The New York Times' headline said it all: "Off Wall St., Worries About Financial Bill". The Democrats in Washington may think it's a slam dunk, but the rest of America doesn't agree.
Look, those who are on the side of significant financial reform are fighting on the side of the angels -- and with broad public support. We are fed up with Wall Street abuses and arrogance that makes life for the rest of us on Main Street more difficult. Let's hold people and businesses more accountable and responsible for what they do and how they do it.
But that doesn't suddenly equate to support for the legislation now being considered by the Senate. In exactly the same way that the public wanted healthcare reform, just not Obama's healthcare reform, they want something done to punish the perpetrators of the financial meltdown, but not at the expense of their own checking accounts -- or American economic freedom.
The dirty secret of the Senate financial reform bill is that some of its biggest supporters work on Wall Street. Recipients of taxpayer bailout money have no concerns about the bill -- in fact, the CEOs of Citi and Goldman Sachs have publicly endorsed it, and several of the other big banks have expressed support. It keeps the "too big to fail" guarantees in place for another generation of financial services companies.
But here's where it gets really interesting. The Democrats supporting the current legislation have assured an anxious electorate that whatever funds are used to create whatever regulatory scheme created will come from the banks, not the taxpayers. Let me emphasize that so that even casual readers will catch it: the Democrats promise that you won't pay for their legislation, banks will.
Really?
Since when have corporations ever paid taxes, fees or penalties? Employees end up paying in the form of lower salaries and benefits. Customers end up paying in the form of higher costs.
And in this case, every account holder will be forced to pay higher fees on their checking account and savings account. That's you, my friendly reader. Can you say "checkbook tax"? I can, and I think lots of candidates will be saying it come November. Is that what you really want to do to your constituents, Senator Lincoln? Is that what you really want to explain on the campaign trail, Senator Bennett?
But it goes deeper than just taxation and regulation. Wall Street can pass it all onto consumers. Main Street cannot. And that's because Wall Street firms have all those pesky well-connected, nicely dressed lobbyists to ensure that whatever is passed strengthens their hand at the expense of the little guy.
Regardless of what side you're on, the financial reform bill is special interest heaven -- a bill written by lobbyists, for lobbyists, and will probably be implemented by lobbyists. The Dodd bill has carve-outs right from the get-go. Real estate agents, title companies, the Farm Credit system, even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae are exempt from its onerous and costly provisions. And for everyone else, it's been a special interest feeding frenzy.
More than 130 companies have publicly hired lobbyists seeking their own loophole. Mars Candy wants to continue to use derivatives to hedge against price hikes in sugar and chocolate, so they've hired a lobbyist. Harley Davidson wants to protect dealer financing of their bikes, so they've hired a lobbyist. And eBay wants to not harm its subsidiary, PayPal, so they've hired ... well ... a team of lobbyists.
But most average Americans -- the ones who bailed Wall Street out in the first place -- cannot afford lobbyists, and won't be exempted from the legislation.
There's a reason why American trust in government is at an all-time low. Voters believe legislation like this is passed not for the public interest, but for special interests. And that is certainly the case with the Dodd bill.
Sen. Dodd has bragged that his legislation will create a new super-regulatory agency like we have not seen before -- and with good reason. Every single financial transaction will now be subject to government regulation -- from layaway plans to auto loans. Citibank and Goldman Sachs don't have to worry about that, but Joe's furniture store and Jane's used car dealership do.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: it's not what you say; it's what people hear. Democrats believe they have a winning issue in financial reform because it gives them the vehicle to attack Wall Street. Well, they're right, but only right now.
The American people are once again hearing the same old song of more taxation, more regulation and more litigation, all because of well intentioned (you read that correctly) but poorly executed legislation. They will reject this approach just as they came to reject the healthcare reform legislation -- even after the vote.
Democrats -- especially those in conservative districts -- were promised a bounce if they voted for ObamaCare. We didn't even see a dead cat bounce. Just ask Blanche Lincoln -- but you better ask her quickly.
Instead voters have been inundated with information such as a recent HHS memo that confirmed what opponents of the legislation were saying -- the bill would not reduce spending or the deficit after all. Voters will soon find out that the financial reform bill won't end bailouts -- it will enshrine them into law.
Purple and red state Democrats will spend their summers back home explaining their votes to angry voters upset about the never-ending growth of government spending -- and the taxes and fees to pay for it. These are the same voters that supported Barack Obama in 2008, Chris Christie and Bob McDonnell in 2009, and Scott Brown in 2010 -- all for the same reason.
Americans want to change the direction of their government, and they will keep replacing incumbents until they get it right.
***
Click here to read Simon Johnson's response to Frank Luntz
Simon Johnson: Frank Luntz Hasn't Read 13 Bankers (And That's A Good Thing)
Mr. Luntz thinks this is about higher costs being passed on to consumers and wants to fight in November on "the Democrats are just about special interests." That would be terrific -- for the Democrats.
I vote to do just that - chop the suckers down to a manageable size," regulate the hell out of them until they manage to learn a whole new way of thinking and doing business, and do so in a manner that precludes them passing along the increased costs of doing business - ethically for a change - to their customers. They've had a free ride on the U.S. taxpayers/consumers for too long ... and this Party's Over. I don't particularly trust the current Congress/Administration to do the right thing, but I certainly don't trust "Your Side" to even tell the truth for a split second.
