That title goes far beyond anything I’m prepared to deliver for this blog post. But, the Indy Star has an article entitled GOP blocks debate on financial reform. That’s a tough vote for a party vying to capture populist anger about the economy. And this isn’t even just a vote against regulation – this was a vote against debating financial reform.
Senate Republicans united Monday to block debate on legislation that would make the most far-reaching changes in financial industry regulation since the Great Depression — slowing but probably not stopping a bill that has been propelled by angry voters who want to crack down on Wall Street.
The 57-41 vote marked the first Senate showdown over the issue. No Republicans voted for the motion to begin debate on the bill; 60 votes were needed to end GOP delaying tactics and move the issue to the Senate floor. Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, a Democrat, joined in the opposition.
True or not, Republicans are battling against a reputation of doing the bidding of the wealthy in America — kind of like the whole Democratic “weak on defense thing”. Anything that plays into that narrative will get amplified. Anything that goes against that narrative tends to get ignored. This won’t help in a tough economic climate featuring a Wall Street casino, bail out of too big to financial institutions, and huge compensation packages for those in the financial industry who rolled the dice even though they lost.
In a nice Orwellian turn of phrase, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said this party-line vote to filibuster even debating the bill was a “vote for bipartisanship.”
The push for overhauling the financial regulatory system — like the health-care battle before it — represents a landmark domestic policy initiative by the president and his Democratic allies in Congress. And it may be their last chance for a major victory before this fall’s contentious midterm elections. In taking on Wall Street, Democrats are emboldened by polls showing that two-thirds of Americans favor their legislation.
The official line is that they are filibustering to prevent debate on the financial reform bill in order to improve it. (Which, itself, has kind of a “burning down the village to save it” feel). But that’s a tough sell following the health care debate where these filibusters were being used to try to “kill the bill.”
Update Matt Taibbi elaborates on this theme in the context of the Goldman Sachs Senate hearings.
It seems that the parties only want to debate if they feel they have a slam dunk. Republicans want to duck this debate, while Dems want it. With health care, it was the Dems that were in a hurry to vote and avoid protracted debate, while Rs wanted it. I think they all forget that the Senate was designed to be the more deliberative body.
What’s with Ben Nelson? Is he the biggest game player/hostage holder in the Senate, or what?
if the dems were in such a “hurry to vote and avoid protracted debate” re: health care, then why did it take a full year to pass?
the health care bill was debated endlessly for months while dems tried to get even one republican on board. eventually they came to realize that would never happen, and only then did they press on with getting the bill passed.
Agreed on Nelson. He’s making quite a name for himself.
But, on health care, it seems like that legislative debate went on for a year. I never got the feeling the Rs wanted a debate on it so much as they wanted it to go away and die.
I had the impression that there was not a lot of opportunity given to the R’s to have meaningful input into the health care bill – and the period between the final version and the vote was rather less than a year, wasn’t it?
Democrats were *eager* for Republican votes in the Senate. Did any Republican Senators offer input in the form of, roughly, “I’ll vote for the bill if you add a & b and take out x & y.” I kept hearing suggestions that amounted to, “no” and “start over and maybe I’ll possibly think about voting for it if you give up everything you want.”
Parker said, “I had the impression that there was not a lot of opportunity given to the R’s to have meaningful input into the health care bill…”
Six Republican Ideas in the health care bill:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html
(1) “Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.”
(2) “Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.”
(3) “Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.”
(4) “End junk lawsuits.”
(5) The tax break for employer-sponsored insurance.
(6) This is a private-market plan.
The idea that Democrats or the President didn’t listen to Republicans is a canard.
Thanks, Chad – here’s a conservative analysis of Ezra Klein’s article:
Six Republican Ideas in HCR?
I’m not sure what made it into the final bill – I think both articles were written before passage.
On a personal note, I was sorry to learn that the legislation will keep me from paying for OTC medications and devices from my HSA – I don’t see where the savings to anyone comes from that.
stAllio! – The issue was alive for a year. A handful of bills were crafted to start that period of time. But, debate? Both sides issued talking points. Congressional leaders and the White House met behind closed doors a couple of times. The blogosphere carried a *lot* of water that may have looked like debate, but it really isn’t the same to me as the House & Senate taking the issue to the floor, the bills read, and the finer points discussed.
My lasting memory is of the distasteful quote, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” I had a huge problem with that. Quite apart from whether or not I favor the passage of any bill, I want the Senate especially to deliberate. I understand that quote came from a House member, but the spirit of ignorance that quote embraces is today’s bipartisan world.
i repeat: the senate deliberated for a full year!
they deliberated mostly in committee. democrats begged and pleaded for even one republican who’d be willing to sign on. only a few even pretended to do so, but no matter how many times the democrats changed their proposals, republicans would find something else to complain about.
they may not have done much of that deliberation on the senate floor, but — this is key — senate republicans did everything they could to shut down all debate on the floor.
you may not like the way it all went down, but to suggest that the democrats wanted to “avoid protracted debate” flies in the face of reality. they debated incessantly for months on end.
