Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Truthout Slams Barney Frank

By

The story seems a bit overwrought, but I would like to hear the Congressman respond to it.

More than 50% of his campaign funds, according to the article, come from the finance, insurance, and real estate industries, which someone has dubbed “FIRE” in a totally non-alarmist move. Some of the anger in the article is about the bailout bill, which both parties decided to pass, but Frank had the most visible role.

Obviously the industry wants to be nice to the House banking committee chairman. But we shouldn’t be jaded about this.

Maybe industries should be banned from donating to committee chairmen when the committee oversees their industry. (Yeah, I know, good luck on that one.)

Barney Frank remains, in my opinion, one of the best Congressmen we (we the nation) have, so I would be very open to his explanation. Which is a long-winded way of saying: I post this reluctantly. But it’s out there, so I see no point in not posting it.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. I see no reason not to post this. Online is about the only way to do it, as you would risk brow-beating and ridicule if you posed such questions in person to Barney.

  2. I still can’t get over Barney’s support for on-line gambling. Since when did he become a Libertarian?

    • Liberalism and libertarianism both share their roots in classical liberalism, the idea that a central goal of government should be to make people more free, and that government should only interfere with people’s lives to prevent harm to others. The difference is that libertarians absolutely doubled down on the idea that small government is both necessary and sufficient for small government, (far more so than the classical liberals did) whereas modern liberals began to appreciate that there’s more to freedom than just freedom from government (making a moderate welfare state to allow people to reach their goals more effectively), and that actions can be harmful in more subtle ways than the classical liberals appreciated (justifying increased regulations).

      <

      p>But the idea that victimless crimes ought to be legal is by no means something that libertarians have a monopoly on. As another example, quite a lot of liberals support the decriminalization of at least some drugs, (including Barney Frank!) for instance, although most politicians tend to avoid that topic. It’s perfectly reasonable to debate whether online gambling actually is a victimless crime, but it’s not libertarian to say online gambling should be legalized.

      • He states that his support for the expansion of the corporate for-profit gambling industry is a Libertarian perspective.  I have been very confused by his interpretation.  He proposes basically allowing all behaviors that do not have visible victims and regulating the crap out of them.  That is not libertarianism in our neck of the woods.
        I am concerned about the internet gambling proposals for an additional reason that being the regulation of the internet.  

        <

        p>Wouldn’t some proponents of large government really like to have control over the internet?

      • JohnD often makes excellent arguments, based on my observation. Then again, some have compared my rhetorical abilities to that of a chair (as in, you don’t even argue as well as a table), or even a rug.  

        • I know we have some knock-down-drag-out fights but every so often we can inject humor, even if it has political bias. I thought my line concerning John Kerry’s off/on support for the public option…

          <

          p>

          Maybe he was for it before he voted against it!

          <

          p>was funny, but got no chuckles. You guys need to chill out a little. I keep saying life is too short and laughter has to be part of life.

          <

          p>So, my remark about Barney (the money whore) was a joke.

          • you know, one that isn’t funny – they always claim their audience is lacking a sense of humor? It’s like a bad saxophone player claiming listeners are deaf. In the case of humor, it’s precisely because the recipients have a sense of humor that they do not laugh.

              • How many times have you repeated these same lame jokes?  They might have been mildly amusing once, but they don’t improve with repetition.

                <

                p>Despite Bob’s misguided enthusiasm for your postings, you’re still not funny or interesting.  It reflects rather badly on Bob, I’m afraid.

                • Over here:

                  <

                  p>

                  My reading of JohnD is a consistent habit of taking a good point and putting it in a context where you almost feel you’d do yourself a disservice by agreeing with it.

                  <

                  p>Instead of fostering discussion of conservative ideas, JohnD’s postings mostly inoculate people against conservative viewpoints.

                  <

                  p>His diary on medicare might have been a good starting point if it weren’t presented as taunting. Instead, it served mainly to get people’s backs up.

                  <

                  p>His misrepresentations and xenophobia just add to the damping affect.

                  <

                  p>Yours truly,

                  <

                  p>”The zealot“

        • I know you are one of the BMG editors but people will start asking for your head on a platter if you keep up these nonsensical remarks. Don’t you understand mob-mentality? If the self proclaimed icons on BMG say a person sucks… then they suck. If you defend someone who sucks then you could very well be accused of sucking too (the friend of my enemy is my… or something like that).

          <

          p>If you want to be respected here I suggest…

          <

          p>- Don’t defend me (JohnD).
          – If I complain about something call me a whiner.
          – If I critique something like the state workers union, force me to cite the name of every member of that union.
          – Have two sets of rules, one for JohnD and another for the rest of BMG.
          – And, if I ever display any pleasure about an issue (Randy Moss TD dance kind of thing), then by all means accuse me of taunting.
          – Last but certainly not least, if another member engages in serious discussion with me, harshly criticize that other BMGer for engaging me and falling for my trap. (The Red Conservative Gods reward me for this type of trap).

          <

          p>Follow these simply guidelines and bloggers will keep you on their good side and not ask for your account to be closed.

          <

          p>PS I almost forgot, if I post a cure for cancer, make sure you rate it a zero or at most a 3.

          • … praise people who stay on topic and by implication show disfavor for those who stray, you may want to act in congruence to those stated values.  

          • The people you’re complaining about are, in fact, the only people besides Bob who bother replying to you.  You know, the ones you describe as a “pus filled blemish“:

            <

            p>

            As for my critics, when somebody is a zealot they will disdain and distort with abandonment to satisfy their fervid protestations. Think of Keith Olberman talking about George Bush or Dick Morris talking about Bill Clinton/Obama… there is nothing these targets could do or say which would make their critics happy. Nothing. The best thing Obama or Bush could do would be to ignore them. Resist the temptations to confront and ignore.

            Hopefully. much like a pus filled blemish, they will go away over time.

            <

            p>The reason your “critics” (aka anyone who disagrees with you) ask for you to back up your claims is simply the number times you’ve been caught making things up manipulating facts to fit your thesis, usually the most hateful possible.

            <

            p>That said, and lest people think you’re some poor maligned innocent, here’s the other side of the coin:

            <

            p>

            Then by all means BE SILENT KBusch. (3.00 / 1)

            I have not asked for YOU to respond to anything I write. In fact, if you see my ID please ignore it and don’t even read it. You of course are free to do what you want but I would rprefer that you “pass” with your comments. Certainly a “troll” like me deserves no interest from the likes of KBusch (and Tonto).

            You have never exhibited even the slightest modicum of chance that you possessed an ability to change your opinion so dialogue is “impossible” and a waste. So… enjoy your stubbornly bigoted positions, your politics and your life. I’ll try to do the same.

            Republicans in 2010!
            by: JohnD @ Thu Aug 06, 2009 at 11:29:07 AM EDT

  4. I suppose one answer is, “This is the way of the world,” but why is it the way of the world? Barney Frank is a virtual institution, and his district happens to have some wealthy communities. I wouldn’t expect him to turn down donations from the banking industry, under the current system, but maybe we should expect that in his role as chairman of the Banking Committee. That’s what I mean about not being jaded.

    <

    p>

  5. Maybe we have a problem with reality.  Why should we expect our electeds to support people that only vote them into power every two years and might send in a sawbuck for a campaign contribution every couple years?  Our electeds are going to follow the big bucks.  It is to be expected.  As for Barney Frank, I doubt he would lose an election if he failed a mirror test.  Who’s gonna run against him?   He’s guaranteed his seat.  He, as many other politicians, Democrat and Republican, are free to follow the big bucks.

    <

    p>The voters are only the necessary evil that the electeds have to face every few years.  With enough campaign money, the people will vote in Mephistopheles.  Ah, the power of good marketing.  It isn’t just for cigarettes.  Didn’t Billy Bulger say something to the effect that idealists don’t get re-elected?  

    <

    p>As long as professional politicians can get the funding of non-natural organizations, (corporations, unions, pacs) the people will continue to be shut out of the process of government.  Reality is harsh.

  6. he got a lot of money from them. Money flows to power. He’s the most powerful money congressman in the House. The bigger question is did that money buy anything in particular?

    • And Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu changed their minds because they just thought about it a little and voila… a yes vote.

          • arguments not to be confused with taunting or mindless prattle that lowers the discourse to a level of no substance beyond a partisan divide.  

            • BMG is becoming NeilSagan’s Spewing for the day. Give it a break. Can’t you take a hint… nobody cares. I mean if you write diaries and people comment and a lively discussions follows then great. But you post diaries which epitomize the expression… “same shit different day”.

              <

              p>Mix it up a little. You are destroying BMG.

              • You should take it yourself.  

                <

                p>When was the last time anybody besides Edgar gave you anything above a 3 or recommended one of your diaries?

                <

                p>GFY, indeed.

      • It should not flow to power. Full stop.

        <

        p>We’re in a period of frightening regulatory capture. The public outcry for more, better, and more aggressive regulation is too strong and the Republicans are mindlessly united against it. (Witness the recent vote in the House.) When money flows to power, regulatory capture becomes institutionalized.

