When so-called Democratic ‘moderates’ make a big fuss about balancing the budget, I’m somewhat sympathetic. Right now we need the government to spend money to make up for the lack of investment coming out of the private sector. We could tax an equal amount of money to our spending, but that would be at least partially self-defeating in our current economic environment. So, I don’t think we’re currently in a situation where it makes sense to complain about deficit spending. But we should certainly be concerned about it. And when things improve, we need to work on eliminating our deficits. I don’t mind deficit hawks as long as they aren’t dogmatic about it. If they can bend with the times, I think they serve an important function in the Democratic Party.
But how can I sympathize with Evan Bayh wanting to strip the cram-down provisions out of the Banking Bill?
Bayh and Judiciary ranking member Arlen Specter are pushing an alternative bill that narrows the range of borrowers who could have their mortgage principal reduced. Lobbyists tracking efforts by Senate Majority Whip Durbin to drum up industry and Senate support for a measure like the House bill said talks appear stalled. Eliminating or watering down the cram-down provision would be a win for the banking industry and Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who has pushed to move banking provisions separately from the cram-down measure.
This isn’t a case of ‘moderates’ acting as fiscal disciplinarians. This is just putting the banking industry’s interests over the interests of some of your most vulnerable constituents. That’s all it is. There isn’t any upside. There isn’t any excuse. It’s just plain and simple whoring for the mortgage-lenders at a time when we’re desperately trying to slow the foreclosure crisis by helping people refinance their loans. In fact, the cram-down would help the mortgage-lenders in the short term by preventing them from going broke. It’s only in the longer term, when the housing market has stabilized, that the cram-down will come back to haunt the banking industry.
Bayh and his merry band want to serve the interests of business. Why is that? Is there some reason that the hardworking people of Indiana, of all places, have an interest in serving (mainly coastal) corporate interests? I understand when Bayh is a moderate on social issues or when he wants to show himself as a moderate legislator. His state is moderate-to-conservative. But Bayh acts like he represents Western Connecticut and Northern New Jersey instead of the cornfields and combines of the Hoosier State. What’s wrong with him?
