Blocked in Senate – Republican Proposal to End Big Bank Subsidy

Posted by Tina

After the financial meltdown the administration acted quickly to “fix” the too big to fail bank problem. Yep, once George Bush and Republicans were shown the door and Democrats won that super majority good old Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were tapped to “fix banking regulations”. What did their legislation actually do? It gave the big banks an advantage. It gave them a subsidy. It gave them the power to grow at the expense of the smaller banks and the taxpayers. The big guys now get to borrow at a lower rate than the little banks. The difference is made up by the taxpayer. The excuse was that they needed to have the ability to hold cash reserves in case of another crisis. The reality is that the big banks just get bigger.

This represents a major interference of government into the free market and should be eliminated. That is exactly what Sensator’s Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and David Vitter (R-La.) proposed last year. No doubt it is one of many proposals being blocked in the Senate by Harry Reid.

Interesting that the Washington Posts take on the story is that it won’t pass because these banks give big to both parties. But when one party is keeping it from even making it to the floor of the Senate for discussion and debate the American people are robbed of the ability to judge for themselves which of their elected representatives would vote to end corporate welfare and the government’s destructive intrusion into the market.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Blocked in Senate – Republican Proposal to End Big Bank Subsidy

  1. Chris says:

    Thanks for posting this, Tina. I am glad to see you and other Republicans taking notice of the ways in which the government intervenes in the market to prop up corporations and the wealthy, and I am glad that it looks like this move is gaining bipartisan momentum.

    I’m curious about your assertion that this proposal is being blocked by Reid. Can you provide evidence for that claim?

  2. Tina says:

    I said it was “no doubt one of the proposals being blocked” based on the way Reid has behaved as leader in the Senate. A few unrelated examples:

    New York Times:

    “I’m just kind of fed up,” said Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, a moderate Republican who has increasingly become a key vote for Democratic legislation. “He’s a leader. Why is he not leading this Senate? Why is he choosing to ignore the fact that he has a minority party that he needs to work with, that actually has some decent ideas? Why is he bringing down the institution of the Senate?”

    Mr. Reid’s brutish style matters beyond the marbled chamber of the Senate. Senate legislation has increasingly turned into a battle over amendments and Mr. Reid’s uncompromising control over the process. The six Republicans who voted to take up the unemployment bill on Tuesday expected at least to be allowed votes on their amendments to shape the legislation.

    The Tower;

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) this week signaled that he will not permit the Senate to vote on bipartisan legislation – formally co-sponsored by 59 senators and reportedly supported by a veto-proof majority of 77 – that would impose sanctions on Iran should negotiations over the Islamic republic’s nuclear program fail.

    Eric Cantor, 2011:

    Today, Senator Reid attempted to shift attention away from his failure to get anything done in the Senate. While Republicans have been focused on jobs and getting our fiscal house in order since day one, Leader Reid has failed to take up almost all of the House GOP job creation measures, failed to present a budget, and failed to put forward a pro-growth plan to get Americans back to work. Leader Reid, what are you waiting for?

    Commentary Magazine:

    Yesterday afternoon, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took to the Senate floor and offered the words that will—or at least should—define his tenure in the Senate. “The amendment days are over,” Reid somberly declared. He was referring to a specific bill—Rand Paul’s legislation that would remove foreign aid from Egypt, Libya, and Pakistan—but Reid could say those words at any time, because that sentiment hangs over the Senate day after day.

    The basic backstory is this: Paul has wanted a vote on this bill for quite some time, but since Republicans aren’t permitted to offer legislation or amendments in Reid’s Senate, he has been ignored. Paul decided he was going to hold up Senate business so he could get his floor vote. Liberals call this obstruction, but they are either uninformed or disingenuous; it’s actually a response to obstruction, which begins with Reid’s methodical deconstruction of basic Senate procedures. John McCain wanted to have a debate on the subject–something that is now foreign to Reid’s Senate as well–and to offer amendments to the bill. No, said Reid. Here is how the Hill framed it:

    Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) caved on Sen. Rand Paul’s (R-Ky.) demand for a vote on his bill to end aid to some Middle Eastern countries.

    It now constitutes “caving” for Reid to allow a vote in the Senate–and without amendments or debate. The amendment process is key to understanding why liberal commentators get it so wrong when they complain about the GOP’s insistence on being permitted to take part in the democratic process.

