On May 20, 2010, Chuck Grassley broke ranks with Republicans in the Senate and voted for the Democrats' financial reform bill.
Because he did that, the Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate were able to work out a compromise financial reform package.
Had Chuck Grassley not voted for that first bill on May 20th, it wouldn't have reached compromise, but because he voted "Yea," it passed 59-39, as opposed to 58-40, which would have allowed a filibuster against the bill and prevented it from moving forward.
According to the Washington Post article, "A new consumer protection bureau housed in the Federal Reserve would have independent funding, an independent leader and near-total autonomy to write and enforce rules. The government would have broad new powers to seize and wind down large, failing financial firms and to oversee the $600 trillion derivatives market."
I ask: why would Chuck Grassley support Washington having more power and near-total autonomy and new authority to seize the private sector? Is that what you wanted? He said that the reason he voted for the first bill was that despite its flaws, "a message needs to be sent to Wall Street that business-as-usual is over."
Last year, Chuck Grassley held several town halls, all of which were well-attended. He insisted that he got the message. That message was that We the People wanted less government intrusion into our lives.
His vote for bigger and more powerful government, at odds with his fellow Republicans in the Senate, shows that he clearly didn't get the message at all.
Let me ask you: did he represent you when he voted for a bill that will make lending more expensive to you?
Let me ask you: which is the bigger threat to your children's future? Is it Wall Street or is it Big Government?
The sad truth of it is that our Republican Senator is less Chris Christie than he is Arnold Schwarzenegger.
On May 20, 2010, Roxanne Conlin might as well have been our senator. It's true... because like Chuck Grassley, she would have voted for that financial reform bill. I mean, a supporter of big government, by any other name, is still a supporter of big government. No wonder Conlin is closing in on him in the polls. Chuck Grassley makes it hard to tell the two of them apart.
We need to face the fact that our Republican Senator wears big government stripes. And he wears them proudly. To him, every problem in America is a problem the government needs to handle. At every opportunity, Chuck Grassley works to give government more control and more money. Somewhere along the way, he forgot that his primary job in Washington is not to solve our every problem, but to protect our freedoms.
We gave a pretty good effort last year at the town halls. We took time out of our work day. We crafted signs. We spoke out. In fact, we showed up in such numbers that he had to change venues to accommodate the crowd. All that effort, evidently, is soon forgotten.
I'm not exactly sure what it would take to remind Senator Grassley what We the People want. But just in case he or someone on his staff reads this, here's a hint:
Limited Government.For more detail about how that's supposed to work, I highly recommend the Constitution of the United States of America.
A message needs to be sent to Senator Grassley that bigger-and-bigger-government-as-usual is over. We sent it once, and he didn't listen. But if he doesn't get that message now, Chuck and Roxanne look pretty much the same in many ways.