Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Republican FinReg proposal

So the Republicans have a FinReg proposal of their very own. Damian Paletta has the summary, Annie Lowrey has the full text. Snap reaction: It's really similar to the Dodd proposal!

You can take that one of two ways. Optimistic spin: The two sides aren't that far apart on policy, so compromise, and thus passage, will be easy. Pessimistic spin: The two sides aren't that far apart on policy, which proves this is a political fight, which means compromise will be nearly impossible.

More tomorrow.

By Ezra Klein  |  April 27, 2010; 9:56 PM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Reconciliation
Next: Have you seen The Post's new politics home page?

Comments

I'm guessing it'll be door number 2.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | April 27, 2010 10:37 PM | Report abuse

What is this crap?

The Republicans are out-and-out filibustering the Dodd bill because they want to begin the debate and amendment process with a virtually identical bill?

This reminds me of the time I set my perfectly serviceable '85 Honda Accord ON FIRE so that I could use the insurance money to go out and buy a perfectly serviceable _blue_ '85 Honda Accord!

Seriously, is this what passes for the kind of principled differences that justify going to defcon 5? Anyone else remember way back in '02 (or '03) when Ted Kennedy voted the freaking Medicare Drug Bill out of the Senate just to prove he was sincerely committed to negotiating in good faith (and, uh, anyone else remember how the Republicans repaid him for it?)

The Republicans want us to believe they want finreg reform as much as Ted Kennedy wanted a Medicare Drug bill.

Prove it.

Posted by: member8 | April 27, 2010 11:08 PM | Report abuse

lol(laugh out loud):: Read Paletta's summary but putting on *your* (Ezra) academic political science hat, are the Republicans putting on Duncan Black's median voter theorem?

Posted by: msa_intp | April 28, 2010 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Here's how the Democrats should go about arguing against the Republican bill:

Step 1. This bill is horrible! Socialism! Fascism! Anarchy!
Step 2 (almost 1 year later). We can't vote on this bill because we have no idea what's in it! Start over! Clean sheet of paper!

Denouement.

Posted by: slag | April 28, 2010 1:03 AM | Report abuse

@slag: We can't vote on this bill because we have no idea what's in it!

As I have advocated to Ezra, each sponsor of a bill like Finance Chairman Dodd should go on camera on YouTube and explain each of his provisions in plain English (yes we do have all day): what problem it is solving, what where the other ways to solve it, and why was it the best way to solve it.

Bottom line is that I do not *TRUST* Congress and what I want is reason-giving from bill sponsors like Dodd.

Posted by: msa_intp | April 28, 2010 1:56 AM | Report abuse

I guess they learned their lesson after their weak alternatives on the budget and healthcare but I'm getting tired of this crap. The current Republican party has elevated hypocrisy to an art form.

Posted by: zosima | April 28, 2010 3:11 AM | Report abuse

Democratic strategy for victory:
1. Accept Republican proposal for FinReg immediately and without change.
2. Watch Republican politicians suffer debilitating neck injuries as they suddenly reverse course.
3. With Republicans hospitalized, pass whatever you want! Victory!

Posted by: TomServo | April 28, 2010 8:12 AM | Report abuse

I wonder if Tom's strategy #1 might work - pass the Republican bill wholesale and without changes (you can always change the law later, anyways).

Would the Republicans really filibuster their own bill, with no changes made to it at all? Wouldn't it be easy to attack someone who opposes their own bill as a flip-flopper/moron?

Posted by: justin84 | April 28, 2010 8:39 AM | Report abuse

The above commentors are idiots.

Democrats think this is a good issue for them so they are willing to prolong it as long as possible. Democrats are advantaged by this debate (unlike health care) so it is the Democrats who want to prolong the debate before compromise.

Democrats are the problem in this negotiation. Just look to who benefits.

Posted by: lancediverson | April 28, 2010 9:03 AM | Report abuse

member8, I'm pretty certain that Defcon 5 is the lowest alert level, so if they were ratcheting up, they'd move down towards Defcon 1.

msa_intp, I don't disagree with the thinking behind your idea, but not everything that goes into a bill is something the sponser personally put there or supports. If Dodd's been negotiating with Corker, is it fair to make him explain something in a positive that had to go in the bill to continue Corker's support? As we learned with healthcare (if we didn't already know), the process of passing a bill isn't simply one Senator putting together the things they think will make the best changes possible. It's a lot of compromise, and I don't know that it's necessarily fair to hold one legislator responsible for the whole thing.

Posted by: MosBen | April 28, 2010 9:19 AM | Report abuse

i love the logic (or lack thereof).

Healthcare: Republicans have NO proposal until they have a proposal that is absolutely horrible (and Dems were correct) so they have nothing to offer.


FinReg: Republicans have almost an exact proposal so its some sort of trick they're playing on us. We don't trust them, WE CAN'T TRUST THEM.


btw, we're still waiting for the health insurance regs that were due on the 23rd. HHS?? Healthreform.gov?? Anyone??? This is going to go so well, I can see it now. Just as good as the ARRA subsidy. I can't wait until government can run EVERYTHING.

Posted by: visionbrkr | April 28, 2010 9:31 AM | Report abuse

Why isn't the full text on the WaPo website? Why must we go off-site to view a faxed image of the proposal? Is there a reason why we are not supposed to read what the Republicans have proposed? Is there a reason why the information we get is being filtered?

Posted by: JBaustian | April 28, 2010 12:23 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company