    Washigton Times:

    A central duty of Congress is to appropriate money for the federal government to stay open, an annual process that is supposed to be handled through 12 major spending bills. By law, all such appropriations measures must originate in the House before moving on to the Senate. On Thursday, the House passed a 2013 spending plan for the Pentagon — the seventh appropriations bill to clear the lower chamber this year.

    But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, has refused to take up any of the House’s spending bills before the November elections, saying they include more cuts than Congress agreed to as part of last summer’s hotly contested compromise to raise the federal debt limit.

    The debt deal called for discretionary spending to be capped at $1.047 trillion in 2013. Democrats view the number as a spending target, while Republicans say they are free — and morally obligated — to spend less.

    “Until the Republicans get real, we can’t do [spending bills], because [House Republicans] have refused to adhere to the law that guides this country,” Mr. Reid said earlier this month.

    Republicans say Mr. Reid is going back on his word because he said earlier this year that he would work to bring spending bills to the Senate floor for a vote. Because the Senate can ignore the House’s spending blueprints and draft its own versions, as is common, Republicans say, Mr. Reid’s argument about spending limits is irrelevant.

    “There is no excuse whatsoever for not bringing up appropriations bills on the floor of the Senate,” Sen. Lamar Alexander, Tennessee Republican, said during a floor speech Wednesday. “The reasons [Mr. Reid] gives are very puzzling.”

    House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers called Mr. Reid’s refusal to take up House-passed spending bills “absurd” and accused the Senate Democratic leadership team of “defaulting on their most basic fiscal duty.”

    “The 12 annual appropriations bills cannot be swept under the rug and ignored until a more convenient political time,” the Kentucky Republican said.

    Both parties use strategies to win the day and advance what they believe is right.

    Reid is doing something else and neither parties Senators are being given a voice.

  3. Dewey says:

    Ok…..What next……….This reads like he Jack/Tina Dressup game?

  4. Dewey says:

    A Bunch of Crap……Again……

    Tt’s us & them …….will fail…….

    Read, Learn, and best Advise?

    Learn from the haters…AKA…PS, JK, TG,……

    and…….VOTE!

    AMERICA

    No Tea Patty 2014! Get Rid of the Cancer & have a conversation!..America We can Do This!

    Democracy over hate!

  5. Tina says:

    Dewey you don’t converse so how could anyone take your advice?

    Once again, enlighten us!

  6. Peggy says:

    Here’s an oldie back in 2011 when Reid refused to even take up the President’s job bill.

    October 04, 2011, 07:16 pm
    Reid blocks attempt by McConnell to vote on president’s jobs bill

    In a lively spat on the Senate floor Tuesday, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) attempted call up President Obama’s jobs plan for an immediate vote in the upper chamber.

    However, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who supports the legislation, blocked the vote.

    McConnell had tried to offer the president’s job package as an amendment to the China currency legislation, which was being debated in chamber. By “filling the tree,” Reid blocked that move.

    “What I am trying to do here today by requesting this vote on the president’s jobs bill … is to honor the request of the president of the United States that we vote on it now,” McConnell said. “He has been asking us repeatedly over the last few weeks that we vote on it now.”

    “I think the president of the United States, whose polices I generally do not support … is entitled to know where the Senate stands on his proposal that he has been out talking about … and suggesting that we are unwilling to vote on it,” he said.

    Reid called McConnell’s request a “political stunt” and “senseless.”

    “What a charade we have going on here,” Reid said. “[W]e now have a proposal that is ridiculous on its face … that is that we vote with no debate on the president’s jobs bill.”

    If successful, McConnell’s move would have put Democrats in a tough spot as they do not have enough support for the bill. The GOP leader, before he brought up the legislation, made it clear he was doing it to embarrass Democrats.

    Obama on Monday called on Congress to vote on his jobs package. But Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said Tuesday the president’s proposal would likely have to change in order to win passage.

    Reid insisted that the president’s demand that Congress vote on the bill “now” did not necessarily mean all other legislative activities had to come to a halt. Reid also renewed an earlier pledge to bring the bill up for a procedural vote this month.

    “Right away is a relative term,” Reid said. “[I] sponsored it, I am the one who brought it to the floor. We need to move to this right away … I have said I will bring it to the floor this work period.”

    McConnell said he would make every effort to force an immediate vote on the legislation.

    Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/185455-reid-blocks-mcconnells-call-for-an-immediate-vote-on-obamas-jobs-plan#ixzz2uvF0PvHi

  7. Tina says:

    Peggy there is no end to the games this bunch of radical leftists will play! I found this exchange interesting:

    “What I (McConnell) am trying to do here today by requesting this vote on the president’s jobs bill … is to honor the request of the president of the United States that we vote on it now,” McConnell said. “He has been asking us repeatedly over the last few weeks that we vote on it now.”

    “I think the president of the United States, whose polices I generally do not support … is entitled to know where the Senate stands on his proposal that he has been out talking about … and suggesting that we are unwilling to vote on it,” he said.

    Reid called McConnell’s request a “political stunt” and “senseless.”

    Makes me think the Presidents “jobs bill” was just for show, otherwise Reid would have put it on the fast track nd given it the courtesy of both debate and a vote.

    Everything they do is geared toward the big government agenda. If the people have to go jobless they just extend the unemployment and shove the cost on to the business owner (We paid a premium at the end of this year for that!) Or they just increase the food stamp program and taxpayers will handle the cost for that.

    These radicals think of all money as a big pot of gold that “belongs” to the collective. It’s not surprising that they want to be in charge of it…or that they don’t give a rip whether people can live and work. As long as they get to decide what to do with that pot everything is just fine. The concept of earnings or company ownership as personal property just doesn’t fit.

    We need to purge our governments of these sixties and seventies bums. I’m hoping the new millennials will help us do that.

  8. Peggy says:

    Tina, you may be right. When I read what McConnell said and tried to do I thought it was worthy of posting. I don’t know how to bold print to highlight what he said, so I posted most of the article.

    My thoughts on what took place back then was Reid didn’t allow the president’s job bill to the floor because he didn’t want the republicans to add amendments and knew he didn’t have the democrat votes to pass it. He couldn’t let the record show democrats voted against the presidents bill and he couldn’t allow it to the floor where republicans would have input to make it better and even passable.

    Also, if the republicans did work on improving it he’d have to admit it, giving them credit for working together and not be able to say it’s the republicans fault for Congress not getting anything done.

    Reid is a spin master at playing the political game and with the media’s support he’s able to pass his lies off as truth getting voters like Chris buy it.

    Watching the videos of Palin and Romney’s superior knowledge on Russia compared to the community organizer in chief is shocking. It will be interesting to see what the media does if this situation blows up and we end up in another war with Obama’s name tagged to it. I doubt he could get enough men and women to volunteer with him as commander.

  9. Peggy says:

    Tina: “We need to purge our governments of these sixties and seventies bums. I’m hoping the new millennials will help us do that.”

    I’m telling everyone to have a voter enforced term limit movement. Vote out every rep who has been in office for more than 10 years. That includes both parties.

    I’ve had it with career politicians who vote and work to promote their longevity instead of what’s best for the people of this country.

  10. Chris says:

    Tina: “I said it was “no doubt one of the proposals being blocked” based on the way Reid has behaved as leader in the Senate.”

    Oh, OK. I just thought that, y’know, since you put “Blocked in Senate” in the headline, that you might actually want to know whether or not that’s true.

    Then again, I tend to automatically assume that people care whether the things they say are true or not.

    Silly mistake. Won’t happen again.

  11. Tina says:

    Stop preaching Chris. The things you believe that are untrue because of your indoctrination and world view are enough to fill a set of encyclopedias.

    There have been several proposals in the Senate as far as I can tell. Elizabeth Warren is tied to another one. I can’t find evidence that anything has been discussed in the Senate much less voted on so I’d say the proposal has been blocked.

    Do you have any evidence to the contrary, Chris?

  12. Tina says:

    Peggy try this site for help with learning the codes to bold print, highlight, etc.

    They may not all work in comments but you can give them a try!

  13. Chris says:

    Tina: “I can’t find evidence that anything has been discussed in the Senate much less voted on so I’d say the proposal has been blocked.

    Do you have any evidence to the contrary, Chris?”

    What an amazing question. I’ll respond with a similar question:

    Do you have any evidence that John Beohner doesn’t set kittens on fire every weekend?

  14. Tina says:

    Gee no, Mr. Perfect Pants, but if you hum a few bars I’m sure I could supply the lyrics.

Comments are closed.