Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Barney Frank Wants To Refresh Your Memory

Check out Barney Frank's post in HuffPo

Memory eventually fails us all, but apparently the decline strikes one party far more than the other.

In recent weeks, my friends across the aisle have expended a lot of breath proclaiming that the Democrats caused the present financial crisis by failing to pass legislation to regulate financial services companies in the years 1995 through 2006.

There is only small one problem with this story -- throughout this entire period the Republicans were in complete charge of the House and for the most critical years they controlled the House, the Senate, and the Presidency.



snip

That is why I find it particularly flattering the Republicans now claim that in the years 1995 to 2006 I personally possessed supernatural powers which enabled me to force mighty Republican leaders to do my bidding. Choose your comic book hero -- I was all of them.

I wish I had the power to force the Republican leadership to do my bidding! If I had had that power, I would have used it to block the impeachment of Bill Clinton, to stop the war in Iraq, to prevent large tax cuts for the extremely wealthy, and to stop government intervention into the private life of Terri Schiavo. Yet that power eluded me, and I was unable to stop those things.

According to the Republicans' misty memories of the period before 2007, I allegedly singlehandedly blocked their determined efforts to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and my supposed intransigence literally caused the worldwide financial crisis.

Fortunately, we have tools to aid memory -- pencil and paper, word processing, transcripts, newspapers, and the Congressional record. And as described in the most reputable published sources, in 2005 I in fact worked together with my Republican colleague Michael Oxley, then Chairman of the Financial Services Committee, to write a bill to increase regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We passed the bill out of committee with an overwhelming majority -- every Democrat voted in favor of the legislation. However, on the House floor the Republican leadership added a poison pill amendment, which would have prevented non-profit institutions with religious affiliations from receiving funds. I voted against the legislation in protest, though I continued to work with Mr. Oxley to encourage the Senate to pass a good bill. But these efforts were defeated because President Bush blocked further consideration of the legislation. In the words of Mr. Oxley, no flaming liberal, the Bush administration gave his efforts 'the one-finger salute.'



snip

Ironically, this is the period in which I and my Democratic colleagues actually did possess the magical power needed to make real change in Washington -- we became the majority party. In March 2007, just two months after I became the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee for the first time, I moved quickly to forge a bill which would regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill passed the House in May, with all 223 Democrats voting for it, and 103 Republicans voting against it. President Bush later signed that legislation into law.

Later in 2007, I introduced legislation to restrict subprime mortgages. The bill passed the Financial Services Committee and the House, but it did not pass the Senate, where because of the filibuster rule, the Republican minority actually does have the power to hobble the majority. The bill passed the full House with all 227 Democrats and 64 Republicans voting for it, and 127 Republicans voting against.

Ironically, those Republicans who now attack me most viciously and whose memories are the most impaired were among those who voted against both bills.




I really feel guilty even excerpting this much because it definitely deserves the full read so go check the whole thing out.

(h/t wvng)

2 comments:

  1. Hi sgw, I find myself really conflicted on how much to "snip" these days. Stuff from traditional media is usually full of filler that can easily be tossed away. But most of the blogs I read are already very concise (well, except Greenwald) and my sole purpose in starting the blog was to increase the readership of important pieces/stories by people who don't typically go to blogs and are unlikely to click on the link for more. So I've been erring on the side of more rather than less. Probably violates some protocol, I know.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think its a delicate balance because the truth is you can probably get away with excerpting more from blogs than you can with a mainstream media source but the question is do you want to take that traffic away from the blogger, especially if they are one of your favorites. When a post is really really good I try to give just enough so that a reader will be interested enough to go read the whole thing. Basically the juicier parts. But if its just good or average then I don't mind excerpting the best parts or the majority. I guess it all comes down to whether or not you want to get other people into reading blogs or if you just want to inform them. I would say its really up to you how you want to handle that. I don't think there is a right or a wrong way.

    ReplyDelete

Come Hard Or Not At All!