Friday, May 01, 2009

Which California Congressmen Are Owned By The Special Interests?


Dreier supports property rights-- for banksters & predatory lenders, but not for ordinary California families

Yesterday we looked at the dynamic between congressmen who have taken large quasi-legal bribes from the banking sector and their willingness to always support the banksters' special interests regardless of how gravely it impacts their own constituents. Yesterday's occasion was the overwhelming passage, by the House of the Credit Cardholders’ Bill of Rights Act of 2009 which  seeks to protect consumers from predatory and unscrupulous banksters and credit card lenders by:

·    Ending unfair, arbitrary interest rate increases;
·    Letting customers set hard credit limits, stops excessive "over the limit" fees;
·    Ending unfair penalties for cardholders who pay on time;
·    Requiring fair allocation of consumer payments;
·    Protecting cardholders from due date gimmicks;
·    Preventing companies from using misleading terms and damaging consumers' credit ratings;
·    Protecting vulnerable consumers from high-fee subprime credit cards;
·    Baring Issuing Credit Cards to Vulnerable Minors;
·    Requiring Better Data Collection from Credit Card Industry;
·    Swiftly Implementing the 45-Day Notice Requirement

Every Democrat but one mangy Blue Dog in bed with the credit card industry voted yes-- and so did 105 Republicans! There were only 69 Republicans voting no, a combination of the well-bribed and the sociopath extremists. Here in California, 6 members-- who always oppose regulations for their campaign donors-- voted no:

Ed Royce (CA-40- $2,506,414)
David Dreier (CA-26- $2,118,538)
Gary Miller (CA-42- $765,988)
Devin Nunes (CA-21- $499,235)
Kevin McCarthy (CA-22- $461,138)
Tom McClintock (CA-04- $353,294)

Yesterday David Dayen did an excellent preview of how the 2010 congressional cycle is shaping up in California. He points out that two on this list of sell-outs, Tom McClintock, who has emerged as the most extreme right member of the California delegation, and Dreier, who only wound up with 53% of the vote and whose district went for Obama in November.

Dreier will once again be forced to face a top rate challenge in 2010, Russ Warner, who has every intention of making sure voters from Rancho Cucamonga, Upland, and Claremont to San Dimas, Monrovia, Sierra Madre, San Marino and La Crescenta know that Dreier is strictly a representative of the special interests that have done such grievous damage to the state's economy and to the financial well-being to his own constituents. “Time and time again," Russ told us this morning after going over the vote yesterday, "David Dreier proves the interests of his corporate donors take precedent over the people he was elected to serve. Dreier’s never felt the pressure of supporting a family and has lived off the taxpayer dime for nearly three decades, so its not surprising he has no idea how harmful these predatory credit card companies are."

I'd like to hear that kind of talk from every candidate making a serious attempt to help us get rid of these congressional parasites. And each one of them should run an ad like this on cable TV:

Labels: , , , , ,


At 1:32 PM, Blogger John said...

Looks like we have only Republicans in California who are willing to stand up for the little guy!
These credit card "reforms" are just some congressional chest-pounding to show that they "care."
The result of this bill would be fewer low income people and those with back credit getting credit cards. Now that might be a good thing for them in terms of good credit counseling, but I bet these same controllers of the economy will be back demanding that banks issue more cards to such people when they complain about not getting as many.
It is the markets job to determine who gets cards and how much they cost. It is the government's job to prosecute fraud and theft if it occurs with the full force and fury of the law.
That folks is what freedom is all about in a Constitutional Republic that respects God's Law.


At 2:32 AM, Blogger thereisnospoon said...

or, john, we could prevent the huge CC corporations with more money and lawyers than God, from taking advantage of people who don't have the freaking time or education to read through and understand all the fine print.

This nation wisely abandoned the principle of caveat emptor long ago.

At 10:04 AM, Blogger John said...


They don't have more money than God, see Psalm 2...

BUT I would agree that BIG corporations are a BIG part of the problem. THEY have the money and lawyers to handle all the government regulations we face today and they use them to their benefit, no ours [the Movie "Tucker, the Man and His Dream" is a good example of this.]

Or how about the new regulations to protect us from lead in children's toys? Everyone is shocked, simply shocked that China, Walmart and other large corporations had no problem compiling with the regulations and paying the testing costs...

It is the mom & pop toy stores who now face being put out of business which never even sold a toy from China in many cases. And we are only beginning to see the impact on used toys & books.

As I said, it is Congressman McClintock and some of the other conservatives who truly understand what it means to stand up for the little guy.


At 12:27 PM, Anonymous Curtis L. Walker said...

Please excuse me, John. First, two smart people can disagree without being disagreeable. My experience is that Tom McClintock is an example of what is wrong with this country. Your statement that TOM stands with the little guy simply is not my fact based experience. To top it off, when he holds town halls I have heard and been the tail end of him making very nasty remarks when asked clearly relevant questions on bills or positions. He is bought and paid for. Since I am lucky, as due to redistricting, he WILL NOT be my Congressperson, regardless. He does not live in the current district OR THE ONE his representatives have indicated he will run for, a a newly formed district that he does not live either, in 2012.

But please consider the facts as Tom does not represent the little guy, unless the little guy you refer to is a Tea Party member, like himself.


Post a Comment

<< Home