Who Is Lying -- Barack Obama or Sen. Michael Bennet?

In the aftermath of the U.S. Senate defeat of "cramdown" legislation (ie. the bill that would have allowed bankruptcy judges renegotiate the terms of mortages so as to prevent foreclosures), I'm still wondering why almost nobody has bothered to ask cramdown opponents in the Senate why they support cramdown for rich people but not for The Rest of Us. But now, after a stunning yet little-noticed nugget in the Denver Post, I'm wondering why nobody has asked this same question of President Obama.

The president has said - and continues to say - he supports cramdown, but as Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet's (D) office told the Denver Post, the Obama administration signaled it wanted the Senate to stop the cramdown bill. Indeed, in editorial writer Chuck Plunkett's oversimplified editorial* against the cramdown bill, we get this:

Bennet's clear-eyed rejection of the provision will help the little guy far more. That this is true is (perhaps) underscored by the fact that no less a champion of the little guy than President Barack Obama apparently let this provision meet its death.

I say this because I considered Bennet's vote the first significant break with the Obama administration. But when I talked with his office to seek an interview, Bennet spokeswoman Deirdre Murphy told me Bennet believes that Obama no longer supported the cram-down language. Though the president supported a cram-down approach on the campaign trail, many news outlets have pointed out he did not lobby for it once debate grew heated.

On the substance of cramdown, I completely disagree with Plunkett - his claim that "the current economic climate is incentive enough for banks to refinance loans that would help keep borrowers solvent" sounds great, and I wish it were true, but it flies in the face of new data that show "the nation's largest mortgage companies are stepping up foreclosures" (evidently, Plunkett couldn't be bothered to spend five minutes on Google actually checking to see whether his speculation had any grounding in fact). And his insistence on repeating banking industry talking points that claim "cram down" would "force executives to raise [interest] rates to balance the books" is belied by the fact that interest rates have continued to fall as "cram down" has been available for the wealthy and for business in dealing with their vacation homes and investment properties, respectively.

But then, one newspaper editorial writer's fact-free screed isn't all that interesting - what's newsy about Plunkett's piece the fairly major allegation within it: Yes, according to the piece, we have a U.S. Senator's office insisting that the President of the United States indicated to key senate swing votes that he was AOK with them voting down a bill he was telling the public he supported. That's pretty big news, especially since the senator making the allegation is a guy who could face a Democratic primary, and therefore will use this rationale as his defense to Democratic voters.

The question now is whether Bennet's allegation is true and the president has been lying to the public, or whether Bennet has made up a lie in order to justify his vote for banking industry interests over his constituents interests? Put another way, someone's pants are on fire in this controversy: Either President Obama is lying by telling the public he supports cramdown but is then quietly telling senators he opposes it. Or, Michael Bennet is lying by telling the public he voted against cramdown because Obama wanted him to when, in fact, Obama didn't want him to.

So, who do you think is lying - Bennet or Obama? I posed this question to Mike Lillis of the Washington Independent on the morning drive-time show on KKZN AM760 that I'm guest hosting. You can listen to the interview here - he suggests both are fudging the truth in their own ways. But I'm curious what you think...

* Not surprisingly, Plunkett doesn't bother to ask - or even ponder - the same question that every other journalist refuses to ask: Namely, why they think it is an outrage to allow cramdown for regular people, but perfectly OK to allow it for the super rich.

AFTERTHOUGHT: I guess it's possible Bennet genuinely "believed" Obama didn't support cramdown, when Obama actually did. That would mean neither Obama or Bennet is lying, but instead that Bennet is an idiot and voted based on his belief that all of Obama's cramdown rhetoric countered - and worse, that Bennet voted this way without checking with the White House first. I left this as an afterthought, though, because it stretches the limits of possibility - Bennet is a lot of things, but he's just not that stupid.

ADDENDUM: It seems very strange that organized labor is threatening a Democratic primary against Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania for his refusal to back the Employee Free Choice Act, but not publicly threatening a primary against Bennet, who is refusing to take a position on EFCA and who is far more beatable in a primary than Specter (though I do think Specter is eminently beatable). Now, I know there are partisan shills out there who claim that Bennet has some super secret Pony plan to use his silence on EFCA for progressive ends, but that conspiracy theorizing is just shameless politician worshiping, if you ask me. As we've learned over and over again, there are never Super Secret Pony plans - and in this case, if he's doing anything on EFCA, it's trying to play business off labor to maximize campaign contributions. I point this out in this post because this is yet another issue in which Bennet is voting against basic economic fairness, and it strikes me as strange that labor is relatively silent.

Comments

[Jp10]

The Banks bribed the Senators to vote against the bankruptcy cram down ...even Senator Durbin admitted that the banks own the Senators. ..That's bribery folks and Senators should be going to jail.....
No wonder our country is in such an unbeleivable mess.....we have corrupt Senators working against the American people.

[muckraker3]

Let's stop pulling the wool over our own eyes. Obama did nothing to support the cramdown legislation. He talks about all these reforms yet in the end they are all quietly killed off. Obama is a typical politician. A tool of the rich who spews rhetoric about being for the people. The only thing he has done succesfully is transfer taxpayer dollars to rich wall street types. When you take a peek behind the curtain there is nothing there. He has shown a frightening disinclination to throw himself behind anything other than the status quo both in war and finance. He even runs interference for the Bush administrations torture program saying we should just move on and not look back. Under this definition we would have to shut down the court system as by definition all crimes judged there were committed in the past. His primary character trait appears to be political expediency above all other considerations.

