Step One: Citigroup Writes Bill. Step Two: Congress Passes Bill--w/ Help of 70 Dems

 Yesterday, the House voted to allow your 401(K) adviser to scam you.

Today, the House voted on financial deregulation legislation that was, effectively, written by Citigroup.

The New York Times reported on Citigroup's authorship back in May:

In a sign of Wall Street’s resurgent influence in Washington, Citigroup’s recommendations were reflected in more than 70 lines of the House committee’s 85-line bill. Two crucial paragraphs, prepared by Citigroup in conjunction with other Wall Street banks, were copied nearly word for word. (Lawmakers changed two words to make them plural.)

The lobbying campaign shows how, three years after Congress passed the most comprehensive overhaul of regulation since the Depression, Wall Street is finding Washington a friendlier place.

The cordial relations now include a growing number of Democrats in both the House and the Senate, whose support the banks need if they want to roll back parts of the 2010 financial overhaul, known as Dodd-Frank.

This legislative push is a second front, with Wall Street’s other battle being waged against regulators who are drafting detailed rules allowing them to enforce the law.

Congress, of course, has a history of passing laws specifically designed for Citigroup. What does the so-called Swaps Regulatory Improvement Act do?

The bill that Citigroup helped draft takes aim at one of the more contentious provisions in Dodd Frank, a requirement that banks “push out” some derivatives trading into separate units that are not backed by the government’s insurance fund. The goal was to isolate this risky trading and to prevent government bailouts.

A main culprit in the 2008 financial crisis, derivatives are contracts that allow companies to either speculate in the markets or protect against risk. Such contracts helped push the insurance giant American International Group to the brink of collapse in 2008.

The House bill scheduled for a vote Wednesday would significantly curb the requirement that banks separate their derivatives trading operations, a plan that was created as a compromise by Citigroup lobbyists. In essence, the compromise exempted a wider array of derivatives from the push-out rule.

Rep. Maxine Waters (CA-43), ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, has been the bill's most vocal opponent. The Times quotes her as saying, "After inflicting so much pain and suffering on the American people, now is not the time to let the largest banks back into the casino."

Rep. Jim Himes (D-Wall Street suburbs) has been the bill's most vocal Democratic supporter.

The legislation, Mr. Himes said in an interview, poses no financial risk to the country. And while he is the second-largest recipient among House Democrats of financial sector donations, that is not what is compelling his vote, he said.

“It hardly determines, thank goodness, how legislators think about these issues,” said Mr. Himes, a former Goldman Sachs executive.

His comment is precious, isn't it?

Occupy the SEC activist (and reformed former banker) Alexis Goldstein got into an epic Twitter battle with Himes back in May, when the bill was still in Committee.

The bill passed the House easily, with a bipartisan majority of 292 to 122. 70 Democrats voted for it. 3 Republicans voted against it. The fact that a majority of Democrats opposed it is a welcome development, considering it passed committee 53 to 6. However, they all should have opposed it.
The three Republican opponents were Jimmy Duncan (TN-02), Walter Jones (NC-03), and Tom Massie (KY-04).

And now for the 70 Democrats that supported weakening Dodd-Frank to satisfy their donors:

Ron Barber (AZ-02)
John Barrow (GA-12)
Joyce Beatty (OH-03)
Ami Bera (CA-07)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Earl Blumenauer (OR-03)
Corrine Brown (FL-05)
G. K. Butterfield (NC-01)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Yvette Clarke (NY-09)
Jim Clyburn (SC-06)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Joe Crowley (NY-14)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Tammy Duckworth (IL-08)
Eliot Engel (NY-16)
Elizabeth Esty (CT-05)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Marcia Fudge (OH-11)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Colleen Hanabusa (HI-01)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Rubén Hinojosa (TX-15)
Steven Horsford (NV-04)
Steny Hoyer (MD-05)
Hakeem Jeffries (NY-08)
Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Robin Kelly (IL-02)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Annie Kuster (NH-02)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
John Larson (CT-01)
Daniel Lipinski (IL-03)
Nita Lowey (NY-17)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Carolyn Maloney (NY-12)
Sean Maloney (NY-18)
Jim Matheson (UT-02)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Gregory Meeks (NY-05)
Grace Meng (NY-06)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Jim Moran (VA-08)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Ed Perlmutter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Gary Peters (MI-14)
Jared Polis (CO-02)
Mike Quigley (IL-05)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Charlie Rangel (NY-13)
Cedric Richmond (LA-02)
Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-02)
Loretta Sanchez (CA-46)
Brad Schneider (IL-10)
David Scott (GA-13)
Terri Sewell (AL-07)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Albio Sires (NJ-08)
Juan Vargas (CA-51)
Marc Veasey (TX-33)
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-23)
Frederica Wilson (FL-24)

