Democratic Messaging, Financial Reform and the Midterms

The Democratic National Committee is going up on national cable and in the D.C. market with the above ad hitting Republicans for blocking debate on financial reform. There’s a clear nod to the midterms at the end of the spot and DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan says it’s just the beginning:  “Any Republican who continues to stand with Wall Street instead of our families should expect that we’ll make sure that their constituents hear about it from now till November.”

Democrats are trying to establish a narrative for the campaign season: Republicans stood by while the financial crisis caused the Great Recession, then stood in the way as Dem reformers swooped in to clean up the mess. This jibes with the larger strategy DNC chair Tim Kaine is expected to unveil at a Christian Science Monitor luncheon today. The message banks on three things: Selling the electorate on the the big-ticket agenda items they have passed, deflecting anti-incumbent angst onto Republicans by highlighting obstructionism, and either a) seeing robust economic recovery or b) convincing voters it’s the Republican policies of 2000-2008 that are to blame (we’ll likely see a bit of both.)

One more quick note about the ad: Democrats, in response to the GOP mischaracterization that the financial reform bill institutionalizes bailouts, have started saying the legislation “prevents” (this ad) or “outlaws” (White House adviser Austan Goolsbee) future bailouts. By trying to address systemic risk, setting capital requirements and establishing a more watchful regulatory regime, the bill is designed to make the conditions that led to TARP less likely. By establishing a resolution authority for shutting down the largest banks in the event of disaster, the legislation seeks to provide an alternative to government rescue. But the notion that any future Congress couldn’t use taxpayer money to bailout financial institutions if they voted to is complete hogwash.

Related Topics: 2012 Election, Democratic Party, Economy, Republican Party, Senate, Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • kevin

    Democrats are trying to establish a narrative for the campaign season: Republicans stood by while the financial crisis caused the Great Recession, then stood in the way as Dem reformers swooped in to clean up the mess.
    .
    This narrative has the added benefit of being true.
    .
    Actually, given the way the media often passes along lies from the GOP as the gospel truth, maybe this isn’t a benefit after all.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    But the notion that any future Congress couldn’t use taxpayer money to bailout financial institutions if they voted to is complete hogwash.

    Hmmm. Congess voting. What does that mean? Oh. Creating laws! I get it. So if they legalize something, that means they couldn’t have outlawed it in the past.
    .
    I’m sure there are plenty of folks currently incarcerated who will be delighted to hear that!

  • Matt

    The tactics used to perfection by Republicans and the Tea Party on health care are now coming back to haunt them. Obama and the Dems are winning this fight by painting the GOP as defenders of Wall Street – and with some good reason. I don’t see how this ends well for the GOP…

    http://www.political-buzz.com/

  • grape_crush

    But the notion that any future Congress couldn’t use taxpayer money to bailout financial institutions if they voted to is complete hogwash.

    Stunning, and I mean stunning insight there, Adam…You mean that a session of Congress can actually change legislation established in a previous session?

    I’m…at a loss for words…think I need to lay down…

  • billiecat

    This jives with the larger strategy . . .

    You mean “jibes.” This is a pet peeve of mine (along with confusing “affect” and “Effect”) so if you want to keep the Grammar Nazi in me away, you will learn the difference:

    The general opinion on the jibe/jive issue is summed up in this example from a 1980 edition of The Daily News: “Can you take seriously as a writer anyone who refers to ‘the welfare roles of this country’ and reports that everything a character said ‘had jived with the facts’? Such a person may be taken seriously only as a symptom of decay in our language.”

    http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=20000711

  • pneogy

    There are more Grammar Nazi sympathizers out there than you might think.

  • 53_3

    Us common folk can get away with this, but I’m a grammar nazi supporter too.
    .
    These guys are paid to write…

  • 53_3

    Ummmmmmm.
    .
    For the GOP, this is gonna hurt.

  • square1

    No. This is good news…for John McCain!

  • jbaustian

    This is from the WSJ; I did not find a summary on the Time website, and the NY Times only has a faxed image of the document!
    .
    Senate Republicans are circulating their own financial overhaul plan as they continue to block the effort by Democrats to bring a White House-backed bill to the Senate floor for a vote.
    .
    Here are highlights of the Republican plan, according to a 20-page summary obtained by the Wall Street Journal:
    .
    1) RESOLUTION: Would create an orderly liquidation process for financial companies the government believes could have an adverse impact on the financial stability of the country if it collapsed.
    .
    a. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. would be mandated to break up the company within one year of being appointed receiver, though it could get two six-month extensions. Anything longer than that would take congressional approval.
    .
    b. Before a company could be put into resolution, Treasury would have to submit a request with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. This court could only block the government’s move if it found Treasury’s determinations “arbitrary and capricious.”
    .
    c. The FDIC would be able to advance funds to creditors, but it would have to recoup from creditors any money a creditor received in excess of what it would have gotten in bankruptcy.
    .
    [Note: these provisions would block any purely political move to liquidate a bank -- for instance if Goldman Sachs wanted the federal government to shut down Morgan Chase. Hey, it could happen and maybe it has happened, with Lehman Bros.]
    .
    2) FED: Would create a presidentially appointed director of supervision and regulation at the Federal Reserve, who would have to be confirmed by the Senate. The Republican proposal also has strict limits on the Fed’s ability to provide emergency lending, among other things.
    .
    [good idea]
    .
    3) CONSUMER: Would create a Council for Consumer Financial Protection, that can “promulgate rules for all of the enumerated consumer protection statutes.” The council will have three consumer protection experts, the head of the FDIC, the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Fed Chairman.

    a. The council will have supervision and enforcement power over the country’s biggest financial companies. It will also have backup enforcement power over regional banks and credit unions. State laws would be preempted by national laws.
    .
    [The Democratic bills want federal supervision over all finance companies, including auto dealership and payday lenders. That is massive overkill, if the goal is to eliminate the risks resulting from the failure of the biggest institutions.]
    .
    4) FINANCIAL STABILITY: Would create a Council of Financial Regulators to monitor the financial stability of the U.S. “The CFR will formally bring together all federal financial regulators to improve regulation, maintain and monitor financial stability, and coordinate the response of the federal government to any future financial crises.”
    .
    5) DERIVATIVES: Create more regulatory transparency, and give the Fed, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Commodity Futures Trading Commission the authority to determine which swap transactions should have to be cleared.” End users who don’t contribute to potential system failure won’t be required to clear their transactions.
    .
    a. Regulators will be able to force margin requirements against “swap participants” but not “end users.”
    .
    [I think the responsibility ought to lie within a single agency, probably the CFTC, maybe the SEC but it doesn't have a great track record.]
    .
    6) UNDERWRITING: Anyone who underwrites a mortgage which doesn’t meet minimum underwriting rules would have to retain at least 5% economic interest in the trust.
    .
    [Great idea, absolutely essential.]
    .
    7) GSEs: Creates a special inspector general within the Treasury to investigate and report to Congress on the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Republican plan would create federal funding limits and mandatory portfolio reductions for the companies. It will also restrict the amount of money the government can advance the firms.
    .
    [This addresses a major omission in the Democrats' bills. They don't even touch the issue of the GSE's.]
    .
    8) SEC: would create five divisions within the SEC. The divisions would be 1) retail investor protection and retail financial services, 2) division of trading, 3) division of corporate disclosure, 4) division of enforcement, 5) division of economic analysis.
    .
    (end of summary)
    .
    In nearly every respect, the GOP proposal is better. It would be a mistake to pass the Democrats’ bill, even with a few amendments. Much better to throw out what the Democrats have created and start over with the GOP plan.

  • square1

    Actually, Sorenson is partly right. He just doesn’t understand why.

    The reason that the proposed legislation doesn’t reduce bailouts isn’t because a future Congress might change the law. The reason is that the proposed legislation doesn’t accomplish what the White House claims — and what Sorenson stenographically repeats:

    By trying to address systemic risk, setting capital requirements and establishing a more watchful regulatory regime, the bill is designed to make the conditions that led to TARP less likely. By establishing a resolution authority for shutting down the largest banks in the event of disaster, the legislation seeks to provide an alternative to government rescue.

    If Sorenson wants to show that the Democrats’ claims are not entirely accurate, the right way to do it would be to point out that the capital requirement provisions are weak, the regulatory regime will continue to suffer from industry capture, the resolution authority will either be under-funded or non-funded by the risk takers, and that many observers do not believe that the legislation will make disasters significantly less likely (although the GOP claim that the bill would make bailouts worse is complete b.s.)

