Yesterday, the 111th House of Representatives not only passed a bill that, if signed by President Obama, will reform the credit card industry, it also passed an amendment to the credit card bill that allows loaded guns in national parks as long as it conforms to state laws.
Bear with me here – it’s a confusing story.
First the Senate took up the Credit Card Bill. The banking lobby felt the bill might pass and wanted it to go away. Tom Coburn sponsored an amendment that allows guns in national parks where they conform with the states laws. The banking lobby thought this would be a good poison pill - kill the bill with an amendment many Democrats (in either the house or the senate) would disagree with. The bill passed the Senate anyway and was sent to the House. The House leadership didn’t want Democrats to vote against the Credit Card bill only because of this new gun rule (which reverses a rule that's been in place since the Reagan years by the way), so they decided to allow Representatives to vote on the two items separately. The Credit Card bill passed, but the gun amendment passed as well (279 - 147). When the bill is sent to President Obama, the bill and the amendment will be packaged back together. Since the President doesn't have a line item veto (I'm against the line item veto in principle, but its painful to see this happen) he'll have to sign the bill or veto the bill in its entirety. In the current economic and international climate, Obama feels the credit card bill is too valuable, so he'll probably sign it, even though it has that stupid gun thing in it. My only hope is that he's got a secret plan for how to negate the new gun rule. And that's the story.
FYI - here are some of the bill numbers I could gather from multiple websites:
S Amdt 1067, S Amdt 1058, HR 627.
Here are some websites that might be helpful for further research: govtrack.us and OpenCongress
And here is an article from Daily Kos by mcjoan that I thought was interesting.
On how many levels do I hate this?
1. 'poison pill' amendments are dishonest and negate useful debate.
2. both Democratic Senators from Oregon voted FOR the amendment. Ugh.
3. the stated purpose of the amendment (sponsored by Tom Coburn) is "to protect innocent Americans from violent crime in national parks and refuges.” That sounds like fear-mongering to me. I hope I've established I HATE fear-mongering.
5. its a cynical attack - the banking industry didn't believe it had the votes to overturn the credit card bill on their own merits so they got this amendment added to elicit lots of emotion and, they hoped, tip the scales in their favor. Once again, corporate America is playing fast and loose with integrity.
6. a gun debate diverts attention from the very real economic and international problems we're facing in our country.
7. I don't understand people who are more concerned with saving themselves a buck here and there when they won't starve or be homeless for the loss of the buck. The credit card companies make plenty of money as it is without their jacked up fees and manipulative practices. It seems such a waste of good people's time to cater to their greed. And unfortunately, there are corporate lobbyists who will do the corporation's dirty work for them - all for the love of money.
8. So, now we have a credit card reform bill that has possibly been watered down, and the NRA has their guns in National Parks rule, all in one disgusting political maneuver. The real powerbrokers - corporations with money - may be abandoning the Republican party, but they're still alive and well in America. They're like parasites and will go to whatever party or people will help them in their greedy goals. Blech!!
I should say I'm against guns in the national parks because I'm against guns and violence in general. I'm doing my best not to debate guns in this post because its the tactic I'm disgusted by. If the amendment were a progressive, pro-choice, gay-marriage, animal rights, or some other kind of amendment, I'd still disagree with the tactic.
I admit though, if it was an amendment I agreed with, I wouldn't say much - I'd keep my mouth shut and hope nobody noticed so it might pass.
No comments:
Post a Comment