Notice that several members of the party leadership--Clyburn, Hoyer, and DWS--were on that list. Pelosi and Israel were not there for the vote.

Lest you get your hopes up that notorious Blue Dog Jim Cooper had a change of heart and voted against it, he didn't. He wasn't there.

30 House Democrats Joined the GOP to Sell You Out to Wall Street. Which Ones?

Republicans and conservative Democrats just voted to sell you out to Wall Street. In other words, it's Tuesday.

Today, the House passed the so-called Retail Investor Protection Act 254 to 166.  30 Democrats voted with 224 Republicans in favor. 165 Democrats--and one Republican--voted against it. Those following H.R. 2374 thought it would pass with wide bipartisan margins, so having 165 Democratic NAY's was better than expected. The 30 Democratic YEA's still need to be named and shamed, however.

First, let's begin with the important question: What is the Retail Investor Protection Act? The bill delays a new Department of Labor rule that would prevent financial advisers from stealing from your 401(K) plans or IRAs. Allowing financial advisers to rip you off is a great complement to that other plank in the Republican-Conservadem retirement insecurity platform, cutting Social Security.

Here's David Dayen with more details:

The Labor Department proposal, known as the “fiduciary rule,” would change the ethical standards by which employer-based retirement products like 401(k)’s and IRAs are marketed and sold. The rule has not been updated since 1975, before 401(k)’s and IRAs even existed. The Labor Department wants to broaden the definition of a “fiduciary” to cover all financial advisers who offer individual investment advice for a fee. Under the rule, they would be legally required to work in the best interest of their clients. For example, a fiduciary would not be able to push investment products on customers in which they have a financial stake. The agency defines the goal of the proposal as “to ensure that potential conflicts of interest among advisers are not allowed to compromise the quality of investment advice that millions of American workers rely on, so they can retire with the dignity that they have worked hard to achieve.” ...
Currently, it is depressingly common for financial advisers, more than 80 percent of whom are not fiduciaries, to self-deal when offering advice. First off, they obtain large fees from the retirement products they sell. According to the think tank Demos, a median-income, two-earner household will pay $155,000 during their lifetime to financial advisers on average. (The lifetime gains for two-earner households from retirement accounts are around $230,000, meaning that nearly two-thirds of the profits go to the industry.) Second, non-fiduciary financial advisers can enjoy kickbacks; right now there is no rule against an adviser from a mutual fund company encouraging clients to put their money in specific funds sold by that company. In fact, that’s the norm, and the adviser typically receives a commission for the sale.

Conflicts of interest like this cost retirement investors at least $1 billion a month, because the funds they get channeled into underperform the alternatives. Financial advisers also encourage rollovers into high-cost IRAs when an individual changes jobs. None of these schemes have to be disclosed to the customer, under the current standard. The National Bureau for Economic Research found in a recent study that “adviser self‐interest plays an important role in generating advice that is not in the best interest of the clients.”
So in the middle of a retirement crisis, when the majority of Americans already aren’t accumulating the savings they need to maintain their standard of living, sellers of retirement products are skimming close to $60 billion a year off the top through deceptive practices, making a bad situation even worse.

Now that we know what it is, let's move to the next question: Who voted for it? 

 

The lone Republican NO was Walter Jones (NC-03).

And here are the 30 Democratic YEA votes. Most of their names should look familiar if you've seen any of my past roll call diaries.

