The Village Doesn't Get The GOP Plan

An unsigned editorial from the NY Times takes aim at Republicans blocking foreclosure and bankruptcy reform.

The House passed reform legislation more than a month ago. Senate Democratic leaders say that nearly all 58 members of their caucus are on board. Republican leaders say all 41 of their senators will block a vote. If they hold ranks, it would mean that senators from states hardest hit by foreclosures would help to ensure the bill’s failure — including John McCain and Jon Kyl of Arizona and John Ensign of Nevada.

Republican opposition appears to have more to do with fund-raising than principle. The American Bankers Association and other lobbies remain opposed to the fix. Sam Geduldig, a lobbyist for several banking trade associations, recently told The Times’s Stephen Labaton and Eric Dash that as a minority party, Republicans will get “professional donors and lobbyists to look at them in a different light,” if they show they can affect policy.

There might be some good news. Several powerhouse banks, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Wells Fargo, have been talking with Democratic leaders in recent days about crafting a bankruptcy fix. Democrats hope the big banks can rope in a few Republicans. The danger is the bill could be watered down.

And while all that is true, the Times then reveals the entire editorial board hasn't been paying a lick of attention to the Republican party's goals in the last 100 days.

The Obama administration, which is propping up the banks, should put more pressure on them to support a robust bankruptcy reform.

If that doesn’t work, there’s always the appeal to reason.

Republican senators need to understand that a vote against this reform is a vote against economic recovery. As foreclosures add to the glut of unsold homes, house prices will continue to fall. That will lead to more foreclosures — declining equity is a risk factor for default — and more defaults and foreclosures will hamper the banks’ recovery and further constrain credit. And so on.

Hey, brilliant journalists at the NY Times...what the hell makes you think that the Republican party wants economic recovery?

Now I have my doubts about Obama's methods for recovery, but I know for sure he wants the country to start recovering. There's a small chance Obama's plans may work, and the GOP can't risk it. It's politically advantageous for them to want the entire economy to fail so they can blame Obama for it...which is why they are obstructing everything Obama is trying to do in order to fix the economy. If the economy recovers, the Democrats will continue to hold power. If the economy fails, the GOP can say "I told you so" and regain status. Since everything to the hyper-politicized GOP is just the calculus of power in Washington and the calculus says that if the GOP helps the country recover by allowing Obama's legislation to become law, the Democrats will get the credit for it, the Republicans are willing to destroy the country's economy for their own political ends. I've said this since it became clear late last year. Every day since then has simply borne out the truth in that accusation. The NY Times still hasn't figured this out yet. They have gotten to the what of the story (Republicans will try to filibuster any Democratic legislation that could fix the economy) but not the more-important why (they want to wreck the economy, blame Obama, and retake Washington.)

To his credit, the President no longer sees the GOP as willing to negotiate in good faith. Obama indeed does get it, that the GOP will in fact do everything they can to destroy Obama's legislative priorities. The President is starting to turn to his own party to get things done, which the left has been suggesting he do for quite some time now.

But as you can see from the Times, the Village still seems mystified as to why the GOP is obstructing everything at best, and at worst, it's buying into the Winger spin that Obama is now a brutal dictator.

While some Democratic senators were reluctant to embrace the arrangement, Mr. Obama made clear at a White House session on Thursday afternoon that he favored it, people with knowledge of the session said.

Mr. Obama has given way in some battles with Congress, but the new stance suggests he may be much less willing to compromise when it comes to health care, his top legislative priority, even if it means a bitter partisan fight.

The no-filibuster arrangement is fiercely opposed by Republican leaders, who say health care is too important to be exempted from the Senate rules that usually mean major bills must win support from 60 senators.

That's a Senate rule? Really? You need a super-majority to pass legislation? Could have fooled me.

It's Senate rules to have two Senators from each state too, but the Republicans don't seem to be too concerned over that either.

Obama gets it. The American people certainly get it. The Democrats get it. The Village? Still purposely clueless as to the GOP Plan after months...or aiding and abetting it.