House Votes Against Kleptocracy, Puts Obama's Economic Team on Notice

The U.S. House today [1] publicly rebuked the Obama administration's economic team, voting overwhelmingly to disapprove the second half of the Wall Street bailout money that Obama has been demanding. Because this resolution of disapproval was rejected by the Senate, the House's vote does not have the force of law (both chambers would have needed to pass the bill in order to block the money). However, this is a major victory for the progressive movement in that the House has formally gone on record against kleptocracy.

What's great about this vote is its juxtaposition of true bipartisanship with Beltway buypartisanship. Indeed, as the roll call shows [2], the House vote for the resolution of disapproval forged a coalition of about a third of the Democratic caucus, and most of the Republican conference - all voting for a progressive cause: namely, preventing Wall Street from ripping off the American taxpayer. Though we are led by the media to believe that "centrism" means corporatism, this vote is the kind of populist bipartisan coalition that reflects the real centrism in the country at large - a centrism where the "center" is decidedly against letting big corporations raid the federal treasury.

Couple this vote with the House's vote yesterday to attach more strings to the bailout money, and with our work [3] in getting the Senate - through Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown (D) - to pass a bailout regulation bill, and we're seeing real progress - or, dare I say, the possibility of real, actual, substantive change.

Let's remember that this economic fight isn't over - not by a longshot. The The Politico [4] reports that at his confirmation hearing, incoming Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner - one of the architects of the current kleptocratic bailout - suggested that he may ask Congress for even more bailout money. That means the House's display of strong bipartisan opposition and our work getting the Senate to support tough restrictions is laying the groundwork for the next fight. As these successes accrue, we could also be changing the fundamental dynamics. It's entirely possible that if/when Geithner comes back to Congress asking for more money, he will submit legislation that is - at its origination - far more progressive in transparency, oversight, and objectives than the original bailout, knowing that it must be more progressive to have a shot at passing the new Congress.

So all in all, we should be pretty unhappy that another $350 billion of taxpayer cash - or roughly $1,100 for every man, woman and child in America - is likely headed to Wall Street, no strings attached. But other than failing to stop that money (an almost impossible task because the new president could have effectively vetoed his way to the money), the legislative wrangling over the bailout has been a huge success for the progressive movement. We've helped build a bipartisan coalition in Congress on these issues, and forced the new administration to - at least rhetorically through letters - acknowledge the deep concerns we have with kleptocracy. In defeat, we have scored some real victories that we can build off of.