I thought Republicans were supposed to represent the people? Do they not claim to answer to “real Americans?” Or have I merely misunderstood who the real Americans they refer to are?
Americans, by and large, opposed the bailout of our financial system. We support Wall Street reform that would prevent further bailouts. We are still hurting from the catastrophe that lack of regulation caused.
And yet, today, public debate on reform that could lead to the end of practices that allowed this crisis to occur was shut down by 40 Republicans and 1 Democrat. Public debate. Not a vote to approve the reform. A vote to debate – publicly – what should be in the bill. Why?
Why does it need to be discussed without cameras and written record? Why can we not debate the idea? Is this not America?
Richard Shelby, a ranking Republican member of the Banking committee stated “Most Republicans want a bill. But they want a substantive bill.”
Good! So why did they all (ALL!) vote to block debate on what should be in the bill? Let’s not be confused here. They did not vote no on the actual bill. There is no actual bill. They voted no on whether or not to discuss it openly and in front of the American people. And given the number of lobbyists Wall Street has on Capitol Hill right now – and the amount of funds from Wall Street to the 2010 election – this is very concerning behavior.
I am ashamed of all 41 of you. Rest assured that come this November, it will be clear where you stand. You stand on the side of big banks who did nothing to stop the crisis that they created, they bet on, and they let happen. You now refuse to stop them from doing the exact same thing again. You don’t stand for Americans. You stand for Wall Street. And I hope the voters in your district remember that.
Uruk
4 months ago
I thought that over the past few decades, the Republican Party generally claimed to be against Government regulation as a rule. That alone seems to predict their vote as a party.
Then pile on top all the other stuff– they lobbying, the Republicans’ unwillingness to cooperate after Health Care got crammed through, and then the “Obamaness” of our current President just seems to be more important than preventing more recklessness.
I hadn’t heard about this until reading this here on your blog. I don’t like that something like this won’t be discussed in public. That is rather un-American. It’s far more un-American than say . . . homosexuality or atheism, for example.
the lion
4 months ago
Exactly, Uruk. It is not necessarily their objection to Wall Street reform that I am upset with (although I think they are being ridiculous if they do truly oppose it). I am angered and truly concerned that they are objecting to an open door discussion on a very serious issue. Particularly when they insisted on open door, public debate on health care reform.
mac
4 months ago
It leaves one to wonder (I like the way that sounds ;-)…What is it about open discussion they fear?
Michael Lockridge
4 months ago
The Republicans are managing the Obama administration through obstructionism. They strive to slow the Obama administration sufficiently to prevent his reforms from taking place. In that manner they will have less to dismantle when they again assume power.
Will they assume power again? Eventually. Hey, there are only TWO viable parties. If one doesn’t win, the other will. Sometimes by default.
As to open discussion, it may be just the criminal nature. Criminals generally don’t like scrutiny. How can any politician pay off favors and feather nests while being observed in broad daylight? Burglary is done at night with the residents absent for a reason. Politics is no different.