Both liberal Democrat Marcy Kaptur and conservative Republican Bob Latta voted ‘No” on The “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009.” The bill now goes to the Senate, where it faces the prospect of filibuster by the Republicans.
Why did these two polar political opposites join in voting to defeat this legislation? One was pure passion while the other was mindless party obedience. No one expected Republican Bob Latta to vote against his party’s mandate to ‘kill the bill’ because Latta toes the Republican play-book of John Boehner in every vote he casts. Pundits contend that the GOP wants to stop Obama by voting against any legislation that may help him and other Democrats in their re-election bids in 2010 and 2012.
The no-vote by Ms. Kaptur was cast out of a deep conviction that the “Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009” is essentially a watered-down, weak slap-on-the-wrists and it essentially does very little to actually protect the consumers from the predatory financial practices of Wall Street and the big banking corporations.
John Nichols, Capital Times associate editor, wrote a story about Ms. Kaptur’s bold ‘no’ vote in an article he titled, “Why a bank-bashing populist Democrat opposed the Wall Street ‘reform’ bill.” A key section from Nichols is this:
But while Democrats generally backed the bill, Kaptur cast a “no” vote.
A loud and unapologetic “No!”
Why did the most ardent reformer in the House reject what she dismissed as a “so-called bill”?
Kaptur told the House that the measure often seems to “support the very same big banks (that caused the crisis) and not the American people and the communities in which we live, in the Main Street that all of us are sworn to represent.”
In particular, she complained: “The bill allows financial power to create wealth, the bankers’ awesome power, to be closely held in a few Wall Street and Charlotte-based megabanks. The bill does not address the business model of credit rating agencies or how interwoven these nongovernmental agencies are with the institutions they rate. The bill does not require that all derivatives be traded through transparent exchanges. The bill does not adequately support both agencies dedicated to finding and fighting fraud in our financial system, and it really doesn’t do anything to address the continuing mortgage foreclosure hemorrhage, the crisis going on across our country.”
In other words, this in not reform.
Marcy Kaptur made this claim on Dec. 10, 2009 in an impassioned speech on the House floor. She ended that speech with this line, “You know, you would think that after all the damage that has been done in the Republic, this Congress would have the guts for real reform. This bill isn’t it, and I urge my colleagues to vote “no” on final passage.”
Two local congressional legislators, one a yes-man and the other an idealist statesman. I am clearly happy that Marcy Kaptur represents me in congress.