McCain Against Economic Regulation Before He Was For It

Before he was for more government regulation of the economy (as of yesterday), John McCain was adamantly against it. In the wake of the latest economic tumble, McCain has suddenly discovered his inner populist. But for most of his political career, McCain was just another Republican cheerleader for corporate deregulation. [And, in the case of Charles Keating, he improperly intervened to protect the Savings & Loan magnate from federal regulators.]

Writes the Washington Post today:

A decade ago, Sen. John McCain embraced legislation to broadly deregulate the banking and insurance industries, helping to sweep aside a thicket of rules established over decades in favor of a less restricted financial marketplace that proponents said would result in greater economic growth.

...

In 2002, McCain introduced a bill to deregulate the broadband Internet market, warning that "the potential for government interference with market forces is not limited to federal regulation." Three years earlier, McCain had joined with other Republicans to push through landmark legislation sponsored by then-Sen. Phil Gramm (Tex.), who is now an economic adviser to his campaign. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act aimed to make the country's financial institutions competitive by removing the Depression-era walls between banking, investment and insurance companies.

That bill allowed AIG to participate in the gold rush of a rapidly expanding global banking and investment market. But the legislation also helped pave the way for companies such as AIG and Lehman Brothers to become behemoths laden with bad loans and investments.

...

McCain has not always opposed government regulation. He supported efforts to allow the Food and Drug Administration to regulate tobacco. And he pushed to strengthen the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requirements, which were put in place after the accounting scandals involving Enron and other major firms.

But he has usually reverted to the role of an unabashed deregulator. In 2007, he told a group of bloggers on a conference call that he regretted his vote on the Sarbanes-Oxley bill, which has been castigated by many executives as too heavy-handed.

In the 1990s, he backed an unsuccessful effort to create a moratorium on all new government regulation. And in 1996, he was one of only five senators to oppose a comprehensive telecommunications act, saying it did not go far enough in deregulating the industry.

"I'm always for less regulation," he told the Wall Street Journal in March. He added: "I'd like to see a lot of the unnecessary government regulations eliminated."

If he wasn't pandering then, he's certainly pandering now.

Comments (25)

1. Of course McCain and the rethugs want less government to regulate business. The government serves only one purpose. Funding the war machine.....and protecting overseas investments. To hell with protecting CONUS citizens from shady business practices. To hell with the government interfering in the banking industry or slowing the debt / credit ratios of banks. Banks can police themselves...kind of like the way Enron policed themselves.

   Businesses are Godly, and the government is the work of the devil, with the exception of the military industrial complex. Then the government is doing God's work even according to Palin.

   What a bunch of F#$@-ups the GOP is. The question is, how much more will they have to screw the AMerican people before we throw their greedy asses out of Washington D.C. for good?!

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2008 @ 1:22pm

2. McCain was for himself before he was against himself.

   He's the living and breathing definition of the word flip-flop. I used to think flip-flops were semiconductor logic gates for digital circuitry, but I was wrong. McCain is a flip flop. He changes state as frequently as his semi-conductor counterpart and changes state at a greater frequency with less propogation delay.

   Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2008 @ 1:26pm

3. Didn't the GOP hammer Kerry on waffleing 4 years ago?? Tisk, tisk. Double standard.

   Posted by throwin at 09/17/2008 @ 1:34pm

4. Speaking of babies, McPOWhowmanyMANSIONS' discredited ad targeting Obama for voting for a bill that would help kids fend off molesters, makes a lot more sense now:

   "So Sarah Palin's latest explanation for why she fired Walt Monegan is that he had gone over her head in seeking federal money for an initiative to combat sexual assault crimes, before she had approved the program.

   But it now appears that the program in question is one that most elected officials would be wary of admitting they hadn't strongly backed. According to Peggy Brown, who heads the Alaska Network on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault, Monegan wanted to use the federal money to hire retired troopers and law enforcement officials, and assign them to investigate the most egregious cases of sexual assault -- including those against children.

   In other words, if Palin's new story is true, she fired Monegan for being too aggressive in going after child molesters.

   ABC News reported yesterday that, although Alaska leads the nation in reported rapes per capita, Palin hasn't made the issue a priority as governor.

   Monegan, however, appeared eager to change that. "He seemed to get the issue and really took it seriously," Brown told TPMmuckraker.

   According to the Palin camp, too seriously."

   http://tinyurl.com/6s7hl2

   Makes sense that McPOWhowmanyMANSIONS would attack Obama for wanting to protect children too.

   Kinda leaves a real bad taste knowing what depths the new con repubs for dic'tatorship have sunk to...

   Posted by hsuBfools at 09/17/2008 @ 1:52pm

5. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 1:42pm

   See? See? This ONE time 13 years ago...McCain supported a little regulation!

   Ignore the other 97% of the time!

   LOL

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 1:55pm

6. It's interesting to note that some of AIGs subsidiaries that did have some regulation and oversight are doing well. And that AIG won approval to borrow $20 billion in assets from it regulated subsidiaries. With deregulation the cop on the beat so to speak was essentially removed from the equation.

   What would happen in your community if all police protection were removed. Do you think the criminals would get into all sorts of mischief? Well thats exactly what happened on wallstreet. And McSame was right there supporting legislation to remove that cop on the beat.

   Posted by chaoszen at 09/17/2008 @ 2:00pm

7. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 2:06pm

   BTW, Larry, why don't you SUPPORT eliminating the SEC?

   It was created by that socialist Roosevelt in 1934 as part of his neo-Marxist "New Deal"!?!?!?!?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 2:10pm

8. I would expect that at least with McCain we would hopefully get some sensible regulation rather than a throw the baby out with the bath water approach so typical of Democrats. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 1:42pm

   Haha. Exactly the LVL response I expected. Instead of taking his typical, "All regulation is socialism" approach he ditches his normal response to defend McCain. Partisanship at it's most amazing.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/17/2008 @ 2:17pm

9. Care to cite what bill or proposal McCain ever made to eliminate the Securities and Exchange Commission?

   Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 2:06pm

   McSame supporting legislation to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act is probably as close as one can get.

   Posted by chaoszen at 09/17/2008 @ 2:20pm

10. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 2:35pm

    Is health care insurance part of "Commerce"?

    (yes, it's a trap)

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 2:43pm

11. It would seem to me that the current economic crisis and its possible repurcussions would be the death knell for anti-regulation libertarian and republican wingnuts.

    But the particular form of insanity that produce these types seem to have such a grip on their psyche or self image that there is literally no hope for them. Sad.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/17/2008 @ 2:49pm

12. http://tinyurl.com/3whtbl

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/17/2008 @ 2:50pm

13. http://tinyurl.com/3c9qaj

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/17/2008 @ 2:58pm

14. "On a broader range of economic issues, though, Mr. McCain readily departs from Reaganomics. His philosophy is best described as a work in progress. He is refreshingly blunt when he tell me: "I'm going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated." OK, so who does he turn to for advice? His answer is reassuring. His foremost economic guru is former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm (who would almost certainly be Treasury secretary in a McCain administration). He's also friendly with the godfather of supply-side economics, Arthur Laffer."

    http://tinyurl.com/7pfca

    Posted by hsuBfools at 09/17/2008 @ 3:24pm

15. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 3:09pm

    So there's nothing CONSTITUTIONAL ...just statutory law?

    Ergo, if a Congress wanted to CHANGE the law, and mandate Federal regulation, even CONTROL over health insurance...

    you couldn't oppose it on Constitutional grounds since insurance CAN BE "Commerce"?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 3:40pm

16. Without all the complications and arguments Health Care should be available to every U.S citizen. It should be part of the commons. We pay taxes to finance "Domestic Tranquility" (police, fire, coast guard among others) We pay taxes to provide for the "Common Defence" (the military). And we pay taxes to promote the "General Welfare" (medicare, medicaid and others) The only thing missing from this equation is Healthcare for all. These are all constitutional guarantees and should be part of the commons. Health Care is not a privilege but a right for every American according to the Constitution.

