| When the historic health care vote came and went in the House of Representatives, one of the no votes on the Democratic side that was criticized (or scrutinized) was Congressman Eric Massa's. At the time, I looked at both sides and gave Massa some rope. I thought his point of view, while somewhat flawed, had some merit.
But as I told a friend, I was worried that this was becoming a trend. Massa has voted against a number of key measures to date. Among them:
- The Affordable Health Care for America Act
- Reprimanding Joe Wilson (R-SC) for his "You Lie" shout during President Barack Obama's health care address
- Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 (voted against the measure twice)
- American Clean Energy and Security Act
- Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009 (Did vote for the bill second time around)
The latest key legislation Massa voted against is the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009. The roll call vote was close. No Republicans voted for the measure and 27 Democrats voted against it. Of all the New York Democrats, Massa was the sole dissenting vote.
Massa's reasoning for voting against the bill was detailed in a statement he issued shortly after voting no:
Today, Rep. Eric Massa voted against H.R. 4173 on the grounds that it takes a one-size-fits-all approach to reforming the American financial system. Over the last several weeks, Rep. Massa's office has received dozens of calls from our area's small businesses, community banks and local credit unions with concerns about how this bill, which is supposed to address corruption on Wall Street, will affect their business on Main Street. Many rural communities, like New York's 29th Congressional District, rely on small community banks and credit unions to keep their small businesses growing and their workforces employed. The bill passed by a vote of 223-202.
"Today I voted to help the people who sent me to Washington," stated Rep. Massa. "I will not vote for a bill which I believe hurts my district and that's why I opposed the financial services bill today. This legislation takes a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating the financial services sector which will hurt rural districts like mine by over-regulating community banks and credit unions who, by the way, were not the cause of the collapse on Wall Street. Small businesses and workers in rural communities rely on their local community banks and credit unions to grow. I think we should focus on fixing the problems with Wall Street instead of over regulating the things that work on Main Street."
Few congressmembers are as passionate about the job they do as Massa. He is invested in this position and he does not take it lightly. I admire and respect that. You don't get that out of Washington D.C. too often. Massa works very hard and that doesn't go unnoticed.
But here is the problem Massa faces. Not only will the Democratic caucus give up on counting on his vote but progressives will as well. There is no such thing in Congress as perfect legislation. There will be flaws in any bill and there are concessions usually made on virtually every bill to ensure its passage. The points Massa made on this bill are weak. If the impact on rural districts was so strong that it was negative enough for him to vote against the bill, then why did every other Democratic representative in New York from a rural district vote in favor? Seems like a poor argument to me and one he is alone on.
Massa seems to find something wrong with every bill. I understand that there are flaws in every piece of legislation (some more than others). But he tends to take a major issue and find minor flaws that are just enough (in his mind anyway) to vote against important legislation.
For perspective, here are some of the things that the financial oversight bill would do:
* Creates a Consumer Financial Protection Agency to oversee financial products and services.
* Establishes a council of federal regulators to oversee firms gauged to be systemically important.
* Allows the government to wind down and dismantle large, failing financial firms.
* Gives shareholders an advisory vote on executive compensation packages.
* Merges the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Office of Thrift Supervision into a single national bank regulator.
* Requires hedge funds and private equity firms to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
* Creates a Federal Insurance Office within the Treasury Department.
* Requires dealer banks and major swap traders to trade some of their routine products on transparent platforms and steer the swaps into clearinghouses, which guarantee trades.
* Exempts many commercial companies that use swaps to hedge risks from the clearing and trading provisions or having to post margin on uncleared, customized trades.
* Gives the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission new police powers for over-the-counter derivatives and lets the CFTC set trading limits on swaps that play a role in setting market prices.
* Imposes new capital, margin, reporting, record-keeping and business conduct standards on swap dealers and major swap traders.
* Prevents bank dealers and major traders from collectively owning more than a 20% controlling stake in swap clearinghouses or trading platforms
* Establishes a "dissolution fund" to pay the government's costs for winding down a large failing institution. Fund would be paid for by banks and financial firms
* Allows the government to require secured creditors to take a 10% loss if the government has to take over a failing financial firm.
* Uses $3 billion of funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program to help reduce the risk of foreclosures among the unemployed.
* Expands the 10% domestic deposit cap to include thrift deposits.
* Preserves the ability of the federal government to preempt state laws in certain circumstances.
Considering the economic recession and the main cause of that recession being the failures on Wall Street, more regulation is needed. That is clear. But Massa votes no because of what he considers "over-regulation" of community banks and credit unions - a minor part of this bill. And given what happened with the financial crisis, there is no such thing as over-regulation.
I respect Massa and believe he has served his district well. But whether he sees it or not, these votes aren't doing his district any favors either. If Randy Kuhl was still the representative in NY-29, he would have voted against these same bills. So how are the district's residents getting any sort of change from the Party of No and the likes of Kuhl and Tom Reed when their Democratic representative votes the same way they would on key issues? |
