[Vision2020] an important Communiqué from The No Weatherman

[No Weatherman]

Paul,

Good job.

I can always count on you to kick the tires and look under the hood.

BUT:

You're arguing the case from a bill at its inception point rather than
the bill as it was signed.

The article makes no representations about its original content as its
sponsors presented it to Congress.

Bills come and go, and some survive without looking anything like
their original wording. Pork. Earmarks. More pork. And they reach
accord.

The writer's point stands because this was the only Republican-sponsored bill.

You make his point by pointing out Congress's supermajority, which
included a huge number of Democrats.

FWIW, I posted the article for the punch line — Obama voted present.

I thought it complimented my important communiqué and demonstrated one
more time that Obama's legislative history is anemic at best.



On Sat, Oct 18, 2008 at 12:07 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
> No Weatherman wrote:
>>
>> Obama Voted 'Present' on Mortgage Reform
>> The only banking 'deregulation' in recent years was that of Fan and Fred.
>> By PETER J. WALLISON
>>
>> If Sen. Obama had been asked for an example of "Republican
>> deregulation," he would probably have cited the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act
>> of 1999 (GLBA), which has become a popular target for Democrats
>> searching for something to pin on the GOP. This is puzzling. The
>> bill's key sponsors were indeed Republicans, but the bill was
>> supported by the Clinton administration and signed by President
>> Clinton. The GLBA's "repeal" of a portion of the Glass-Steagall Act of
>> 1933 is said to have somehow contributed to the current financial
>> meltdown. Nonsense.
>>
>
> I was curious about this, so I went to Wikipedia
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm-Leach-Bliley_Act), which claims the
> following (paraphrased) about this bill:
>
> - The Senate bill was introduced by Phil Gramm, the House bill by Jim Leach,
> both Republicans.
> - The Senate voted on May 6, 1999, which passed along party lines (53 R + 1
> D in favor, 44 D opposed).
> - On July 20, the House passed a different version by uncounted voice vote.
> - Senate and House could not agree on a joint version of the bill
> - House voted on July 30 for negotiating for protection against exclusionary
> redlining and for greater medical and financial privacy (58 R + 182 D for,
> 131R + 1 D against)
> - The bill moved into committee.
> - Democrats agreed to support the bill after Republicans agreed to support
> the anti-redlining Community Reinvestment Act and to address privacy
> concerns.
> - The agreed upon bill passed in the Senate by 90 - 8, in the House by 362 -
> 57.
>
> I haven't looked for proof that the Clinton administration supported this
> bill, but it doesn't really matter as the final vote was "veto proof"
> anyway.
>
> So, instead of the narrative above which tries to present an image of two
> Republicans introducing a bill for Clinton, it looks a lot more like the
> Republicans wanted even more than they got, and the Democrats worked to
> compromise on some of the bill's aspects they didn't like.
>
> Paul
>
>