John Barrow (GA-12)
John Carney (DE-AL)
Gerry Connolly (VA-11)
Jim Costa (CA-16)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
John Delaney (MD-06)
Ted Deutch (FL-21)
Bill Foster (IL-11)
Pete Gallego (TX-23)
Joe Garcia (FL-26)
Denny Heck (WA-10)
Jim Himes (CT-04)
Derek Kilmer (WA-06)
Ron Kind (WI-03)
Rick Larsen (WA-02)
Dan Maffei (NY-24)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Mike McIntyre (NC-07)
Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Patrick Murphy (FL-18)
Bill Owens (NY-21)
Ed Perlmuter (CO-07)
Scott Peters (CA-52)
Gary Peters (MI-09)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Bradley Schneider (IL-10)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Brad Sherman (CA-30)
Kyrsten Sinema (AZ-09)
Filemon Vela (TX-34)

Note the appearance of Gary Peters on the list. He’s racked up quite the number of awful votes since he declared his intention to run for Carl Levin’s Senate seat. He must be doing it for the fundraising.

Jokes with a Side of Austerity? Misinformation on Social Insurance on The Daily Show

Jon Stewart can be a very good interviewer when he knows his subject. His interview with Betsy McCaughey about the ACA always comes to mind. However, when he hasn't read up on a subject, misinformation can win the day. Social insurance is often one of such topics for misinformation.

I debunked some of the myths and lies on the show from interviews with Charles Krauthammer, Robert Reich, and Alan Simpson over at the Daily Kos. I'll just link to it to make life easier. 

Mike Tomasky Acknowledges Dems Want to Cut SNAP, Too...But Gives Them a Pass

Earlier today, I stumbled upon an article by Daily Beast columnist Michael Tomasky entitled "The Republicans’ Food Stamp Fraud: It’s Not About Austerity."

The title is somewhat strange in and of itself. He seems to be saying that cutting SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or "food stamps") would be okay if such cuts were for austerity. So if the Republicans were cutting SNAP because of THE DEFICIT, then it would be okay?
Let's go over to the article itself.

He begins by noting that Republicans want to cut SNAP for sadistic reasons rather than budgetary reasons. Tomasky won't say this because of his VSP leanings, but we must never forget that, as Chris Hayes eloquently explained, no one actually cares about the deficit.

But spare me a moment here—plus a thousand words down the page—and I think maybe you’ll agree with me that the single worst thing the Obama-era Republicans have done is try to push through a $40 billion cut to the food-stamps program. It’s just unspeakably cruel. They usually say publicly that it’s about saving money. But sometimes someone—one congressman in particular—lets slip the real reason: They want to punish poor people. The farm bill, which includes the food-stamp program, goes to conference committee next week. That’s where, the cliché has it, the two sides are supposed to “iron out their differences.” The only thing the Democrats on this committee should do with an iron is run it across the Republicans’ scowling faces. ....
This cut is the fraud, because it’s not really about fraud or austerity. It’s entirely about punishing the alleged 47 percent. The bottom half or third of the alleged 47 percent. It’s absolutely appalling. These folks have done a lot of miserable things in the past four years. But this—the morality of this is so repulsively backward, the indecency so operatically and ostentatiously broadcast, I think it takes the gold going away.

I wouldn't disagree with any of his indictments of Republicans. But wait a moment. There's also this:

It’s costing about $80 billion a year. Senate Democrats proposed a cut to the program. A small cut, but a cut all the same: $4 billion over 10 years. The Republicans in the House sought a cut of $20.5 billion over 10 years. But then the farm bill failed to pass. Remember that? When John Boehner didn’t have enough votes to pass his own bill?  After that debacle, the House took the farm bill and split it into two parts—the subsidies for the large growers of rice and cotton and so forth, and the food-stamp program. Two separate bills. And this time, Eric Cantor doubled the cut: $40 billion over 10 years. This number, if it became law, would boot 3.8 million people—presumably, nearly half of them children—off the program in 2014, according to the Congressional Budget Office

(Emphasis added) 

 

He acknowledges that Senate Democrats also wanted to cut the program. However, he seems to give them a pass. They don't face any criticism in his article. Only Republicans do.

