Social Conservatives Still In Charge of Republican Party

Two wings of the Republican Party engaged in political combat on Wednesday, June 25th over an important question of regulation of the financial sector of our economy. The result was about as one-sided as it could be -- the social/religious conservatives who believe that the main function of government should be to impose various personal behavioral choices on individuals beat those whose main goal is loosening what they believe to be inefficient restrictions on the free market economy by better than 9 to 1.

The subject was the bill passed -- during a Republican Congress -- that puts tighter regulation of gambling on the Internet and does it by imposing on banks, credit unions and other financial institutions the job of policing this particular effort at prohibition. Some of us -- Rep. Ron Paul and myself for example -- would like to see the whole bill repealed so that individual choices regarding gambling can prevail over the views of others that adults should not be allowed to spend their own money in this way. But in the Financial Services Committee on Wednesday, a more moderate effort to relieve some of the regulatory pressures of this scheme was under consideration. Representative Peter King offered an amendment to the law to instruct the Department of the Treasury and the Federal Reserve not to proceed with very tough regulations of the financial system until some important questions about the scope of all were clarified.

While falling short of the full reform many of us wanted, it was an important step towards making this law much less of an intrusion into people's lives, and was very much sought after by the banks, credit unions and other financial institutions. In fact, the amendment proposed by Peter King -- the Senior Republican on the Homeland Security Committee, which is relevant since some of those seeking to ban gambling have tried to argue that this is necessary in some way to diminish terrorism -- was backed by the Chamber of Commerce, Grover Norquist and the Americans For Tax Reform, and the Financial Services Roundtable. On the other side were the various conservative social and religious groups who voted that adults should be protected from themselves by banning gambling. Democrats on the Committee were overwhelmingly on the side of their Republican Colleague, Peter King, and voted 29 to 4 in favor of the King amendment. Before the meeting, various members of the economic interest groups that were supporting that amendment had expected to get a significant number of Republican votes as well. But then the religious right and their allies stepped in. As a result, a number of Republicans who had committed to vote for the bill switched their votes, and the final vote on the Republican side was 28 in favor of insisting that Treasury and the Federal Reserve impose these stringent and intrusive regulations, and only 3 against it. Combining the overwhelming Democratic vote in favor and the even more overwhelming Republican vote against produced a tie -- 32 to 32, and in this game, a tie means that the amendment is defeated.

In other words, the leading economically conservative organizations and representatives of financial institutions who are argued that the proposed regulations would interfere with the functioning of our financial system had the support of less than 10% of the Republicans. 90+ % of the Republicans voted along with the social conservatives to maintain the position that the federal government should be restrictive of individual choice in the matter of gambling and should compel the banks to be the banks to be the enforcers.

I regret the fact that this became partisan. I was hoping that it wouldn't be, and I have been working closely with some of those most dedicated to economic deregulation of the appropriate sort.

But it became partisan because the religious/social extreme conservatives continue to be in control of the Republican Party on a whole range of issues, and they demonstrated once again that it is they and not those dedicated to what they believe are free market principles who have the upper hand in internal Republican Party disputes.

Comments

[WilliePilgrim]

How long ago was it that social conservatives were the primary supporters of the Democratic party with its emphasis on christian charity dispensed as a government's duty? Oh, yeah...1965, when race became the primary issue over which social programs would be disbursed. When poor whites learned that they would be considered to be at an advantage over blacks regardless of their personal situations, the Democrats lost this now disparaged group of religious nuts.
Of course, if the Dems could some how get them back into their camp, as they are having some luck doing right now, we'd hear a different tune, wouldn't we?

[BADEN]

Dear Mr. Franks...

Let's have a little talk about that FREE TRADE thingie, shall we?

Nothing is FREE. NOTHING.

Gambling is an addiction. Just like alcohol. Left or Right - most normal people agree on that point.

[thedirtman]

If ever there was a match made in misery it is the social conservative - libertarian match that drives them together. The bare minimum of government requires only that order be imposed while social conservatives would impose thought control. I have no idea what behooves libertarians to want to continue with the Republican Party other than to hope that social conservatives will just go away. At the same time the Democrats would welcome thoughts and ideas on how to cut expenses even if it has not been part of the traditional recipe. Being that the Dems are going to hold so much clout after Jan 2009 one has to ask what the libertarians are thinking.

[paixa3]

"""""Being that the Dems are going to hold so much clout after Jan 2009 one has to ask what the libertarians are thinking."""""

I do not think they will have more clout, but I do think they be just as bad as they have been over the past 2 years.

[darker]

Social Conservatives Still In Charge of Republican HYPOCRISY.
HYPOCRISY is the middle name OF EACH REPUBLICAN.

[certainot]

the social conservative wing will continue to dominate the GOP until we get some new kind of Fairness Doctrine or some other method of reducing the right wing talk radio monopoly. it is the dominant political soapbox/force in most communities in america and its uncontested repetition to 50-70MIL has been used very effectively by the roves and norquists to punish moderate republican reps who wander off their chosen path.

[mergina]

My dear Mr. Frank.....Why is government in Washington so broken, corrupt, helpless and hopeless?

[oldpotsmuggler]

The stuff I'm reading says that business political donations this time around are going heavily to Dems over Reps. God bless them pushy little findamentalists.

[americanalien]

Fortunately for us, the GOP has been completely overrun by this radical religious fringe. Independents are now flocking to the Democratic party. Hope has return to America. Also Representative Frank, thanks for your great service to America in the Congress. You have always been a champion of civil rights.

[fairandjust]

Put a hold on the Dept of Treasury and Federal Reserve to enforce regulations on banks and financial institutions - I can't stop laughing. When was the last time they enforced anything?

I watched those hearings about Credit Card Issuers abusive policies - it was obvious they do not want to regulate anything where banks make huge profits. Reg Z - a joke. they don't even want to force an Opt-in policy regarding Overdraft Protection - like when the banks automatically enroll you in Overdraft so they can start collecting tons of fees.

When are you going to vote on Rep. Maloney's Credit Card Holders Bill of Rights bill? When are Dems going to start offering something that help Consumers, Not Banks all of the time? Make those Repugs Vote against Consumers!

Internet gambling? Pretty trivial compared to americans overwhelmingly in debt and being abused by Universal Default policies by banks.

[leftcoastindy]

You better be ready to get some good things done next year after we vote out these idiots. Lots of pressure to 'do the right thing' without the need to cater to 'special interest'.

[demockracy]

Warren Buffett's definition of gambling: A tax on ignorance.

So we protect children from being bound to contracts they sign, should we protect the ignorant too? Or how about at least taxing gambling to pay for the social fallout it causes (addiction, financial distress, etc.)?

[zippywpinhead]

gambling is taxed- both the winners being taxed on their earnings and any business that promotes gambling...

[john456]

I am not a prude and have had my share of barracks and backroom poker games. Unless society is willing to throw away any safety net and allow families to suffer the consequence of any family members irrational action some measure of regulation is required. I have heard the horror stories from Gambler's anonomous. The question is "how does society protect itself" For alas it is the insurer of last resort to the families that suffer the consequence of gambling.