Posts from — March 2008

Trying to understand last weekend’s crisis with Bear Stearns is the kind of thing that just makes my eyes glaze over. I am virtually illiterate when it comes to such matters. But the whole thing did ring a bell to me, being old enough to remember the savings and loan crisis of of the Reagan years. And the plot sounds kind of the same to me: Republican administration unfriendly to regulation of financial services. Excessive greed and lack of adequate regulation spurs previously staid financial industry types to engage in reckless practices resulting in catastrophic collapse and need for government (IE: taxpayer) bailout. Am I wrong?

The Bear Stearns situation had to be pretty scary to get the Feds to intervene so quickly and dramatically over the weekend. It leaves laymen like me feeling a bit jittery wondering when the next shoe is going to drop. It doesn’t help that commentators are beginning to talk about recession as if it has actually arrived and some daring even to bring up the D word.

In light of the Bear Stearns catastrophe, Representative Barney Frank, Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, proposed making significant changes in financial services regulation including the establishment of a “Risk Regulator” (possibly the Federal Reserve) with power to assess and intervene regarding risk across financial markets of all kinds. Its regulatory powers would not be limited only to certain types of corporations such as commercial banks vs investment banks vs other kinds of lenders, as is now the case with regulatory agencies, and would be more responsive to risk associated with newly evolving forms of financial services and funds. Frank also suggested new government interventions to ease the foreclosure crisis.

Enter Peter Roskam. Our Congressman is a member of the very same Financial Services Committee, whose job it is to oversee all components of the nation’s housing and financial services sectors including banking, insurance, real estate, public and assisted housing, and securities. He serves on the subcommittees responsible for capital markets and for oversight and investigations. Seems like Roskam is going to be close to the center of this discussion on regulation.

Peter Roskam says that he wants to be our “voice in Congress”. It will be interesting to observe just whose voice he really is during the upcoming deliberation. Is he going to vote in the interests of us ordinary folks who reside in his district? Or is he going to work on behalf of those who are bankrolling his re-election bid, folks like:

• American Bankers Association PAC
• Bank of America PAC
• Capital One Financial Political Fund
• Chicago Board of Options Exchange PAC
• Citigroup, Inc. PAC
• Consumer Bankers Association PAC
• Federal National Mortgage Association PAC
• Financial Services Institute PAC
• Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. PAC
• J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. PAC
• LaSalle Bank Corporation Federal PAC
• Morgan Stanley PAC
• Mortgage Bankers Association PAC
• National Venture Capital Association PAC
• New Century Financial Corporation PAC
• New York Stock Exchange, Inc. PAC
• Securities Industry and Financial Markets PAC
• Washington Mutual PAC 

I don’t know the answer, but stay tuned.

Got this in an email today:

VoteVets.org PAC is soliciting votes at its website to determine which of seven veterans it has endorsed in 2008 House and Senate races will be given a $5000 contribution. Jill Morgenthaler is one of the seven.

I don’t know much about this organization. These are the goals they define for the PAC on the website:

• Elect Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans to public office – regardless of party. The war in Iraq is the number one issue facing the nation, and these 21^st century patriots are the only ones with personal experience in America’s most recent conflicts. Theirs is a voice desperately needed in the debate.
  • VoteVets.org PAC encourages donations to endorsed candidates through constant and proactive actions that highlight our candidates.
  • VoteVets.org PAC makes the maximum allowable contribution to each of our endorsed candidates.
  • VoteVets.org PAC supports our endorsed candidates in the media.
• Oppose public officials who have failed our troops, Veterans, and nation on matters regarding the war and Veterans’ issues.
  • VoteVets.org PAC exposes the records of the most egregiously incompetent public officials. Whether it is the failure of key Members of Congress to ask the most urgent and difficult questions on the war or those whose votes have hurt our nation’s Veterans, VoteVets.org PAC will hold a spotlight on the record for all Americans to see.
• VoteVets.org PAC is building an organization to fight for Veterans in the future.
  • VoteVets.org PAC continues to enhance its credibility by researching, and disseminating, all government actions that impact our nation’s newest servicemembers and Veterans.
  • VoteVets.org PAC will continue to be a strong advocate for legislation that fully supports our troops, military families and Veterans.

Seems like the voting is a gimmick to collect email addresses and increase their donor pool. But hey, if it might help Jill get a few thousand bucks to use against Roskam, what the hell.

It pains me to admit to my readers that I have failed them.

I have been writing this blog since October, trying to make a case against returning Peter Roskam for a second term representing the 6th in Congress. In doing so, I have largely focused on the minutiae of Roskam’s voting record over the course of the past year or so. But I have never taken the time to listen to the man make his own case - until today that is.
Yes today curiosity got the better of me while I was browsing through various anti-American web sites and I wandered over to Roskam’s campaign website. I was shocked and amazed and, dare I say, transformed by what I read.

No Barack Obama is Roskam, full of pretty words with no substance. No, Roskam, using words sparingly, clearly and cogently outlined his vision and his case for re-election.

