ugh. stomped on your post. i'll delete mine, and repost it later...
Posted by Turkana at March 28, 2008 03:38 PMeriposte,
In reference to your justification for Mrs. Clinton's 'correct' vote on what you term the "Orwellian" (???) Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, the following should be noted:
(1) The votes in the Senate (72-26) and the House (279-149), suggests that there was more going on in this debate than pure party-line, refexive politics.
(2) As a former law professor, Obama understood that measured tort reform is needed; and that in many contexts, it is the plaintiff/class action attorneys who reap the majority of the rewards - not the individual mistreated and harmed clients. As in civil litigation and workers' compensation venues, the cost of litigation is passed on to all of us. Let's not be naive about this.
(3) As a former corporate attorney, Clinton had nothing to lose by her vote. She officially separated herself from Wal-Mart two years before her planned Prez campaign in a vote that was certain to fail.
Posted by tfitznc at March 28, 2008 04:15 PMTfitznc,
AUMF passed the Senate 77-23. I'd love to get you on my side in discussing the nuances surrounding that vote. But I know I'd be dreaming. Plus, it would be a violation of The Clinton Rules.
Posted by eriposte at March 28, 2008 05:12 PMexcellent post, don't give up the faith!
Posted by Fen at March 28, 2008 05:13 PMTurkana,
Sorry for the mixup...I saw that comment and decided it was a good opportunity to post this. I've realized one could write a book or two debunking the myths that so many progressives have about HRC.
Posted by eriposte at March 28, 2008 05:14 PMeriposte,
when this is all over, you might be the person to write it!
Posted by Turkana at March 28, 2008 05:24 PMeriposte,
I was referring to your citation of the 2005 class action bill and the actual vote cited in your WaPo reference, not the 2002 AUMF.
Just trying to stay on your topic, which was the Senator's position on litigation in the current subprime mortgage crisis.
Posted by tfitznc at March 28, 2008 07:08 PMAUMF passed the Senate 77-23
I'll make a note that 23 Senators didn't have their heads up their respective asses. Of course, in Clinton's case a man made her do it. HIS bad, not hers.
Posted by phidipides at March 28, 2008 07:32 PMOff topic, but on subject. Let's not forget that Obama also voted for the energy bill. As usual, Obama has excuses why he did so.
Posted by Mimi Schaeffer at March 28, 2008 08:37 PMOff topic but on subject. Let us not forget how the Golden Child voted for the energy bill. Of course, as usual, he had an excuse.
Posted by Mimi Schaeffer at March 28, 2008 08:44 PMObama is very cleaver and has lots of excuses and reasons for what he had done and is going to do. Well, now as such every things got over you should have got it written. Good post indeed and don't let the faith down.
Posted by Bill Steele at March 29, 2008 03:29 AMDear eri:
First, thanks for responding to my post and giving us all a chance to talk about this issue. I'm a fervent HRC supporter, I'm a fervent supporter of this site, I know that HRC voted against the Class action bill and that BO voted for it.
Tort "reform" and liability protection are plagues and key Republican planks, and I find comments such as those from tfitznc repulsive and a typical regurgitation of tort "reform's" tired cliches.
Hillary has been out ahead of this issue of homeowners' rights, which is why it was so discouraging to see her cloaking a bad idea under good intentions. To me, it was as discouraging to hear as her choosing Alan Greenspan--the architect of this current subprime mess--to be on a panel to address the crisis. (Like asking Bush to serve on an Iraq Evaluation Project).
I didn't say that HRC wanted to prevent homeowner lawsuits and I agree that's not what she proposed. She says explicitly that she is barring investors from suing and gives as her reason that it would then free mortgage lenders, who are otherwise afraid of restructuring mortgages because of the fear of lawsuits, from doing so.
1.)But preventing investor lawsuits will not help the mortgage mess in the least.
And
2.)Preventing investor lawsuits merely legitimizes a major plank of the tort reform movement.
1. The owners of the paper are not "fat cat" investment banks, rather they are institutional investors consisting mostly of retirement funds and insurance company retirement investment vehicles. The investment banks and the mainstream banks would be the defendants in these lawsuits and would be the ones receiving the liability protection, and pensioners would be the ones suing them.
Ironically, it would be the investment banks that would be protected by this measure,which may even remove incentives to them to participate in efforts to reduce the damage to homeowners, by instead letting homeowners take the hit.
While you could argue that the large pension funds were just as greedy as the investment banks in spurring the current mess, it's also true that those who will be screwed by not being allowed to sue will be the little people, viz., retirees.
And considering who most of those institutional investors represent, a lot of those retirees could be teachers, a group I'm sure HRC does not intend to hurt. One could imagine a scenario in which teachers could not just lose their homes to foreclosure, but also lose their investment in their pension fund!
The problems with restructuring loans are primarily practical, not legal. There are caps on what percentage of loans can be restructured. Also, loan servicing has been outsourced and lenders are severely understaffed in dealing with the wave of restructuring requests . These, more than any litigation problems, are what need to be addressed.
2. Preventing securities lawsuits has been a big part of the tort "reform" movement. When you've gutted regulation of the financial markets, as Congress has done, the only recourse is litigation. Small investors lack the wherewithal to sue these large mortgage lenders and the investment banks behind them. So if you deprive the retirement funds the ability to do so, you've only hurt people like us.
I can only presume that Hillary was given bad advice on this one, and that some of her advisers got this one past her,and that with further input or reflection, she'll not follow through on it. I think she may have genuinely thought this was the best way to address this problem.
But we've all seen examples of using a crisis to ram through objectionable legislation, 9/11 being the biggest culprit, and certain of her backers may have seen an opportunity in this crisis to do the same. It's no secret that these NY-based banks are also Hillary's constituents and Hillary's and Barack's primary contributors. This smacks of a giveaway to them, and I can only hope it's a mistake, and not fundraising.
I believe that Hillary is a progressive, more progressive than either her husband or her opponent. I also believe, however, that she walks a ridgeline, that the forces of the DLC still have a large claim on her, and that she will need all of her own gumption, independent powers of analysis, and our support and input to withstand them.
So I'm glad you highlighted this issue, because much as we love HRC and want her to win, it will take oversight from the progressive blogosphere (or what's left of it now that kos, tpm, huffpost, openleft, etc have shown their feet of clay)and from her progressive supporters to keep her on the proper path.
Many of Obama's supporters are not willing to brook any criticism of their candidate, but a resolution of these substantive problems is going to require vigilance from all of us, including her supporters.