By all means, $4 billion over a decade is not as deep of a cut as $4 billion per year over a decade. However, we shouldn't even be considering cutting SNAP when the program has been the only thing keeping many people afloat in the still-depressed economy. Is it okay that Democrats want to cut SNAP because of THE DEFICIT, as one might infer from reading Tomasky? NO.

The Democrats' support for cuts also has an insidious consequence: putting the debate on Republican terms. The debate is not "if" the program should be cut; rather, it is "by how much." And Ag Committee Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) has already expressed a willingness to cut even deeper than the Senate bill already did. And when the debate is not "if" but "how much," the resolution will always tend toward "more."

During the debate over the Farm Bill, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand proposed an amendment to restore the $4 billion that the Debbie Stabenow and Thad Cochran's farm bill cut from SNAP and to offset this restored funding with a limitation on crop insurance reimbursements. Our current crop insurance subsidies benefit large farms at the expense of smaller ones and are one of the many glaring manifestations of corporate welfare that Congress never fixes.  Gillibrand's amendment would, in essence, cut corporate welfare spending to restore social welfare spending.  Did this progressive proposal pass?  Not even close.  It failed 26-70. Not even a majority of Democrats voted for it.

Which Democrats voted against restoring food stamps--voting against veterans, children, seniors, and those struggling to get by?

Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO)
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD)
Sen. Tom Carper (D-DE)
Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE)
Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-IN)
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)
Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-CA)
Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)
Sen. Kay Hagan (D-NC)
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-NM)
Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA)
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO)
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL)
Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH)
Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT)
Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO)
Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA)

I was shocked to see Al Franken on that list, but I'd guess it's because he's from a big agricultural state. None of these Democrats deserve a free pass from criticism. They may not use the hateful rhetoric of the GOP, but that doesn't make their cuts noble.

On the other hand, these 26 senators voted to restore SNAP funding.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Sen. Sherod Brown (D-OH)
Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
Sen. Robert Casey (D-PA)
Sen. Mo Cowan (D-MA)
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI)
Sen. Angus King (I-ME)
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI)
Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI)
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY)
Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA)
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Only two Democrats---Sheldon Whitehouse (who was not there to vote on Gillibrand's amendment) and Jack Reed, both of Rhode Island--voted against the Senate Farm Bill. The rest ultimately gave their implicit approval to the idea--and policy--of cutting food stamps.

Nothing Says "Progress" like Having Walmart Fund Your Conference...And Other Think Tank Hypocrisy

The Center for American Progress is now ten years old and had its 10th anniversary celebration yesterday, bringing in a number of Democratic Party heavy-hitters. The Huffington Post caught something seemingly incongruous at the event:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton brought down the curtain on the celebration of the Center for American Progress' 10-year anniversary on Thursday, but not before CAP President Neera Tanden thanked a few of the event's sponsors: Walmart, AT&T, the Service Employees International Union and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

Because nothing says progressive policy like Walmart and AT&T, right? 

 

Now, I could talk about how Walmart's policies kill American jobs, cost taxpayers money, destroy small businesses, violate labor laws, and excaerbate economic inequality. I could also talk about the Walton family's activism in the school privatization movement.

Instead, let's just turn to CAP's own blog, ThinkProgress. Here are some headlines from just the past few months.

"Walmart CEO: Most Salespeople Make Less Than $25,000 A Year" (Bryce Covert; 10/23/2013)

"Dozens Of Walmart Workers Walk Out On Strike In Miami" (Bryce Covert; 10/21/2013)

"Walmart Workers Arrested While Protesting Unjust Firings, Low Wages" (Aviva Shen; 8/22/2013)

"The Company With Lower Prices And Better Benefits Than Walmart" (Bryce Covert; 8/9/2013)

"Will Walmart Create Any Extra Jobs If It Opens In DC?" (Bryce Covert; 7/12/2013) [The answer, as Bryce Covert explains, is NO.]

"Walmart Threatens To Shut Down Stores If DC Passes Living Wage Bill" (Aviva Shen; 7/10/2013)
Here's how CAP describes its mission:

The Center for American Progress is an independent nonpartisan educational institute dedicated to improving the lives of Americans through progressive ideas and action. Building on the achievements of progressive pioneers such as Teddy Roosevelt and Martin Luther King, our work addresses 21st-century challenges such as energy, national security, economic growth and opportunity, immigration, education, and health care.

