Kyle and her husband moved to Brookfield in 1986. She became active in local politics and started blogging in 2004. Her focus is primarily on local issues but often includes state and national topics, too. Kyle looks at things from the taxpayers' perspective in a creative, yet down to earth way, addressing them from a practical point of view.
In Sunday's paper, Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold is quoted as saying he is against the 2,300 page Finance-Overhaul bill. He "is expected" to vote against it. Wow, I thought. He must really be worried about November.
I read on to see he is against it because "It doesn't do the job", it doesn't go far enough!
Yesterday, I heard Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown, along with our other 2 token Republicans from Maine, will vote FOR the bill. (Groan) Now, don't get me wrong, I am glad Scott Brown won his Senate seat. He certainly will vote more often with the Republicans than Teddy Kennedy ever did. But he isn't a Conservative.
As for Feingold's departure from the Democrats, often vulnerable legislators are given permission to vote against the party if they are facing a tough reelection, if there are enough votes to secure passage. So 3 Republicans saying they will vote FOR the bill explains a lot about Feingold standing up and saying he will vote NO. This seems to be one of those cases.
Senate Republicans are against the bill because, "it would drive up the costs of credit and harm the U.S.'s competitiveness. They have also complained that the bill does little to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac"--the real Mastodon in the room. (Elephant is far too small an animal for the problems at Freddie and Fannie.)
Like the Senate Republicans, "Feingold's two GOP opponents, Dave Westlake and Ron Johnson, both have said they would vote no on the financial reforms," citing too many regulations, too much bureaucracy and concerns over the "key factor in the financial crisis - problems with mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac."
Plus, how many Senators even read, much less understood, 2,300 pages of amended amendments and regulation?
Now the last caveat is Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson who said on Monday "...he had not decided whether to vote for the bill because of concerns over whom the White House would name as head of a new consumer-lending regulator".
Since Let's Make a Deal has been going on to woo the Republicans--Brown, Snowe, and Collins each got a deal--maybe Nelson is again hoping for a special sweetener for his vote? He probably will cave in after his 5 minutes of limelight.
But I hope and pray Nelson is against the bill. Then there would be enough to filibuster. Then we would also see the true cloth Feingold is cut from.
UPDATE: Well, that was fast. Ben Nelson said he WILL vote for the bill. That takes the pressure off of Feingold. Now, if someone else would only jump ship...
UPDATE 2: The bill passed on Thursday with a 60-39 vote. Feingold's vote was not needed. He voted against. As Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner once said about ObamaCare, "We can only wonder what other secrets are lurking in the dark", with this new piece of legislation too. For one, the bill creates "more than 20 'offices of minority and women inclusion' " at various government agencies and will favor them for employment, grants and contracts. (What does that have to do with preventing a financial crisis?) See Finance Bill Favors Interests of Unions, Activists (such as ACORN!) for more information.
Past Post: Did 60 vote filibuster proof Senate die with Sen. Byrd?
More reading: Wall Street Journal: Finance Bill Close to Passage in Senate
Feingold is Only Democrat Against Financial Reform Bill
Ron Johnson for Senate
Dave Westlake for Senate