    How can you pursue Life,Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness if you are sick and unable to work. These are Constitutional guarantees and should not be up for debate by a bunch of greedy wolves who profit from others in ill health.

    Single Payer Heathcare for all. Expand Medicare to all U.S. citizens. Anyone who has a differing opinion is Un-American and should be tarred and feathered.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/17/2008 @ 4:16pm

17. Posted by chaoszen at 09/17/2008 @ 4:16pm

    Sorry, chaos, but you're equally flawed in your interpretation of the Constitution as LVLIB.

    "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution.

    His flaw is limiting the scope of "Commerce" in some cases, but not in others....which was the basis for both the New Deal and even earlier reforms under the Teddy Roosevelt progressives.

    YOUR flaw is reading TOO much into the Constitution.

    Although it's true "promoting the general welfare" IS in the Preamble, it's usually been taken very weakly...and since "general" doesn't translate automatically as "universal"...one could argue that the fact that most Americans have health insurance is "general" "welfare" "promoted".

    His argument is weaker....yours slightly stronger, but reliant on precedent.

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 4:40pm

18. throw the baby out with the bath water...

    So Liver, were you watching McNeil the other night? I heard that statement two or three times then, now from you. Can't you come up with your own stuff?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2008 @ 4:46pm

19. Didn't the GOP hammer Kerry on waffleing 4 years ago?? Tisk, tisk. Double standard.

    Posted by throwin at 09/17/2008 @ 1:34pm

    That's the GOP motto. Accuse the otherside what you are guilty of. Seems to work pretty well. It shouldn't, but people like Liver, Rio, Ponti and Happy take the bullshit hook, line and sinker every time.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 09/17/2008 @ 5:06pm

20. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution.

    I realize that the statement above is from the declaration of indepenence and was not included in the Constitution. But it does relate the general feeling of the founding fathers on these issues. I don't believe I read to much into the Constitution it was intentionally vague because the founding fathers were smart enough to realize that this republic would change with time.

    I use it as my argument for Universal Healthcare because it is my opinion that it fits into the general tone and meaning of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. And if it doesn't it should.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/17/2008 @ 5:30pm

21. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 9:

    Wasn't my question....

    CONSTITUTIONALLY, can you find any reason that Congress couldn't declare health insurance "commerce" and control it?

    Say, nightmare scenario, YOU were on the Supreme Court....????

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 10:08pm

22. Returning regulation to the Fed doesn't grant the Fed then the right to nationalize health care. It would merely give them the regulatory authority over sales and consumer rights which is the current authority of each states Insurance commissioner.-----Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/17/2008 @ 10:12pm

    What if one of the regulations was "You can't discriminate because of pre-existing conditions" or "You have to accept any application" or "You can't charge more than $50 a month"?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 10:59pm

23. I represent an opposing viewpoint to the leftists here.

    Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/18/2008 @ 01:01am

    That you do...but I don't think everyone here is a "leftist" in the perjorative way you mean it.

    If you're driving the wrong way down a one-way street, it appears to you that every ELSE is driving the wrong way.

    You are so far right that everyone ELSE appears to be a "leftist" when, really, we're just fairly moderate.

    Posted by Balrog at 09/18/2008 @ 08:19am

24. Those aren't regulations. That is establishing the policies of the insurance companies. That translates as no longer being a regulator but government run health insurance. There would be no need for insurance companies and you would have your socialist health care.-----Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/18/2008 @ 12:58am

    If you regulate something strong enough...you control it. You disagree?

    BTW, Balrog...anybody to the Left of Calvin Coolidge is a "leftist" to LVLIB!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/18/2008 @ 2:12pm

25. Of course it's a partisan response. Duh! That is the heart of our debates here. I represent an opposing viewpoint to the leftists here. Posted by lvliberty1 at 09/18/2008 @ 01:01am

    No. You represent a viwpoint that props up your party only. You justify wrong doings as long as they are are your parties wrong doings. It's not an opposite viewpoint it's an every changing skewed and hypocritical viewpoint.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/18/2008 @ 2:35pm