I think you have to jump through a lot of rhetorical and logical hoops to say that Walmart fits into an MLK-inspired vision of economic progress. Just saying. 

And how about AT&T? Well, AT&T has been violating customers' privacy rights evading wiretap laws with the help, of course, of the DOJ, which wants access to AT&T's data for surveillance purposes. Progressive!

When writing about CAP's questionable funding (more extensively chronicled in The Nation), I was reminded of another bit of hypocrisy I saw today from one of DC's "center-left" think tanks.

That other bit of think tank hypocrisy was courtesy of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP). Today, CBPP's Kathy Ruffing had a good blog post about how Social Security keeps 22 million people out of poverty.

Social Security lifted 22 million people out of poverty in 2012, according to our updated analysis (with state-by-state data) of Census data.  This includes not just 15 million elderly Americans but also many younger people, including 1 million children who either received their own benefits as dependents of retired, disabled, or deceased workers or lived with relatives who received Social Security.  (See table below.)

Without Social Security benefits, 44.4 percent of elderly Americans would have incomes below the official poverty line, all else being equal.  With Social Security, only 9.1 percent do.  (See graph.)

Given the program’s powerful anti-poverty impact, cuts in Social Security benefits could significantly raise poverty — particularly among the elderly and the disabled — depending on their design.

Social Security benefits are already modest, both in dollar terms (the average retired worker receives less than $1,300 a month) and by international standards.

Social Security accounts for two-thirds of income for its elderly beneficiaries, on average.  And more than a third of beneficiaries — generally the oldest and poorest — rely on Social Security for at least 90 percent of their income.

While policymakers should work to close Social Security’s long-term funding gap, they should remember this program’s vital importance for Americans of all ages.

I have no qualms with that post. I though it was quite good. However, it does not align with Ruffing and CBPP's own past positions. 

In February 2012, Kathy Ruffing, Paul N. Van de Water, and Robert Greenstein produced a report entitled "Chained CPI Can Be Part of a Balanced Deficit-Reduction Package, Under Certain Conditions," in which they argued for cutting Social Security benefits. They, of course, used the same (rather empty) qualifying comments that the Democratic Party leadership has always used--that any changes would have to protect the very poor and very vulnerable, etc. But nonetheless, they are arguing for a cut to the benefits of retirees. You can see a takedown of that report by the Economic Policy Institute's Larry Mishel here.

CBPP was still pushing benefit cuts back in April:

Pelosi told reporters she thought Democrats ought to hear both sides, arranging a debate conducted by outside experts for Democrat members.

Pelosi joined the rest of her membership at the weekly House Democratic Caucus meeting where lawmakers heard from Damon Silvers of the AFL-CIO labor federation, representing opposition to Obama's proposal, and Robert Greenstein, executive director of the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, which favors including entitlement reform in budgets.

Representative Keith Ellison of Minnesota told Reuters after the meeting that while there were a few Democrats in favor of maintaining an open mind to Obama's proposal, the caucus as a whole "overwhelmingly" delivered the message that the so-called chained-CPI was a non-starter.

"There was a lot of concern," Ellison said.

When Did We Start Being Viewed as Consumers Rather Than As Citizens?

When reading the President's remarks from the other day about the problems with healthcare.gov, I was somewhat discomfited by the concept of "president as corporate salesman" that pervaded the speech. The most glaring example of this is the line "....because consumers want to buy this product and insurance companies want to sell it to you."

The Affordable Care Act, by design, accepts the conservative (neoliberal) notion of health insurance as a market good. We (unless we are very poor, disabled, or elderly) are supposed to "choose" private insurance from the marketplace. When the state views its residents as "consumers," it will tell them to make a purchase. When the state views its residents as "citizens," it seeks to provide the universal goods and services needed for a healthy and educated body politic, for the universal attainment of positive liberty.