[WritusMaximus]

You are no team player! Don't you know that only worshipers are allowed to express (the same) opinions??????

[DebnJosh]

I am curious why this article or topic is/has been buried.

[timnel]

Because it is about Democrats we are all supposed to beleive it is all Republicans fault ( wich is true from 2001-2006 ) but not now only Democrats can kill any type of reform now

[Oldtimer]

I think Democrats still need a lot of help from Republicans but your point is taken.
Democrats should have been careful what they wished for. They have no one to blame
now that they control Congress and the White House. Fortunately I can say I
voted for Nader. I urge evryone else to bolt from the Democrats . Only then will they
turn to FDR style rule.

[DebnJosh]

I didn't here any support from Obama for the bankruptcy reform in the months leading up to the senate vote and he has not made one comment about the bill failing in the senate since it happened. Seems pretty suspicious for a president who talked about and supported bankruptcy reform on the campaign trail not to even make a statement. I believe he either changed his mind about it or never told the truth to begin with.

[WritusMaximus]

Obama is smart. A lot of voters are stupid.

Doesn't look like a smart move for Hillary to have joined the Obama team. Just how can she somehow be not tainted by all the mess sure will beat Bill.

[mjc]

Beginning to believe this economic crisis was entirely engineered. Once Americans swallowed the bait about buying homes is the American dream, spend what you can to get one, it is the best equity, the rest of the plan followed easily. When the foreclosures began and the banks and the derivatives and the hedge funds just naturally followed suit and began to plummet which was then to be followed by the federal government giving out as much as was needed to get the bankers even for a while but nothing was done for the American homeowner. And of course the crisis began to produce a gigantic layoff of workers, closure of plants and threatened closure of plants. Why was there no attempt by the Obama administration to help the homeowners? Not considered necessary? Save the banks first because credit is sooooo important; who is going to need it, that is the real question. We have been screwed by a popular, elegant, intelligent, black man who no one would have thought would ever be so hand in glove tied to the wealthy and powerful; well, almost no one.

[WritusMaximus]

You are definitely not a worshiper, and since you got not the right religion, the worshipers in here will try to ban you for life.

[racetoinfinity]

Don't worry. There are plenty of us progressive disappointee non-worshipers in here, critics of his who say apply pressure to move him progressive-ward. Yep, we were had, more or less, I do think now, certainly to one degree or another, as I've said here and at other sites for a couple of months at least now.

[Mark Massey]

Give me a break banks paid $42,000,000 they had to report to defeat bill, how much money do did they contribute to the Senators on the Banking committy,
can Washington and Wall Street be any more obnoxous

lobbying reports filed indicates that finance, insurance and real estate (FIRE) interests paid over $42 million to lobbyists who worked to defeat mortgage write-down in bankruptcy

[Oldtimer]

Excellent point. The fact is $42 million is just spit in the bucket. Just think of the
billions that $42 million bought for banking by eliminating cramdowns.
The same will happen to election reform. Gore Vidal offers this analogy. "It's like
asking the burglar robbing your house to kick the ladder out from under him."
Washington is bought by special interests and while it may have reached
a froth in the MBA Bush era it still is stirring fast under Obama.
Health care reform has no shot already because Democrats won't even allow
single payer advocates a voice at the table. Insurance comapnies who watched
Wall Street dance with Obama show up for a photo opp to say they are ready
to offer some change to save 2 trillion over ten years. Obama will dance to that tune too.
When I retire I'm leaving this country and heading to Europe. The United Corporations of
America do not deserve my allegiance.

[patricklee5150]

David, thank you. This was very informative and somewhat disheartening.

[tompoe]

2010 is going to be one big mess for Democrats that think voters will put up with corporate welfare, whether by Republicans or Democrats.

[Dameocrat]

What if we had challenges from left by the greens and from the right by the libertarians. We could restructure the political system completely.

[WritusMaximus]

The repub and dem party would then try their darnedest to find ways to disqualify them third party challenges. Them election commissions are filled with dem and repub worshipers, don't you know!

[sunny123]

I'm sorry to say that I also believe the corporations in America and internationally are really running America now together with the Military. Something Dwight D Eisenhower warned us about long ago. The Military/Industrial Complex. Folks, I think we have been taken over and we didn't even notice it. David, I know you think there is a chance for Change and I know you have worked hard for it. I admire you and your knowledge immensely, but I have a feeling we are all in over our heads.

Really, what can our President do? He can't make Senators and Representatives vote the way we want them to. He can't make policy himself, he can't even spend money without Congress and we all know Congress has sold out to the Military/Industrial Complex. The rich get richer and we get scr****.

[GreatNews27]

Obama, like every other Democrat and Republican, does what their corporate masters tell them to do. If they say lie to the public, Obama will lie. By the way Obama treats the banksters, I would believe Bennett.

[racetoinfinity]

Good points.

[peterg76]

Who's lying? The politician.