You would think in the current climate it would be impossible for anything to pass by unanimous consent. However, you would be wrong. It is very revealing that it's something such as this that can pass by unanimous consent.

It is also revealing of the skin-deep support for this measure that Obama vetoed this and the Senate didn't pass it again.

So, what happened, was the motion snuck in by some bank hack, and approved by "yeah, whatever", until someone at the White House actually read it and figured it might not be such a good idea?

Also, this veto adds some nuance to Krugman's

True to form, the Obama administration's response has been to oppose any action that might upset the banks, like a temporary moratorium on foreclosures while some of the issues are resolved. Instead, it is asking the banks, very nicely, to behave better and clean up their act. I mean, that's worked so well in the past, right?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan