The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has released this video blaming Republicans and the previous administration for the current economic crisis. My question: Is this fair criticism? While I may agree in part, is it reasonable to blame everything on Republicans? After all, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was signed into law by former President Clinton on November 12, 1999.
What does this video hope to accomplish? Will shaming Republicans result in more cooperation, or inflame and further polarize our body politic? Is this a way to make friends and win votes? Your thoughts ...
I agree. Clinton and Summers bear quite a bit of responsibility for this mess. Plus, it's not like the Democratic Congress did a whole hell of lot to help us avoid this.
ReplyDeleteI think the Democrats could effectively criticize the Republicans for obstructing the various rescue efforts, but it's too easy to solely blame Republicans for causing this mess.
Plus, pointing the finger doesn't get us anywhere and it makes the Democrats look petty and weak.
From Wikipedia's article on the Glass-Steagal act, from the "Repeal of the Act" Section:
ReplyDeleteThe bill that repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (Republican of Texas) and in the House of Representatives by Jim Leach (R-Iowa) in 1999. The bills were passed by Republican majorities on party lines by a 54-44 vote in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final, veto-proof bill was passed in the Senate 90-8 (1 not voting) and in the House: 362-57 (15 not voting). The legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.
As an admitted partisan hack, I believe just about anything denigrating Republicans is good denigration.
ReplyDeleteWelcome, James. I noticed your bolding of the phrase “veto proof” without explanation and am curious what you mean. I understand former President Clinton had no choice in the matter, but I should also point out that there could be no veto-proof majority without crossover votes from Democrats. No matter how one looks at the vote, the repeal of Glass-Steagall was a bipartisan disaster.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, had Glass-Steagall remained in place, it would not have prevented the current crisis. The Act did not cover practices beyond the scope of its provisions, such as the growth of derivatives markets, hedge fund markets, credit default insurance markets, and non-banks acting as if they were investment banks. I have never been a friend of supply-side theory as you can see from previous posts, here and here.
Nor am I a friend of obstructionist politics following an electoral mandate. Perhaps my motives here are more philosophical than political. How can I welcome comments from all sides of the political spectrum while engaging in divisive rhetoric?
For instance, when I visit Pamela’s site, or Open Minded Republican, it is unpleasant to read wanton, belligerent liberal bashing. I try to avoid the same (although my patience gets sorely tested at times).
I think all politicians, no matter their party,simply create smoke screens to hide their incompetence in handling the issues.
ReplyDeleteThey need to get off their lazy asses and figure out how to solve this country's myriad of problems.
We can thank Cheney and Bush for strengthening presidential powers.
ReplyDelete"Time after time, administrations have traded away the authority of the president to do his job," Cheney said in 2002. "We're not going to do that in this administration."
It is paying off for President Obama now.
Whether or not enough Democrats caved in to allow the bill to be veto proof, the philosophy behind it was Republican. To call it a bipartisan disaster is a bit like calling Madoff's victims complicit in the crime. In a sense they may have been, but the victims of a con game aren't as complicit as the man moving the shells around. Too much like saying we're all responsible for electing George Bush because some Democrats voted for him.
ReplyDeleteThey've been pounding "government is bad" on the drums of deregulation for decades. Them, not us. Some of our representatives fell for it, or had their arms twisted or their support bought.
Captain Fogg: Some of our representatives fell for it, or had their arms twisted or their support bought.
ReplyDeleteProbably the more accurate characterization. When the GOP is out of power, their strategy is to obstruct. When the Dems are out of power, they cower and cave because, without lobbyist money, their chances of returning to power are dimmed. Either way, this is an argument for shared blame.
This is from the Wikipedia entry on Larry Summers:
ReplyDeleteSummers hailed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, which lifted more than six decades of restrictions against banks offering commercial banking, insurance, and investment services (by repealing key provisions in the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act): "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the 21st century," Summers said.[10] "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."[10] Many critics, including President Barack Obama, have suggested the 2007 subprime mortgage financial crisis was caused by the partial repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act.[11]
I don't think it's quite right to say that this is strictly a Republican philosophy. Summers and the Clinton administration favored this deregulation.
Maybe Summers is a Republican in disguise.
I’ve been researching this because in my opinion I think it has something to do with the housing crisis, hence our current economic situation. I believe a combination of the CRA and the Gramm-Leach Bliley Act is to blame.
ReplyDeleteI have liberal bashing at my site? Where?
ReplyDeleteActually, Capt. Fogg, Madoff's victims were complicite, because there is no such thing as a sure proof investment, and to put everything into one basket was foolhardy and unrealistic.
ReplyDelete