Inside Politics

SOMETHING STRANGE

“If you think moderate Democrats are afraid of voting for ‘Obamacare,’ you should see how they react to a potential vote on the Countrywide Financial loan scandal,” James Freeman writes at www.opinionjournal.com.

“The House oversight committee was scheduled to meet on Thursday afternoon to mark up several minor pieces of legislation. Days before the meeting, California Republican Darrell Issa notified committee Chairman Edolphus Towns that Mr. Issa would call for a vote to subpoena Countrywide documents from Bank of America, which bought the failed subprime lender last year. Recall that, under the ‘Friends of Angelo’ program, named for former Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo, Democratic Senators Chris Dodd and Kent Conrad received sweetheart deals on home mortgages. Mr. Issa wants to uncover the full story on Countrywide’s effort to influence Washington policymakers,” Mr. Freeman said.

“Mr. Towns, a New York Democrat who also received mortgages from the unit that processed the VIP loans but claims he received no favors, has opposed such a subpoena. But can he count on his Democratic colleagues to vote it down? Perhaps Mr. Towns would rather not find out. Mr. Issa showed up for the scheduled 2 p.m. markup on Thursday hoping that a few Democrats would vote his way and allow the investigation to proceed. Then a strange thing happened: As Mr. Issa and the GOP members of the committee sat waiting for the meeting to begin, Democrats huddled in a back room without explanation. Thirty-five minutes later, the committee announced that the meeting had been postponed indefinitely.

“A committee press release later claimed the postponement was ‘due to conflicts’ with a markup occurring at the same time in the financial services committee. But Mr. Issa’s staff videotaped several financial services members leaving the back-room gathering with Mr. Towns at the conclusion of the meeting. If members were there to confab with Chairman Towns, obviously they weren’t at any finance committee markup - suggesting the real ‘conflict’ was between Democrats over whether to keep stonewalling the Countrywide matter.”

JUST ASKING

“If the Democrats’ health care package is so great, why are President Obama and Dem congressional leaders so hungry to share the credit for its passage with a Republican?” San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders asks.

“It’s not as if D.C. Dems are opposed to hogging the glory when a federal program is popular. So why did Obama feel the need to announce after the Senate Finance Committee passed a health care measure with the support of Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, that the measure ‘enjoys the support of people from both parties’ - when this one bill enjoyed the support of one lone-wolf Republican?” the columnist wondered.

“Obama doesn’t need Snowe’s vote to pass a measure if he can draw the support of the Senate’s 58 Democrats and two left-leaning independents. Snowe’s vote was hardly pivotal, considering that the committee approved the measure by a 14-9 vote. Democrats hold a comfortable majority - 256 members out of 435 - in the House. So why are Obama and company so desperate to win over a token Republican or two?

“Is it the idea that if ‘Obamacare’ fails, they want voters to blame the GOP? Or does the president want to be able to share the blame if a bill passes and inevitably fails to deliver as promised? No one knows what the final health care reform bill will look like, but plenty of reasons remain for voters to be skeptical.

“Until those who claim the mantle of reform acknowledge the cost of all the things they want to give families, they have too many incentives to over-promise and too few incentives to tell people they can’t get something for nothing.”

BAD IDEA

“When inflation hits, every dollar in your bank account is worth less each day. Deflation is just the opposite: You put your feet up and watch your money grow in value. The latter is what is happening now to America’s seniors. And politicians think they should not have to stand for it,” Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Chapman writes.

“The other day, the federal government announced that for the first time since cost-of-living adjustments were begun in 1975, Social Security recipients will not get an annual raise in their monthly checks. This decision is not the result of a fit of fiscal austerity or a sadistic desire to punish old people. There won’t be a raise to offset inflation for the simple reason that there has been no inflation to offset,” Mr. Chapman said.

“Last year, seniors got a big raise because consumer prices had jumped 5.8 percent in one year. In the following 12 months, though, the Consumer Price Index has dropped by 2.1 percent. So in the coming year, Social Security payments will stay the same and be worth more than they used to be.

Story Continues →