    Instead Sorenson takes the administration’s claims at face value and then complains that Congress might change the laws in the future.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Steve Benen’s take:
    .
    For their part, Senate Republican leaders began circulating their own version of the legislation, which wasn’t too terribly dissimilar to the Democratic proposal, though it would water down key provisions, and tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — a step Dems believe is better suited for a separate bill. GOP senators continued to reserve their strongest opposition to the creation of a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency — a point of particular interest to the Monthly right now — and Republican said their version would limit its authority to regulating smaller banks and nonfinancial companies, leaving the industry’s heavy hitters alone.
    .
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023541.php

    Again, the possibilities for consensus are ripe. If McConnell hadn’t stuck his foot in his mouth we’d be three quarters of the way there…….

  • 53_3

    Is he going to run again?

  • 53_3

    I’m sure that you think it’s better, but others obviously don’t. I think either way, given the marginal differences between the two, and the bigger teeth in the Dem version, I don’t think the GOP will be able to ride this horse too long before they begin to stink.
    .
    Right now, I don’t think it looks too good, and as Reid keeps walking that fire up to their feet, they (the GOP) keeps pulling them away.
    .
    That can only go on for so long…

  • apr2563

    Why they could return all public land to private ownership. They could stop maintenance of federal highways. They could do lots of stuff. Ohnoz.
    grape_crush, I too have the vapors.

  • 3xfire3

    I guess all those Liberals who have been saying that the Republicans were against Financial Reform will have to eat their words now.
    .
    As I have said many times, both sides want Financial Reform. The Democrats just need to get off their “My Way or the Highway” approach and sit down with the Republicans and work out a truly Bipartisan bill. Having Dodd sit down with one Republican is not the way to accomplish this.
    .
    That is what is in everyone’s best interest.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    Again your knowlege of events is faulty. The bill Dodd was working on with Corker was bipartisan. Until McConnell thought he’d cleverly refer to ‘endless bailouts’ which didn’t exist, there was steady progress being made. Reid’s bringing the bill to the floor was a direct result of McConnell’s bad faith.
    .
    I suggest you direct your concern for bipartisanship where it belongs.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    It’s also worth noting that what the R’s are refusing to allow is bringing the bill to the floor for debate
    .
    They are more than welcome to assist in crafting the bill, they are merely insisting on the right to do so behind closed doors.

  • 3xfire3

    Paul,
    .
    Get real. You know there’s a big difference between trying to modify a bill through amendments on the Senate floor and working out a bipartisan bill before it goes to the floor.
    .
    A Bipartisan bill has to be negotiated before it get to the floor. That’s the only way it will truly work.
    .
    Why are you against a bipartisan bill?

  • jbaustian

    paul wrote: “It’s also worth noting that what the R’s are refusing to allow is bringing the bill to the floor for debate
    .
    They are more than welcome to assist in crafting the bill, they are merely insisting on the right to do so behind closed doors. (end of quote)
    .
    Once it gets to the floor of the Senate, then 50 votes will be enough to defeat any amendment. That is Reid’s plan — ask for bipartisan support, then pass a partisan bill. He’s not smart enough or talented enough to disguise the sleaze.

  • http://financialwatcher.wordpress.com financialwatcher

    The IMF has done some really interesting research on the role that lobbying played in bringing on the financial crisis. Overview and more info: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ey2S4-qOIRc

  • Ivy_B

    Isn’t that the sort of back door negotiations that the Republicans were screaming happened in the longer than one year health care debate? Now you say that working something out in the back room is essential? What’s different?

  • 3xfire3

    Ivy,
    .
    The meeting to draft a HCR bill took place with only Democrats present. Again their way or the highway.
    .
    Having the two parties meet and work on drafting a bipartisan bill would have made HCR a better and more popular bill.
    .
    Now the Democrats with Obama’s blessing are doing the same thing to Financial Reform.
    .
    With Scott Browns election it was hoped that the Democrats had learn a lesion. It appears they did not and the country now must suffer for their continued arrogance.

  • sacredh

    “Is he going to run again?”
    .
    Grandpa doesn’t run anymore. It’s more of a halting shuffle. His best chance to get in the White House is an invite from Barack or maybe Sarah will choose him as her VP candidate if he promises not to drag her ticket down again.

blog comments powered by Disqus