Dems Say Yes, Obama Says No to Bankruptcy 'Cramdowns' in the Stimulus
The incoming president has demonstrably warm relationships with Democrats in Congress. I wonder, then, which side will back down first now that one thing is clear: Many Dems want the upcoming stimulus bill to include a provision allowing bankruptcy judges to modify the terms of primary mortgages for Americans facing bankruptcy (a policy known as 'cramdown'); Obama thinks it's a good idea, but doesn't want it on the stimulus.
The latest affirmation of the Obama team's stance came during this morning's Senate confirmation hearing for Treasury Secretary-designate Tim Geithner.
What remains unclear is why the new administration believes the "cramdown" change would be better tackled in a separate housing bill. When Citigroup is already on board, and no less a Wall Street ally than Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tells the Journal that "we think it would be great to put this on the stimulus," what's the trouble here?
Late Update: To answer the commenters who cite the Obama team's interest in locking down Republican votes for the stimulus bill ... The notion that Democrats should delay one of their longtime priorities -- one that would help millions of mortgage-holders avoid economic ruin, one that just won a major financial industry endorsement -- to woo the GOP is fairly bizarre. And as we can see today, House Republican leaders aren't likely to vote for the stimulus as it is.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
I think that Obama wants the stimulus package to be about JOBS and to try to stay away from adding to the stimulus package nothing that has to do with creating JOBS.
Also I think Obama wants as many Republican votes as he can get on the stimulus package and Republicans won't vote on the stimulus package with the bankruptcy portion in it.
Obama is hoping to address the housing foreclosure crisis with the bankruptcy problem in another package that can be addressed in a way that probably will be passed mainly by Democrats.
January 21, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe the trouble is Larry Summers, one of the architects of the deregulation mess.
January 21, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure why it remains unclear to you. If you read the article you linked to, it explains that Obama believes that including this in the stimulus bill will cost republican votes. I thought it was pretty well understood that he wanted the stimulus bill to have as much bipartisan support as possible.
January 21, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's because they still have those idiotic delusions about getting 80 votes. Whereas (some of) the people actually sitting in Congress are well aware of how silly that idea is.
January 21, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think he wants to present a clear stimulus package to the people to rally support. If the Dems start tacking on "pet projects" then the GOP'ers can vote against it using the excuse of "Dems are playing same ol' politics". I think the Obama Administration wants the folks who vote against it to have no cop-out excuses.
January 21, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
January 21, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice to know you're the keeper of the yardstick.
January 21, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you think I'm the only person who regards this a a core Democratic priority and not a "pet project", you're off by a factor of quite a few million.
January 21, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
That isn't what I think and that isn't what I was responding to.
I just reject you being the judge of who is or isn't a "real Democrat" in the same way I reject Republicans getting to decide who is or isn't a "real American".
January 21, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reading through these pages over the last few months it's apparent that many of the behaviors that we found so abhorrent when practiced by Republicans are just fine when we do them.
January 21, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Real Democrats support Democratic priorities rather than labeling them as "pet projects". Ifg that's not obvious to you (especially since I was responding to one of our best-known concern trolls) I really can't help you.
January 21, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. Can you let me know where the purity test is so I can see if I pass? If not, do I get my money and my vote back?
January 21, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Somebody better get Obama the test as well, but I think he might fail it.
January 21, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there some advantage to being a so-called "real Democrat" which bestows an intellectual clarity that an independent or other kind of non-Democrat would not enjoy? I wonder if there's something of an ideological purity that you may be seeking, perhaps an exclusivity that is somehow preferable to that which that other political persuasions embrace.
January 21, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't calling it a pet project, but rather surmising that the GOP would frame it as such and use it as reason to vote down the stimulus package, hence the ""'s.
January 21, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't confuse McConnell's blustering with the intentions of the majority of Republicans. It may be clear that Republican leadership won't vote for the stimulus package, but that doesn't mean at least 10-20 others won't. Particularly those in states that Obama either won or ran strongly in, I suspect they will not be too inclined to vote against a measure that the majority of their constituents are in favor of. Just look at the Republican Senators who are up for re-election in 2010. I'd bet he can peel off 8-10 votes just from them.
January 21, 2009 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama may be a democrat but that doesn't mean he is a progressive.
It is still to be seen just how much Obama's early support from plutocrats will buy them.
January 21, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may be putting my "Real Democrat" card at risk, but I think some of you are missing the point. It's not about getting Republican votes for the stimulus bill, its about what kind of cover we choose to give to those who will not vote for it regardless.
Personally, I'd much rather see Democrats in 2010 running against Republicans who have to admit that they voted against this bill because they were against its main purpose than against Republicans who can say they had to vote again' it because it had became a glueball for "Democrat pet projects" that should have been subjected to a vote on their own merits.
Jesus, it's not like this is the one and only opportunity to get a bill passed the Democrats are going to have in the 111th Congress.
After Rome had one of its periodic megafires, the Empereror Hadrian was asked how the city could be rebuilt. His answer has become a byword, "brick by brick, my citizens, brick by brick." In the same vein, its going to take a lot of time and a lot of work to undo the damage done by the eight year fire we've just put out. Being impatient and second-guessing and fighting amongst ourselves is not going to make the rebuilding happen any faster.
January 21, 2009 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
The end question I had was:
Talk about how to undo momentum. Maybe we should just impeach Obama now and get it out of the way. Clearly he has failed his base before he even made it to the inauguration.
January 21, 2009 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama trying to get Republican votes: is this the default reason that is going to be used every time Obama does something that doesn't fit with the Progressive agenda? Or are we going to take it up a notch and find the actual thought process behind his decisions?
January 21, 2009 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink