 Barney
Frank: Social
Conservatives Still
in Charge of
Republican Party
Two wings of the
Republican Party
engaged in political
combat on Wednesday,
June 25th over an
important question
of regulation of the
financial sector of
our economy. The
result was about as
one-sided as it
could be - the
social/religious
conservatives who
believe that the
main function of
government should be
to impose various
personal behavioral
choices on
individuals beat
those whose main
goal is loosening
what they believe to
be inefficient
restrictions on the
free market economy
by better than 9 to
1.
The subject was the
bill passed - during
a Republican
Congress - that puts
tighter regulation
of gambling on the
Internet and does it
by imposing on
banks, credit unions
and other financial
institutions the job
of policing this
particular effort at
prohibition. Some of
us - Rep. Ron Paul
and myself for
example - would like
to see the whole
bill repealed so
that individual
choices regarding
gambling can prevail
over the views of
others that adults
should not be
allowed to spend
their own money in
this way. But in the
Financial Services
Committee on
Wednesday, a more
moderate effort to
relieve some of the
regulatory pressures
of this scheme was
under consideration.
Representative Peter
King offered an
amendment to the law
to instruct the
Department of the
Treasury and the
Federal Reserve not
to proceed with very
tough regulations of
the financial system
until some important
questions about the
scope of all were
clarified. While
falling short of the
full reform many of
us wanted, it was an
important step
towards making this
law much less of an
intrusion into
people's lives, and
was very much sought
after by the banks,
credit unions and
other financial
institutions. In
fact, the amendment
proposed by Peter
King - the Senior
Republican on the
Homeland Security
Committee, which is
relevant since some
of those seeking to
ban gambling have
tried to argue that
this is necessary in
some way to diminish
terrorism - was
backed by the
Chamber of Commerce,
Grover Norquist and
the Americans For
Tax Reform, and the
Financial Services
Roundtable. On the
other side were the
various conservative
social and religious
groups who voted
that adults should
be protected from
themselves by
banning gambling.
Democrats on the
Committee were
overwhelmingly on
the side of their
Republican
Colleague, Peter
King, and voted 29
to 4 in favor of the
King amendment.
Before the meeting,
various members of
the economic
interest groups that
were supporting that
amendment had
expected to get a
significant number
of Republican votes
as well. But then
the religious right
and their allies
stepped in. As a
result, a number of
Republicans who had
committed to vote
for the bill
switched their
votes, and the final
vote on the
Republican side was
28 in favor of
insisting that
Treasury and the
Federal Reserve
impose these
stringent and
intrusive
regulations, and
only 3 against it.
Combining the
overwhelming
Democratic vote in
favor and the even
more overwhelming
Republican vote
against produced a
tie - 32 to 32, and
in this game, a tie
means that the
amendment is
defeated.
In other words, the
leading economically
conservative
organizations and
representatives of
financial
institutions who are
argued that the
proposed regulations
would interfere with
the functioning of
our financial system
had the support of
less than 10% of the
Republicans. 90+ %
of the Republicans
voted along with the
social conservatives
to maintain the
position that the
federal government
should be
restrictive of
individual choice in
the matter of
gambling and should
compel the banks to
be the banks to be
the enforcers.
I regret the fact
that this became
partisan. I was
hoping that it
wouldn't be, and I
have been working
closely with some of
those most dedicated
to economic
deregulation of the
appropriate sort.
But it became
partisan because the
religious/social
extreme
conservatives
continue to be in
control of the
Republican Party on
a whole range of
issues, and they
demonstrated once
again that it is
they and not those
dedicated to what
they believe are
free market
principles who have
the upper hand in
internal Republican
Party disputes.
-----
Barney Frank,
www.huffingtonpost.com
Originally published
June 30, 2008 11:32
am EST
|
