Obama Misleads Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 09-23-2008 - 1:51pm |
Look what I found in the Washington post!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/18/AR2008091803159_pf.html
'Always for Less Regulation'?
John McCain's record on Wall Street oversight gets some misleading spin from Barack Obama.
Friday, September 19, 2008; A18
TO LISTEN to Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. John McCain is a Johnny-come-lately to the cause of regulating financial markets. "He has consistently opposed the sorts of common-sense regulations that might have lessened the current crisis," Mr. Obama said in New Mexico yesterday. "When I was warning about the danger ahead on Wall Street months ago because of the lack of oversight, Senator McCain was telling the Wall Street Journal -- and I quote -- 'I'm always for less regulation.' "
But the full quotation from Mr. McCain's March interview with the Journal's editorial board belies Mr. Obama's one-sided rendition. The Republican candidate went on to say, "But I am aware of the view that there is a need for government oversight. I think we found this in the subprime lending crisis -- that there are people that game the system and if not outright broke the law, they certainly engaged in unethical conduct which made this problem worse. So I do believe that there is role for oversight."
It's fair to say that Mr. McCain has dramatically ramped up the regulatory rhetoric in the wake of the meltdown on Wall Street. Mr. Obama made the argument about the need for increased oversight much earlier. And Mr. McCain has generally taken an anti-regulatory stance, although not in all cases -- his support for federal regulation of tobacco and boxing being prominent counter-examples. Mr. McCain backed a moratorium on all new federal regulation in 1995, saying that excessive regulations were "destroying the American family, the American dream." On the campaign trail in 2000, he touted his record of voting "for smaller government, for less regulation."
However, when it comes to regulating financial institutions and corporate misconduct, Mr. McCain's record is more in keeping with his current rhetoric. In the aftermath of the Enron collapse and other accounting scandals, he was a leader, with Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), in pushing to require that companies treat stock options granted to employees as expenses on their balance sheets. "I have long opposed unnecessary regulation of business activity, mindful that the heavy hand of government can discourage innovation," he wrote in a July 2002 op-ed in the New York Times. "But in the current climate only a restoration of the system of checks and balances that once protected the American investor -- and that has seriously deteriorated over the past 10 years -- can restore the confidence that makes financial markets work."
Mr. McCain was an early voice calling for the resignation of Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Harvey Pitt, charging that he "seems to prefer industry self-policing to necessary lawmaking. Government's demands for corporate accountability are only credible if government executives are held accountable as well."
In 2006, he pushed for stronger regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- while Mr. Obama was notably silent. "If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole," Mr. McCain warned at the time.
One element of the Obama campaign's brief against Mr. McCain is that he supported repeal of the law separating commercial banks from investment banks. "He's spent decades in Washington supporting financial institutions instead of their customers," Mr. Obama said yesterday. "Phil Gramm, one of the architects of the deregulation in Washington that led directly to this mess on Wall Street, is also the architect of John McCain's economic plan." Would it be churlish to point out that another author of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley law is former congressman Jim Leach, a founder of Republicans for Obama? Or that Obama advisers Lawrence H. Summers and Robert E. Rubin supported the repeal -- which was signed by President Bill Clinton?
It's a reasonable question which candidate has been more attentive to the brewing problems on Wall Street and which has a better prescription for them. But Mr. Obama's attack does not give a fair reading of the McCain record.

I am shocked, shocked to find a candidate misrepresenting a rival's record.
Round up the usual suspects!
The reason the economic arguments tend to work against McCain is severalfold: one, people remember Keating, even if they have to go to history books or WikiPedia to learn (or remind themselves). Saying "well, he didn't actually go to JAIL for it" strikes people in exactly the same way - only in a much worse way - as Clinton's "didn't inhale" statements in 1992. Right. You just chose to sit around in a room with a bunch of people smoking dope, and when it was passed your way, you put it to your lips and drew a breath into your mouth, but not your lungs. It didn't sound right when Clinton said it about weed, and it doesn't sound right when McCain apologists try to suggest that because McCain wasn't actually formally censured or hauled off to jail, that there was no impropriety and no reason to associate McCain with those kinds of deplorable financial shenanigans. That's not to say it isn't TECHNICALLY true, in either case (no one knows for sure if Clinton actually DID inhale, except himself); it just makes people think "what is someone with no interest it _____ (smoking weed, pressuring regulators) doing in a room full of people whom he KNOWS are doing EXACTLY that?
The second part of why economic arguments aren't favoring McCain is that, SINCE Keating, he's repeatedly called himself "fundamentally a deregulator." This is John McCain, in his own words, saying that in general, on principle, he's going to be on the side of less - or NO - regulation, and that for him to endorse or pursue it, he's going to have to be convinced. Perhaps that makes some of the libertarians in the room here cheer....but it shouldn't, in light of the current financial meltdown. Whether you want to try to assign blame to the Democrats or the Republicans, I find it very difficult to take seriously anyone who - at this stage of the game - seriously attempts to deny that this was a failure of deregulation, of lack of oversight and statutory proscriptions.
The third reason - and this may be the most visible and significant one - is that the odds-on favorite for Treasury Secretary in a McCain administration, Phil Gramm, is an undeniable anti-regulation crusader. The now-famous arcane fiscal bill which tore down many of the depression-era regulations prohibiting the sort of excessive behavior which has engendered the current collapse actually BEARS GRAMM'S NAME. And yes, it bears the names of two other legislators of that era, as well. And, as your article points out, one of the other names on that legislation is Mr. Leach, who was one of the organizers of "Republicans for Obama." But do you truly not see the difference, and why people know Mr. Gramm's name but not Mr. Leach's (unless they are inveterate political historians/junkies)? "Republicans for Obama" is a private group which is not affiliated with and has not been funded by the Obama campaign itself, as far as I know. It also has several founders, not just Leach. And Leach hasn't been traveling with Obama, advising him closely on economic matters and rumored to be on Obama's short list for Treasury Secretary. Do you really not see the difference? Or perhaps I should ask the author of the WaPo article you cut and pasted, which was almost certainly Fred Hiatt, since that isn't really an article, but an editorial. And thus, it's Hiatt's opinion, not (necessarily) fact.
For someone who appears to be so concerned about propaganda, I'm surprised that you aren't aware of its use here. Obama may have left the rest of McCain's quote out...but that may have been because the entire thing, in context, doesn't make a lot of sense. What does "I'm always for less regulation," followed not long after by "I do think there is a role for oversight" MEAN? McCain doesn't say, but those two statements stand on their own. McCain is always for less regulation. He doesn't say he's for "no regulation," which pretty much makes the "I think there is a role for oversight" comment later redundant, and obviates the need for its inclusion in Obama's ad. But what McCain DOES say is far more important than what he does NOT. McCain allows that there's a role for regulation....without being specific about what - or how much - that ought to be. But his overarching philosophy, the one underneath all else in this matter, the principle on which he falls back, is "I'm always for less regulation." Hiatt may not LIKE that Obama chose not to - in the context of an expensive 30 second ad - quote the entire paragraph from McCain at length. But including the quote doesn't materially change the statement of McCain's that Obama DID include: that he's "always for LESS (not NO) regulation."
In summary, there's usually a REASON why people, in large numbers, tend to be moved one way or the other by information or knowledge about a candidate - or about events which cast light on that candidate. And it's not an accident or a mistake that in general, the recent bad economic news makes more people remember the link between the policies of the Bush administration (ably assisted by McCain and the rest of the Republican congress from 2001-2006) and the current mess, and they remember John McCain's repeated, strenuous assertions to the effect that he's "always for less regulation," and that those realizations make more people LESS likely to vote for McCain than for Obama. Heck, by coincidence, an article McCain wrote a few weeks back in a backwater journal called "Contingencies" - which just hit newsstands recently, it's the current issue - says the following:
That's John McCain, in a CURRENT issue of a magazine, writing in his own words that he considers the state of banking regulations enough of a success (or, rather, their dismantling and weakening enough of a success) that he wants to use it as a model to de-regulate health care, as well. People don't need a Phil Gramm-level PhD in economics, nor do they have to be a Senator or a mucky-muck to understand the implications of THAT. They see the mess we're in, and they see a CURRENT quote (which I'm sure McCain desperately wishes he could have back) stating that the lessening of regulations on the banking industry was such a success, he'd like to use it on everyone's health care, too.
Fred Hiatt and the editor/publisher gang over at the WaPo spent the first half of this decade cheerleading Bush's various sabre-rattling in other parts of the world (and continue to do so today), so it's no surprise to see them out doing their level best to put the best spin possible on the current economic meltdown as it relates to the possible election of John McCain as President of the United States. But its - as you always seem to object to in liberals - mostly either irrelevant or propaganda, or both....and that's why it's not WORKING on most people out there, and why Obama's numbers are up and McCain's down, over the past week, not because "Obama misled."
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness is in fact held to be enhanced in proportion as truth decreases and illusion increases, so that the highest degree of illusion comes to be the highest degree of sacredness.
But for the present age, which prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, representation to reality, appearance to essence.....truth is considered profane, and only illusion sacred. Sacredness
So you are saying perception is reality and Obama is just trying to capitalize on the faulty perceptions that many people have?
(Also your quote from McCain was completely taken out of context. He was talking about letting people buy insurance from different states, and has nothing to do with today's crisis. It surely makes the left wing bloggers look foolish...Again.
Here is the entire quote:
"I would also allow individuals to choose to purchase health insurance across state lines, when they can find more affordable and attractive products elsewhere that they prefer. Opening up the health insurance market to more vigorous nationwide competition,as we have done over the last decade in banking, would provide more choices of innovative products less burdened by the worst excesses of state-based regulation. Consumer-friendly insurance policies will be more available and affordable when there is greater competition among insurers on a level playing field. You should be able to buy your insurance from any willing provider—the state bureaucracies are no better than national
ones. Nationwide insurance markets that ensure broad and vigorous competition will wring out excess costs, overhead, and bloated executive compensation."
Also, is there ANY WAY you can get your point across without being so wordy?