"Choice" has its role in some aspects of the economy. I've discussed this elsewhere.  However, if we say, as liberals do when talking about education and health care, that "everyone deserves the best quality, then we are implicitly arguing for universal provision as against choice, especially in those cases where "choice" only means "you get only what you can afford, not what you need.” “Choice” as a concept makes sense when there are qualitative differences, particularly qualitative differences at each price level. When “shopping” for health insurance plans, the questions are “how much do they cover” and “how much do they cost.” The concerns are quantitative. One does not ask if a health insurance plan is yellow or blue, sweet or spicy, funny or serious. One can say those about clothing, about food, or about entertainment, where “choice” is a matter of taste, not just price.

Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute has an excellent piece up today called "What Kind of Problem is the ACA Rollout for Liberalism?" Konczal argues,

Conservatives in particular think this website has broad implications for liberalism as a philosophical and political project. I think it does, but for the exact opposite reasons: it highlights the problems inherent in the move to a neoliberal form of governance and social insurance, while demonstrating the superiorities in the older, New Deal form of liberalism.

It's worth reading in full. 

 

One of the key aims of the neoliberal project is to change the individual's relationship with the state to that of a consumer, rather than that of a citizen.

This tension between the individual as citizen and individual as consumer made me ask a question: When did the emphasis on the consumer become greater than the emphasis on the citizen?

Out of curiosity, I turned to the Google Books Ngram Viewer and tracked the relative frequency of the words "consumer" and "citizen" in the corpus of the English language over the past two centuries. I found the results rather revealing.


From 1800 to the late 1890s, the word "consumer" was comparatively infrequent. It then experienced its first acceleration between (roughly) 1896 and 1920. For most of this time, however, the word "citizen" was becoming more frequent as well.

The word "citizen" experienced a download trend between 1919 and 1931. This largely coincides with the materialism of the "Roaring Twenties."

The word "consumer" rose sharply throughout the 1930s, the Great Depression. The word "citizen" rebounded slightly in the 1930s from its downward spin in the prior decade.

In the decade after World War II, with the beginnings of the era of mass consumerism, "consumer" continued to rise, and "citizen" began to fall again. "Consumer" passed "citizen" in 1957.

From 1966 to 1980, the word "consumer" saw a sharp increase. This might be a result of the rise of the "consumer protection" movement a la Ralph Nader. But it is also likely a result of the increase in consumerism . It seems fitting, in a way, to see that Reagan was elected in the year of peak "consumer."

From 1970 to 1988, the word "citizen" saw a quick decline. Trough "citizen" occurred in 1988, the end of the Reagan presidency.

I think that the chart serves as a great inspiration for a longer think piece on the relationship between the individual as consumer and individual as citizen. Maybe I'll write it someday.

Which 12 Dems Voted Against Protecting Environmental Review for Water Projects?

Today, in a nearly unanimous vote, the House passed the Water Resources Reform and Development Act, which authorized waterways and port projects across the country.

Many Democrats expressed their concerns about how the bill could weaken environmental protections, but they voted for it anyway.

Numerous amendments were proposed, but I'd like to highlight one in particular, the one that addressed the problem noted above.

Rep. Pete DeFazio (OR-04) proposed an amendment to delay the streamlined environmental review process until the backlog of projects falls to less than $20 billion from its current level of about $60 billion.

The Hill explained,

The Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA), H.R. 3080, includes language that seeks to streamline environmental reviews in order to move these projects to the construction phase more quickly. But several Democrats argued that environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are not the reason why projects are delayed, and said the real reason is a lack of funding that has created a $60 billion backlog of unfunded projects. .....
"There's no evidence that the public participation environmental review process has caused delay," said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.). "The problem is not NEPA. The problem is that this Congress has failed to appropriate enough money to keep up with the projects we authorize."

DeFazio's amendment failed on a mostly party line vote of 183 to 236. 

 

Only two Republicans voted for it: Mike Fitzpatrick (PA-08) and Chris Gibson (NY-19).

Twelve Democrats (many of the usual suspects) voted against it:

John Barrow (GA-12)
Sanford Bishop (GA-02)
Timothy Bishop (NY-01)
Henry Cuellar (TX-28)
Gene Green (TX-29)
Eddie Johnson (TX-30)
Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01)
Jim Matheson (UT-04)
Collin Peterson (MN-07)
Nick Rahall (WV-03)
Kurt Schrader (OR-05)
Filemon Vela (TX-24)