting up the $50 billion fund, through negotiations, Democrats and Republicans are agreeing to something better:
It would be the FDIC that will finance the liquidation of failed financial institutions. Since 1934 it has performed this function for banks and, if the bill passes (as it now surely will) they will do this for non-bank corporations such as Bear Stearns, using the bankrupt companies' assets to help fund the costs associated with the liquidation. This would mean that shareholders and creditors, not taxpayers, would be stuck with the loses. Just what the free market calls for.
Isn't this the way things are supposed to work? With both parties working together to hammer out deals for the sake of all Americans? Of course. But we shouldn't hold our breaths expecting more of this. The Republicans see a political advantage to clamor onto this bandwagon; but after this bill passes, it will be time to get back to the real agenda--bringing about Obama's Waterloo.
posted by Steven Zwerling at
4:50 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home