One more point on the Democrats didn’t listen to Republicans canard – it was very similar to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/236421
On the surface, I agree with you, Parker, about excepting over the counter drugs and devices from health savings accounts. I would be interested in the rationale behind doing so. The bill, imo, was not perfect. Being the bleeding heart liberal I am, I want single payer. ;)
I can’t believe that the GOP doesn’t want financial reform. It so patently is needed. But I think it was NPR that got it right: this supposedly procedural vote is in effect a vote for passing the Democrat bill on the fast track because the GOP can filibuster with 41, but can’t stop the Bill with fewer than 50.
David Brooks summed up well today:
“The premise of the current financial regulatory reform is that the establishment missed the last bubble and, therefore, more power should be vested in the establishment to foresee and prevent the next one.
If you take this as your premise, the Democratic bill is fine and reasonable. It would force derivative trading out into the open. It would create a structure so the government could break down failing firms in an orderly manner. But the bill doesn’t solve the basic epistemic problem, which is that members of the establishment herd are always the last to know when something unexpected happens.”
Chad –
Massachusetts ain’t working too well – and Mitt is not exactly a Republican health care poster boy.
I’m with you on single payer – I think you should be the single payer for your health care needs, and I should be the single payer for mine.
That would be easier to do if the health insurance situation in this country was anywhere near rational – or even sane…
Parker said, “I’m with you on single payer – I think you should be the single payer for your health care needs, and I should be the single payer for mine.”
If you can’t pay for you health care then should we let you die or go bankrupt?
So much of the health care debate was limited to debating the speculation each side,dems and repubs..I dont know of a better site than NPR to get things explained throughly from all points of view,but most people just dont go there.
A current enigma to me is what the republicans want changed or added to the Wall Street reform bill. I havent heard what the republicans want only that theyre fillibustering and want a backroom agreement before the bill hits the scutiny of public debate.But I havent listened to NPR today .There’s so much talk and so little explanation.
Chad –
That’s why I’d like a sane health insurance market – so I can insure myself against just such risks in a way that I choose to.
Are you willing to spend an unlimited amount of money to keep me alive (and solvent)? If not, how much will you spend? And whose money will it be?
Parker’s post:
“Let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines.”
(2) “Allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do.”
(3) “Give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs.”
(4) “End junk lawsuits.”
(5) The tax break for employer-sponsored insurance.
(6) This is a private-market plan.
In my view,
The first problem would be that unless a health care has basic protections guaranteed,its the same as useless,and that means government rules to at least raise the bottom protection to above flood level, financially speaking.. Only then should anyone ‘choose’…Affordable for some people leaves them practically with no choice in todays world.
And what should wage earner(s) for a family of 4 have to earn in order to afford health care,if there are no government subsidies? $50,000 family income is already harrd to find money to buy insurance’ To me this the true middle class.
Then the 3rd issue is who is going to define ‘junk lawsuit’? Again you have to have a specific definition and that means a government intervention to write the regulation. If there is only private control with no government mandate ,the the right to sue has to be guaranteed,that’s just common sense .
But Im just a retired, kind of liberal ,retired public school teacher, so Im probably not on any conservative’s “must-hear list’of suggestions.
But I think what I just oulined is basic stuff.I wrote this out without any kind of research,just off the top of my head..It’s the kind of basics today’s conservatives feel free to ignore due to ideology.
Lou –
That was from Chad’s comment, not mine.
I would suggest that “junk lawsuit” could be defined as one in which the person speaking is the defendant.
Hey Parker sorry for attributing someone else’s quote to you.One thing I like about this blog is I can make some errors,such as misattributing a quote or mispelling words, by leaving out a letter mostly, and no one throws me into the irretrievable trash heap.
This blog is always so civil and sticks to the subject at hand.Its such a civilized place in Massons blog.
The French are absolutely brutal if you make a spelling or grammar errors in French in any kind of professional corespondence. You hope you never have to meet the person you wrote to.
Wait a minute!
We have an irretrievable trash heap? Why wasn’t I told?
BTW, what both Chad and I put up were comments – ‘posts’ are what our host does.
Also, some of the pixels in your comments are not square, and a couple of them are badly faded.
Now, to the irretrievable trash heap with you!
Parker said, “Are you willing to spend an unlimited amount of money to keep me alive (and solvent)? If not, how much will you spend? And whose money will it be?”
Unlimited? No. But not zero, either. Not sure what a fair number is. Generally, I value human life more than I value money, so I would probably spend more than I assume you would. With a single payer system (not your definition of it), the “risk” would be spread out amongst the largest possible number of people.
Chad –
“Not sure what a fair number is.”
Well, me neither, really.
But if all we can agree on is that a fair number is somewhere between zero and infinity, we haven’t settled very much.
I wish we were faced with easier questions – or even that we agreed on what the important questions are. Guess we’ll continue to muddle through, somehow.