U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet suddenly finds himself the darling of liberals on health care reform, but he appears more cautious on the Democrats’ other major priority for the year — imposing new regulations on Wall Street.
Within the span of a week, Bennet, D-Colo., has earned accolades from liberal bloggers for vowing to vote for health care reform even if it costs him his job, and a rebuke from his Democratic primary opponent in an area where he could have far more influence.
Bennet last week joined Republicans in warning of “unintended consequences” in the sweeping, 1,100-page bill developed by Banking Committee chairman Chris Dodd, D-Conn., which establishes a new federal super-regulator as well as a separate agency to protect consumers.
The committee’s junior Democrat, Bennet called for coming up with a bill that can win Republican support.
He raised his concerns the same day that Republicans asked for months of new hearings and discussion and warned darkly that passing financial regulatory reform in its current shape would cause “pandemonium in the world.”
Politically sticky issue
“In view of the enormity of the issues at stake, it is my hope we can ultimately craft a bill that both Democrats and Republicans can be proud to support,” Bennet told his colleagues on the committee.
The issue is likely to prove politically sticky for Bennet.
The White House is pressing Congress to send a strong reform bill to the president’s desk by early next year, in part to show that Democrats have fixed a system that nearly led to a global economic meltdown.
But Dodd is facing not only Bennet’s relatively mild reservations but a complete abandonment of the bill in its current form by Republicans.
Democrats say the bill will likely go through significant revision before Dodd can gain the support to pass it out of committee.
Bennet’s approach to the bill is informed by his own experience — he earned millions restructuring bankrupt companies for billionaire Phil An schutz — but critics also point to the fact that Wall Street firms are among his most significant political donors.
“What did somebody once say? ‘You dance with them that brung ya,’ ” said Andrew Romanoff, the former Colorado House speaker who is challenging Bennet in the 2010 Democratic primary.
“That’s the way that Washington works. When members of Congress spend too much time trolling for dollars on Wall Street, they inevitably lose touch with people on Main Street,” said Romanoff, who said he supports the key provisions of Dodd’s bill.
Commitment valued
Bennet’s staff said they would distinguish their boss’ approach from the Republicans’ in several ways, including his support for the new consumer-protection regulator. And Banking Committee spokeswoman Kirstin Brost said Dodd doesn’t count Bennet among the bill’s opponents: “Sen. Dodd appreciates Sen. Bennet’s commitment to passing strong financial reform.”
In a brief written response to Romanoff’s criticism, Bennet declared that he “will work with anyone — Democrats, Republicans or independents — who shares the goal of passing legislation with real teeth in it to make sure the American taxpayers are never left holding the bag for Wall Street again.”
But the Republicans’ response to the bill left little indication where compromise could be found.
“A complete rewrite”
Sen. Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said the bill wasn’t amendable and that the committee needed to start over from scratch.
The senior Republican on the panel, Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said the bill “requires a complete rewrite,” adding that “this committee has not done the necessary work to even begin discussing changes of this magnitude.”
Nearly every Republican said they couldn’t support the bill in its current form.
Bennet raised more than $400,000 from Wall Street firms in the first half of the year, more than all but four other senators.
Romanoff said his campaign isn’t taking money from corporate-interest groups, including political-action committees linked to Wall Street.
But most donations from Wall Street typically come from partners associated with specific firms, which Romanoff’s campaign presumably could still accept.
