Sen. Joe Biden (D-MBNA) -- Why's he's no friend of the working class and why the GOP can't use it against him
Biden and the crediit card companiies
Sen. Joe Biden (D-MBNA) -- Why's he's no friend of the working class and why the GOP can't use it against him
My guestimate was that it would take about 48 hours for this story to come out. And here it is, right on schedule:
During the years that Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. was helping the credit card industry win passage of a law making it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection, his son had a consulting agreement that lasted five years with one of the largest companies pushing for the changes, aides to Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign acknowledged Sunday.
In other words, when Biden gets up there and talks poignantly about the typical American family sitting around the kitchen table late at night worrying how to pay its bills, and then twists the dagger on John McCain's seven kitchen tables, it's a great line politically. but....
It's a total crock, and Biden ought to be embarassed. The sad truth is that Biden not only supported but aggressively pushed for a conservative, anti-working class bill that made life a lot harder for that family that he talked about. Here's a little of the background:
The financial services industry began seeking relief from Congress in the mid-1990s from an increase in bankruptcies that was cutting into its profits. Its initial support came from Republican lawmakers, who repeatedly introduced bills to make it more difficult for consumers to erase their debts. During that time, executives at MBNA, which was bought in 2006 by Bank of America, began donating heavily to both major political parties and many national politicians, including Mr. Biden.
And:
Consumer advocates say that Senator Biden was one of the first Democratic leaders to support the bankruptcy bill, and he voted for it four times — in 1998, 2000, 2001 and in March 2005, when its final version passed the Senate by a vote of 74 to 25.
Travis Plunkett, legislative director of the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer group that opposed the bill, said that Senator Biden had provided a “veneer of bipartisanship” that eventually helped the credit card companies win over other Democrats. “He provided cover to other Democrats to do what the credit industry was urging them to do,” Mr. Plunkett said.
Making this even worse, as the story emphasizes, is that Biden's son Hunter was signed up by the company in a lucrative lobbying deal. On the surface, that really stinks -- but watching these things unfold over the years, I predict that Hunter Biden is probably just another candidate for the Sleazy Relatives Hall of Fame, a long list that includes neer-do-wells in both parties like Roger Clinton, Neil Bush, Billy Carter and Donald Nixon, and these usually only cause minor collatoral damage.
Of course, Delaware is also the credit-card capital of the world, and so you can make the case that this is another example of another fine political tradition -- supporting the big-money interests (and, yes, employers) in your home state over the broader interest of people in all 50 states. That was arguably sort-of OK, maybe, when Biden was just a Delaware guy, but now he's got to explain his bankruptcy vote to families around the kitchen table in places like the hard-hit Mon Valley or California's Central Valley. Good luck with that.
So why would Obama go ahead and pick someone with this kind of baggage? The answer is simple: The Republicans can't attack Biden on this issue, because their record is even worse. John McCain voted for this same sad sop to corporate America (Obama opposed it) and as the Times article notes, executives at MBNA (which has since been bought by Bank of America) were even more enthusiastic about supporting George W. Bush than backing Biden.
Can you imagine a negative ad with satanic music, grainy slow motion shots of Biden, and a narrator saying: "Joe Biden: Sleazy Tool of the Same Corporate Interests That We Support 100 Percent of the Time"? Of course not -- they can't attack Biden for backing something that McCain and Bush also supported. It just means that now Obama, who was on the people's side on this one, now won't be able to hit this issue as hard as he could.
No wonder the greatest enthusiam for Biden is not from party activists but from the usual chattering classes in D.C. As Glenn Greenwald wrote:
Ever since it became clear that Obama would be the likely nominee, the political establishment has been demanding of him more and more proof that his "change" rhetoric is just that -- rhetoric, and not anything meant as a genuine threat to the prevailing order of things. Obama, arguably out of political necessity, has repeatedly obliged, eagerly trying to offer proof that he is no threat to them, and the Biden selection is but the latest step in that campaign of reassurance. In sum, Biden is a reliable supporter of virtually every prevailing bit of conventional wisdom within the American elite political consensus, which is why his selection has been widely praised by the establishment, whose principal concern is that their fiefdom not be disrupted and that their consensus not be challenged.
The bottom line is that Biden's shameless kowtowing to the credit card companies won't hurt him or Barack Obama. The only ones getting hurt are you and me, and that poor struggling family at the kitchen table.