We got the memo already. You are a magician, you answered the Bill before it was written.
The Dems are fighting to get laws passed that will keep this mess from happening again...they will not be gaining cash from Wall Street...while the Repubs are already stashing away the bucks.
But people believe the repubs...
Also, any bill over 300 pages is far too complex to consider passing.
It is interesting that the Democrats have proposed reforms that put money in Republican coffers when the Democrats started with the greater Wall Street support and might have raised so much more by doing nothing. Clearly, Democrats are not merely wrong headed but don't know their own best interests. It is nice of Luntz to focus on Bluedog Democrats; sort of shows where his real concern lies: not in policy but party politics.
Apparently Mr. Luntz reads his own propagan--er, "memos."
Both parties are the same, they simply fight to divide the pie between their own friends, but the majority of those are common anyway. They loudly proclaim good intentions, put on a dog and pony show, then write a messy giveaway bill... Loopholes galore, all 30,000 pages of it.
Now they are talking "SOMETHING LIKE" Glass-Steagall. Go back and read what the Dems, the Reps, and the media were saying before the overturning of Glass-Steagall - it was the old, archaic law stopping the marvelous financial innovation that would bring incerdible prosperity to all of us. Go back and read it.
You know the definition of insanity, it's believing the political parties or media again and again! Frank Luntz has the right approach, finding the loopholes and questioning them. Those with the party blinders are harming themselves, as the majority of people don't trust either party, but will vote for the other guy as form of protest!
I'm pretty sure the definition of insanity also includes people who, despite being privy to the cynical playbook of a manipulative political operative, refuse to acknowledge the existence of the playbook even as the plays it outlined unfold before their very eyes like clockwork.
The senate bill will allow for bailouts as they have admitted that the 50 billion follar fund would not be close to enough money to cover a bank faillure. The Banks would not agree to pay this fund if they didnt have a gaurantee that after the fund was dry the U.S. Government would.
Dylan Ratigan and Elliott Spitzer have been covering it on a daily basis.
There's so much wrong with your post that I don't know where to begin. The fact that you use the term "Obamacare" is insulting to me. You and your cohorts tried, and succeeded in demonizing and lying about healthcare reform from day one to today. Kind of like George Bush saying Saddam was responsible for 9/11, if Bush said it enough, people believed it.
To address just one point, yes I think the people are smart enough to choose the bank which offers the best terms in checking accounts. Following you silly logic we should never be able to put any costs on any corporation because they will pass on those costs. Of course they will! And we will choose whom to do biz with. I guess putting money into the FDIC as banks are required to do is a tax on consumers also? Get off yourself.
So you have no credibility in telling the truth, or your truth, about the financial reform bill. As I said, even before the debate began Republicans were spreading your lies day after day.
I understand your're in the word business but I don't understand why you have to be so dishonest and nasty abourt it, while still maintaining that veneer of niceness and "I'm just doing my job guys." - I don't think so.
But it doesn't follow that "we should never be able to put any costs on any corporation"! If the corporation CAN pass the costs to the rest of us, nothing will be fixed. Not all can do that, but in this case, the bad guys can. Mr. Luntz got it right.
As one who is almost always bashing the media for doing a lousy job, I think they did report Luntz's latest talking points regarding financial reform pretty well. I read and saw it many times when it seemed like every Republican was repeating them word for word. Not to say that the dems don't have wordsmiths, just that this guy has had some whoppers in the past year that I feel haven't helped the national debate.
Who out there is the foil to Luntz? Who would be the word smith for progressive ideas? If such a person or persons exist, how would they receive as much public attention? How would the Media be pressed to propagandize through this persons rhetoric?
I can't for the life of me understand why there isn't a propaganda wing of the DNC that is as effective as Luntz and his corporate benefactors. Also, and this is a disturbing question: could it be that liberals and progressives find it impossible to rally around some basic ideals?
I would love to read some thoughtful comments about this.
Comedy Central's Daily Show (and, to a lesser degree, Steven Colbert) do a good job of reviewing and criticizing the media. Being true doesn't have to mean being dour. I'm sure there were some jolly saints, given that being martyred is still a downer.
O' Reilly, Limbaugh and Beck really seem to be in it for the bucks. They sell to the right wing business community which doesn't have much respect for the common people. This allows them to lie with impunity. So, O' Reilly recently said he wasn't a "birther" but he had to wonder why Obama didn't just publish his birth certificate and papers. Do you believe for a moment that he doesn't know that Obama's papers have been published? Clearly, he was only making a polite nod to his network's policy.
If that were true, why would they not retire as they have hundreds of millions? Maybe they're just Neo-cons?
this is the one person who has been singlehandedly responsible for lies that have led this country into wars and also created immense divisions among citizens.
this is the one person primarily reponsible for manipulating the poor massess against their own personal interest even as he cashes in huge sums of many for the exploiting corporations
shame on you
Why do democrats act as if they had no hand in us being over there. They voted for it, and then voted for a president that continued them. Get real people!
Do you get your info from Frank?