Why a Financial Reg “Package”?

This idea of dropping the Consumer Financial Protection Agency in order to build bipartisan support for financial regulation overhaul seems like a bad one for all the reasons you’ve read on other progressive blogs.

But it reminds me to wonder: Why does this all have to be a package? With health care, the basic story is that you can’t do community rating without a mandate, you can’t do a mandate without subsidies, and you can’t do subsidies without pay-fors so right there you have a four-legged health care stool. But if there’s bipartisan support for a resolution process for large financial services firms, then write a bill creating one and let it pass with bipartisan support. If less-progressive members want to block the CFPA then write a CFPA bill, have them block it, and then campaign against them as shills for the banks. Some of the aspects of financial reform are closely connected, but it seems to me that this both can and should be broken down into a few different chunks. But maybe I’m missing something. Does this really need to be an all-or-nothing package?