Rules Committee Drama

The first part of this article illustrates the role of the House Rules Committee. Apparently there is some kind of override function under current House rules that might change the terms of debate that were presented by the Rules Committee. Sending a bill to the floor with no amendments allowed is relatively rare; clearly the bill's sponsors and the House Democratic leadership believe amendments could lead to poison pills or water down the effectiveness of the policy.

Legislators often have this dilemma: is it worth supporting a watered-down bill? If you do and it passes, you will not get another chance to pass legislation in that area for years, and if the watered down policy doesn't work, it could create arguments against further action. Sometimes you can't compromise on things (you can't "split the baby in half") because the efficacy of one part of the bill depends on another part that has been lost in the compromise. If you don't support a flawed bill, again, you may not get another chance, and if the compromise is better than nothing, you have made the perfect the enemy of the good. So it is with this financial regulation bill, and with health care as well.

This article also paints the moderate Democrats as corrupted by corporate lobbyists, which I have no way of evaluating even though I believe banking reform is sorely needed. I respect Barney Frank's intellect and therefore his policy analysis, but questions remain about the role of the Community Reinvestment Act in the subprime mortgage debacle, a law which he advocated for, so I'm open to believing that the new reforms need scrutiny and amendment. FDL is definitely on the left side of the Democratic spectrum.