WaPo steps up again.
McCain Shifts Regulation Stance
This is what we need the media to do. And when I say, "We," I don't mean just us democrats. All Americans benefit when the press decides to remember that their job is to serve the public's interest, not their own.
That said, this I believe, is what journalism looks like and it starts out like this after the jump:
A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.
Now, as the Bush administration scrambles to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG), the nation's largest insurance company, and stabilize a tumultuous Wall Street, the Republican presidential nominee is scrambling to recast himself as a champion of regulation to end "reckless conduct, corruption and unbridled greed" on Wall Street.
Nothing fancy here. No liberal bias. No right wing talking points. Just the facts, ma'am. Just the way it ought to be.
May I have some more, please?
In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.
That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.
McCain now condemns the executives at those companies for pursuing the ambitions that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act made possible, saying that "in an endless quest for easy money, they dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand."
And that's what Obama and everyone else need to be talking about! Speaking of which, has Obama made the connection between the Republicans' desire to privatize Social Security and the Wall Street's on-going collapse? If not, what the hell's taking so long?
Back to the article:
McCain has not always opposed government regulation. He supported efforts to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. And he pushed to strengthen the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirements, which were put in place after the accounting scandals involving Enron and other major firms.
But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed.
Let's remember that he regretted his vote to strengthen the Sarbanes-Oxley Act because you know he'll use this to try to cast himself as a reformer.
Per Wiki:
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub.L. 107-204, 116 Stat. 745, enacted 2002-07-30), also known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 and commonly called SOX or Sarbox; is a United States federal law enacted on July 30, 2002 in response to a number of major corporate and accounting scandals including those affecting Enron, Tyco International, Adelphia, Peregrine Systems and WorldCom.
snip
The legislation establishes new or enhanced standards for all U.S. public company boards, management, and public accounting firms. It does not apply to privately held companies. The Act contains 11 titles, or sections, ranging from additional Corporate Board responsibilities to criminal penalties, and requires the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to implement rulings on requirements to comply with the new law.
McCain was for regulation before he was against it. Or he was for deregulation before he was against it. Whatever is the case, he's still a liar. Let's get back to Michael D. Shear's truth-telling article in the Washington Post:
In the 1990s, he backed an unsuccessful effort to create a moratorium on all new government regulation. And in 1996, he was one of only five senators to oppose a comprehensive telecommunications act, saying it did not go far enough in deregulating the industry.
As chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee for more than a decade, McCain did not have direct oversight of the financial sector. But he sat at the center of arguments between telephone, cable and satellite companies, almost always pressing for more competition.
"I'm always for less regulation," he told the Wall Street Journal in March. He added: "I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated."
Pouncing on McCain's "Fundamentals of our economy are strong" quote just isn't enough because there are many Americans who will cling on to the positive aspect of that statement, wanting to block out the truth and desperately hang on to false hope. But reality is completely different and that's what Obama needs to hammer home now. It's time for Obama to step up and connect some dots for the less-informed American people. The Republicans wanted to privatize Social Security. The Republicans deregulated everything from the media ownership to the financial market. And now we're really seeing the results of their actions.
Let's hope we see some hard-hitting ads about this in the days to come.
P.S. Check out this diary by Matt OBrien for more good stuff coming from WaPo. My God...Is David Broder next? If that happens, the sun may rise from the south in the morning!