'Wall Street' vs. 'Bailout' and the Politics of Financial Reform

April 20, 2010 RSS Feed Print
  • Comment (5)

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

The political dynamics of financial reform, which the Senate could start considering as early as this week, are interesting for the starkly different ways the two parties appear to be reading the issue. Each side seems to think they can score big political points here. What it looks like it will come down to is how this bill gets defined. Republicans want to call it a "bailout" bill, while Democrats are training their fire on Wall Street.

At issue is a $50 billion "Orderly Resolution Fund" the bill would set up with money from banks. When a bank gets into trouble, regulators would, as the Washington Independent's Annie Lowrey explains, "fire every member of management, wipe out shareholders, split the company up, and sell the pieces." The money from the fund would be used to pay for the winding down process (Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner has called it a "death panel").

So it's not a bailout in the commonly accepted sense--taxpayer funds used to save a company; instead it's bank funds used to bury a company. But as an old friend of mine likes to say, why worry about the facts when there's a good story in our midst?

For Republicans that story is that the $50 billion pool of money is a "bailout fund." Frank Luntz, the GOP's preeminent word doctor, produced a memo in January that laid out this line of attack. "Public outrage about the bailout of banks and Wall Street is a simmering time bomb," Luntz wrote, adding that, "the single best way to kill any legislation is to link it to the Big Bank Bailout." Sound familiar?

This is not to suggest that Democrats have been any less careful about crafting their talking points. They too have been briefed on the proper language to use. And while the specific advice doesn't appear to have been made public yet, a Gallup poll released today can give us a fair idea of the linguistic fault lines. Gallup found that statistically insignificant majority (46-43 with a 4 point margin of error) favored Congress passing a law to "regulate large banks and major financial institutions," but favor by a wide margin (50-36) the idea of Congress legislating to regulate "Wall Street banks." Similarly a recent Pew poll found that while a majority of Americans (51-40) oppose more government control over the economy, an even larger majority (61-31) favor stricter regulation of financial companies.

This is all high stakes not simply because of results of the actual legislation, but as a political issue for November. Democrats hope they can paint the GOP as not only the "party of no" (sorry, Gov. Palin, the "party of hell no") but as tools of Wall Street. The GOP wants to continue to stir bailout rage and focus it on Democrats.

Tags:
Mark Warner,
Frank Luntz,
Wall Street,
politics

Reader Comments Read all comments (5)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Wall Street' vs. 'Bailout' and the Politics of Financial Reform

By Robert Schlesinger, Thomas Jefferson Street blog

What is the Thomas Jefferson Street Blog?

Thomas Jefferson certainly would not support any type of financial reform legislation that included a central banking system using fraction reserve lending procedures to issue money as debt. If you check his actions, you will find that he refused to renew the charter for the First National Bank of the United States in 1811. According to some authors, based on reports of severe warnings from British bankers, his refusal to renew the banks charter was a principal cause of the war of 1812.

Since it was formalized in 1694 with the establishment of the Bank of England, The British Monetary model has proven itself to be a national disaster wherever it has been used, make a few bankers and shareholders incomparably wealthy while reducing the general population to a subsistence level of poverty. Creating money as debt, the system is inherently flawed, the banks creating only the principal of loans, their requiring the repayment of that principal with additional interest that no one created, borrowers always owning the banks more money tha existes in the economy, the banks continually creating new and larger loans, using the newly created money to cover this shortfall, and operating like an ordinary Ponzi Scheme, the scheme crashing with such regularity as to be named “the normal business cycle.”

Furthermore, Jefferson accurately warned the nation of the dangers of allowing private banking corporations to issue the nation’s currency. Because he failed to follow Benjamin Franklin’s lead and reestablish the American Monetary system, issuing American currency as fiat legal tender, the nation was manipulated into allowing the establishment of the Second National Bank of the United States. This bank was put out of business by Andrew Jackson, his understanding the nature of the banks, transferred the nation’s gold and money deposits into state chartered banks.

Abraham Lincoln almost got the system right when he ordered the treasury department to simply issue American money to fund fighting the Civil War. Had he not been assassinated, Lincoln may have adopted Franklin’s complete monetary package, consisting of government issued currency and state owned Banks. The strength of Franklin’s system is government’s power and flexibility to lend money like a bank, create and spend money directly into the economy as receipts for goods and services, and the authority to fine-tune the economy using tax policies.

The British monetary model is a great threat to the prosperity and economic stability of the United States and the world. Even today, no government can regulate this monetary system to meet the need of the people who create real world wealth.

Bill Parks of MD 10:32PM April 20, 2010

I was a Republican for most of my adult life, but I'm Independant now. The Republican Party just doesn't have any true sense of reality anymore; or they refuse to acknowledge it. We need stronger regulations for the banks and other financial institutions, but the Republicans oppose it. Why? Because that's who financed their election or re-election.

Most of the incumbents in the House and Senate are confused by what they should do for the general public, or what they should do for big business and special interest groups. They no longer serve (very well) the people who elected them.

They are in for a BIG surprise beginning with the mid-terms, and ending with the next general election.

Barry W. Shook of IN 8:16PM April 20, 2010

I for one am tired of the old gamemanship by especially both parties. The bailour was rammed through by Bush Secretary of the Treasury Paulsomn back in Sept. 2008 without debate, and that sunk McCain's candidacy. Obama is finally doing the courageous thing: too big to fail is out the window. It disgusts me that the Republican Party leadership is kissing up to the hedge fund operators and derivatives people. The solution is restore Glass- Steagall; it worked for over 65 years until Bill Clinton and Phil Gramm killed it. Get a strong SEC and a strong independent agency to deal with financial institutions' screwing the public and small businesses over credit. I'm glad that Goldman Sachs got a good smackdown; that took great courage, as I heard that Obama and its CEO were good buddies. It's time to stop playing politics and do "we the people"s bidding.

Jack Golding of KS 4:27PM April 20, 2010

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger

Robert Schlesinger is managing editor for opinion at U.S. News and World Report, overseeing all opinion editorial content. He is the author of "White House Ghosts: Presidents and Their Speechwriters." E-mail him at rschlesinger@usnews.com. Follow him on Twitter: @rschles.

advertisement

Robert Schlesinger

An End to the NRA’s Angry Swagger

Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans, and even of NRA members, favor universal background checks.

Mary Kate Cary

Washington’s Toxic Stew

President Obama's burgeoning problems affect more than this week’s three scandals.

Latest Videos

advertisement