Here is something I don’t understand. David Sirota is happy that the House voted today not to release the second half of the TARP money to the Obama administration. Sirota isn’t happy about the vote because it will actually stop the transfer of $350 billion of taxpayer money to the discretion of the Treasury Department. No, he knows that the Senate voted to release the money and, as a result, it will be released. Sirota is pleased because:
…this is a major victory for the progressive movement in that the House has formally gone on record against kleptocracy.
Is this really a major victory for the progressive movement? I looked at the vote and I noticed that all but four Republicans voted the way Sirota wanted. Then I noticed that almost the entire Blue Dog caucus voted the way that Sirota wanted. I did find a few progressives (e.g., Carol Shea-Porter, Bob Filner, Pete Stark, Jose Serrano) but the vast majority of the Progressive Caucus voted for the ‘kleptocracy’.
Now, I am open to the idea that the Republicans and Blue Dogs are right on this issue and the Progressives are by-and-large wrong. But I don’t understand how anyone can see this as a progressive victory when progressives didn’t vote for it. And it’s not much of a victory either, since it will change nothing and have no effect in law.
I think some people speak for progressives without knowing what most progressives think.