His main points:

• Grew up in the district
• Lives in the district
• Raises his family in the district
• Is your voice in Congress

Clearly I had misjudged the man. But there was more, just a click away:

• I grew up in Glen Elyn where I attended public schools
• I am raising my children in Wheaton
• I played here as a boy
• I am watching our children grow up here
• We face serious challenges
• Together we have the chance to make a difference
• I want to be our local voice in Washington
• I understand our challenges
• I share our dreams

I was, needless to say, shattered by its brilliance. I immediately called Roskam’s office to apologize for having misrepresented him and I was politely but firmly reminded of the restraining order. I now must apologize to you, my readers.

I will be going into seclusion for a while, perhaps a long while, to contemplate where I went wrong. During my absence, RSR will fall silent. Upon my return, this blog will be entirely focused on Origami, the ancient and fascinating Japanese art of paper folding.

Peter Roskam ranks among the nation’s worst Congressmen, at least when it comes to his voting record on issues affecting middle class Americans.

This according to the TheMiddleClass.org 2007 Congressional Scorecard issued this month by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a non-partisan progressive think tank.

Roskam scored an F on the scorecard based upon his record of consistently voting against measures directed at improving the lot of middle class and low-income Americans including:

• Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation Act of 2007
• Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2007
• Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
• Clean Energy Act of 2007
• Employee Free Choice Act of 2007
• Children’s Health Insurance Program Re-authorization Act of 2007
• Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act of 2007
• College Cost Reduction Act of 2007
• Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2007
• Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2007
• Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007

Roskam chose to spend his first year in office pursuing the interests of the wealthiest residents of his district and of large corporations while actively working against legislation that would help the majority of his constituents whose means are more modest. All the while, Roskam railed against the Democrats in Congress for their supposed obstruction. It is clear from this impressive list of no votes that it was Roskam and his Republican colleagues who were attempting to throw up roadblocks.

Illinois Senators Barack Obama and Dick Durbin both scored highly on middle class issues, earning an A+ and an A, respectively.

Republicans are starting to get nervous about Roskam’s prospects this fall, Given Roskam’s appalling voting record and dismissive attitude toward his constituents, I don’t think a successful challenge is impossible.

There is finally a sign of impending activity at Jill Morgenthaler’s campaign website. I hope that we will soon see her taking Roskam to task for his performance.

If we’re talking about the way Roskam does his job, I’d have to agree. Doesn’t take much brain power to just do as you are told by the White House, the Republican Caucus and the National Association of Manufacturers.

Roskam was talking to Reid Wilson of the National Journal in a story about Roskam’s freshman Republican class. Asked about retaining his seat, Roskam’s smug reply was:

To survive, Roskam said, he’s relying on an old approach. “Play University of Michigan football: Three yards and a cloud of dust, and a short little pass at the end,” he said, laughing. “This is not rocket science. Returning your calls, returning your mail. We’ve helped 1,000 constituents in our district office.”

I think what Roskam was trying to refer to was Woody Hayes and his Ohio State team’s reliance on the fundamentals. For Roskam, if you answer a few constituent emails and phone calls, help a few people with their paperwork you’re OK. You don’t need to worry about your voting record. Your constituents won’t know or care. Kind of arrogant, don’t you think? Well I think that Roskam is seriously mistaken and and that he’s going to have to answer for his lousy voting record this fall.

I received an email newsletter from the DCCC yesterday. They announced their expanded list of 75 target seats and Roskam’s is included, along with fellow Bush toady Mark Kirk. And since it looks like NRCC is not going to fund Oberweis’ rematch against Foster, maybe DCCC will have more money to spend against Roskam and Kirk. I think Roskam is vulnerable if Jill Morgenthaler will start telling the story of his slavish obedience to the White House and to corporate interests and his callous disregard of the interests of his constituents.

Peter Roskam cast his vote today against the establishment of a new set of ethics rules for the House of Representatives. The measure, which was passed despite Roskam’s vote, establishes for the first time an independent means of policing a Congress which had grown to be spectacularly corrupt during the Bush-Abramoff-Rove era. A number of legislators of Roskam’s Republican party, including Roskam’s ex-boss Tom Delay, were indicted and/or convicted on charges of serious corruption. One Democrat, William Jefferson, has also been indicted. During this period, the House Ethics committee proved to be completely ineffectual, prompting Democrats to push for independent oversight once they became the majority party.

There will now be an independent Office of Congressional Ethics which can initiate and investigate complaints without prior approval of the Ethics committee. Its powers are somewhat limited in that it will not be able to issue subpoenas and determinations on the validity of its investigative findings will still be left to the Ethics committee.

Most Republicans, including Roskam, fiercely resisted this reform. The final vote fell strongly along party lines though a few members from either side crossed over. One wonders why Roskam and his party fear independent oversight. Do they have more skeletons in their cloakroom?

Interestingly, if Denny Hastert hadn’t abandoned his seat in the 14th abruptly and Bill Foster hadn’t been elected to replace him, independent oversight may not have come to pass. According to The Swamp, prior to the vote on passage, the measure hung on a procedural vote that passed by a single Ay. Foster was there and voted yes. Hastert most certainly would have voted no. So a BIG thank you to Bill Foster and here’s hoping voters take you to the woodshed this fall, Peter. Once again you have demonstrated your insistence that government and corporate elites should be above the law.