        • Money has a way of finding its way where it wants to go, but I don’t see why we couldn’t try some simple reforms. If you’re CEO of Raytheon, you don’t donate to any member of the Armed Services Committee. If you’re CEO of Bank of America, you don’t give to a member of the Banking Committee.

          <

          p>People mention public financing as a solution, but I think that has its own problems.

          <

          p>The key is transparency.

          <

          p>

        • What I meant: The public outcry for more, better, and more aggressive regulation is none too strong.

          The political problem is that public opinion tends to see problems through a moral/ethical lens rather than systemically. Hence, in the public mind, the recent housing bubble and its dodgy derivatives were caused by greed not by weak regulation and misaligned incentives.

  7. I handle communications for Congressman Frank’s personal office and I would like to respond to JimC’s request for comment on the Alternet article, which was cross-posted on Truthout.

    <

    p>First, I want to thank Jim for introducing the post in a fair way and for his nice comments about Congressman Frank.

    <

    p>The article sounds damning but it doesn’t really make much sense.  It claims that Barney has been “bought,” but it admits — on the very last page — that liberal groups have actually praised his efforts to reform Wall Street. Americans for Financial Reform, a coalition of unions and other organizations including the AARP, AFL-CIO, SEIU, AFSCME and others, has been a strong supporter.  Elizabeth Warren, the much respected Chair of the TARP oversight board, has also praised the bill.  

    <

    p>Also, the article fails to mention a crucial piece of information — that the Wall Street interests which it claims have “bought” Barney in fact hated the bill and did everything possible to kill it.  For example, the Chamber of Commerce ran a major advertising campaign to make small business owners believe that they would be hurt by the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency.

    <

    p>It also didn’t mention that every Republican voted against the bill.

    <

    p>Furthermore, the author seems completely unaware of the fact the Congressman Frank has refused to accept donations from major TARP recipients or their top executives.  This is a highly unusual and principled position.

    <

    p>The article also disingenuously leads readers to believe that Barney backed Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which prevented regulation of derivatives, when he opposed it.

    <

    p>The writer also ignores Congressman Frank’s voluminous writings and speeches — see our web site for both text and video — calling for more regulation of financial markets.  Some of the video makes for compelling and sometimes hilarious viewing, but you wouldn’t watch thinking that Barney has a soft spot for the large banks.

    <

    p>I don’t have time to go through the bill point by point — it’s Christmas eve.  But I think most people familiar with these issues would be very impressed with the intelligent and tenacious way the legislation pinpoints the causes of the financial crisis, and puts measures in place to lower the possibility that it will happen again.  Some papers and close observers have called the financial reform bill the most important legislation of its kind since the Great Depression.

    <

    p>The fact is, that if the financial services industry tried to “buy” Barney Frank, they haven’t gotten anything for their money.  And to say otherwise in the face of the evidence is clearly irresponsible

    <

    p>

    • Those of us who know Congressman Frank (and there are many of us) know that this “story” is bunk. I, for one, appreciate your taking the time to respond to its many and obvious distortions.

      <

      p>Since moving to Brookline in 1999, I’ve been astonished that Congress Frank has personally answered each letter and email I’ve sent. I appreciate and value his honesty, effectiveness, and candor (not to mention his humor). When we disagree (I argued that that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached, Congressman Frank disagreed), I am impressed by his well-reasoned logic and his forthright presentation of his position.

      <

      p>In my view, Barney Frank is a no-bullshit fighter for the values I hold dear. I strongly support him, and warmly welcome you (and him) to the BMG community.

    • to JimC’s post about the TruthOut article.  

      <

      p>Please continue to keep an eye on the place – BMG – as people frequently post diaries that ask for information about our elected officials positions, decisions and relative priorities.

      <

      p>One of the concerns about the bill I’ve heard voiced again and again is how it addresses ‘too big to fail’, which is re-actively and in a manor that does not insulate the taxpayer from TooBigCorp’s losses or the effect of TooBigCorp’s bankrupcty on on the economy (more specifically everyone’s diversified 401K, short term obligations market, interbank loans, community bank lending) in other words systemic failure that we all pay for with half of our life savings and the inflation that will follow as the fed prints gobs and gobs of money to get the economy working again.

      <

      p>Seeing as this last financial catastrophe has cost us all dearly, could you provide links to articles that state how the bill works and why those provisions were chosen as an approach instead of some of the alternatives?

      <

      p>Also, do you have any figures available about the money spent by financial institutions lobbying Congress on this bill and financial reform in general over the last year and the prior year. Many thanks.  

      <

      p>Best wishes to you and the Congressman in the year and years ahead.  

Archives