I don't think so.. lobbying is protected under the 1st, and I don't see why the Court would agree that the 1st amendment doesn't apply just because there is a familial relationship. If the GOP thinks the American public is going to accept the nuance of "but their finances are separate!", then by all means give it a shot... it really worked well in 2004 for the Dems.— Politburo- "OK.. but don't you agree that restricting people's activities based on what their relatives do isn't very fair?" But we do all the time with other branches of the government. The judicial and executive branches have requirements that officeholders divest themÂselves of any investment in businesses that may be within the jurisdiction of their agency or court and there are under strict limits on the extent to which members of their immediate famiÂlies may benefit directly from their position.— GreyHippie
Comment removed.- The key difference is that lobbying is speech. Getting a government contract or investing in some company isn't speech.— Politburo
- So you are telling me that changing the law in the 1990's making it a bit more difficult (that is, more consequential) for a person to file bankruptcy and skirt his or her legal and moral obligations to pay their debts is anti-working family? In which way, I'd love to know. I was taught my debts were to be paid back, not erased by a judge so people can avoid their obligation. Of course, only a Daily News columnist would think that is anti-working family. It is the same crap arguement used by liberals to blame the mortgage industry for putting people in homes they could never afford in the first place. Any wonder why we are slipping from a nation of doers to a nation of whiners? It's always someone else fault, huh?— stop2think
- Comment removed.
- Glenn Greenwalds quote in this article is right on the money...not just for the Biden issue but all issues. Unfortuanalty there will be no real change in this nation just a bit of minor remodeling at best...This however is better than the Republicans seem to be willing to offer right now. In the end the working man is still screwed the only question is if they will use lube or not.— deldog64
- You wouldn't be restricting lobbying or speech; you would be restricting the legislator from participating in a decision where he/she has a financial stake via their lobbyist family member (or more directly via their investments/ownership).— GreyHippie
- Comment removed.
- Politburo: it isn't a silly anecdote at all. While you're right that some people pay balances in full or use cards that offer cash back on purchases, you can't tell me that everyone who uses a credit card for minor, day-to-day purchases like that are doing so for those things. If that was the case, there wouldn't need to be tighter consumer bankruptcy laws.— Captain Awesome
- Politburo: I think a ban on lobbyists lobbying their relatives would survive a constitutional challenge. If the government can demonstrate that they have a compelling interest in curbing corruption, and that this is the only way to curb this particular corruption, they would win the case. The first argument would be the harder one to make, but I think it could be made. (The majority of campaign finance reform law survives on this premise.)— bon
- I worked at MBNA when the first Bush was running for the White House,his VP Dan Quayle came in for a meet and greet, us self identified Democratics were either given the day off or sequetered away so as not to embarass the bank. Wake up people Credit Card companies are not there to help anyone, they give cards out hoping you have problems, who else is going to pay , the people the pay their balances off every month? I don't think so~!— hejira33312
- Grey: That restriction is already in place, if not by law then via ethics rules (these should probably be laws, also). For instance, McCain does not participate in any vote or action regarding alcohol.— Politburo
- What is truth & Phillysub. Diddo! People should be held accountable for their own credit card debt. You bought it, you pay for it.— Janette
- "That restriction is already in place, if not by law then via ethics rules (these should probably be laws, also)." It's not required of Congress people, it's strictly voluntary. I read a few months ago that the entire Montana Congressional delegation (OK, that's only 3 guys) stood to get cash payments in agricultural subsidies under the Farm Bill they all voted for.— GreyHippie
- Andrew Sullivan
- Blinq
- Blogorrhea
- Blonde Sagacity
- Free Republic
- Instapundit
- James Taranto
- ScrappleFace
- The Corner
- Buzzmachine
- Eat the Press
- Editor and Publisher
- Media (Huffington Post)
- Media Bloodhound
- Mickey Kaus
- Pressthink
- Romenesko
- The Inksniffer
- A List of Things Thrown Five Minutes Ago
- Above Average Jane
- BlankBaby
- Citizen Mom
- Keystone Blog
- Metroblogging Philadelphia
- Phawker
- Philadelphia - America's Hometown
- Philadelphia Will Do
- Philebrity
- Philly Future
- Phillyblog
- Phillyist
- The Clog
- The Next Mayor
- Welcome to Phillyville
- Young Philly Politics
- Afro-Netizen
- All-Spin Zone
- Atrios
- Bad Attitudes
- Billmon
- Booman Tribune
- CorrenteWire
- Fables of the Reconstruction
- iFlipFlop
- Kiko's House
- MyDD
- Philly (Dragonballyee)
- Rowhouse Logic
- Slacktivist
- Suburban Guerilla
- Tattered Coat
- upyernoz
- AmericaBlog
- Andy Borowitz
- BuzzFlash
- Crooks and Liars
- Cursor
- Daily Kos
- David Sirota
- Drudge Report
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Fire Dog Lake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Hullabaloo
- Jesus' General
- Jon Swift
- Josh Marshall
- Juan Cole
- Kevin Drum
- Mad Kane
- Majikthise
- Matthew Yglesias
- Oliver Willis
- Raw Story
- Swing State Project
- Talk Left
- Taylor Marsh
- TBogg
- The Carpetbagger Report
- Think Progress
- War and Piece
- Wonkette
- A Citizen's Blog
- Balls, Sticks and Stuff
- Beer Leaguer
- Dick Polman
- Phillies Nation
- Philling Station
- Shallow Center
- The 700 Level
- The Good Phight
