Retirements and the Establishment

by: Mike Lux

Wed Jan 06, 2010 at 15:41


I was planning to write a piece on banking issues today, but with three surprise retirements of Democratic incumbents in statewide positions yesterday (Dorgan and Dodd in the Senate, Gov. Ritter in Colorado) I have to comment on that situation. Fortunately, the two things are pretty closely linked.

Look, I have no doubt that personal considerations entered into all three of these decisions, and we don't want to overdraw our conclusions here. Byron Dorgan and Chris Dodd have both been in the Senate a very long time, and are both getting to the age where retirement is an understandable option. There are all kinds of rumors about Ritter's more surprising news, but again there are likely very personal reasons for him wanting to not run for re-election.

Having said all that, though, there is very little doubt that a tough-looking 2010 for Democrats weighed into the decision-making here. Base enthusiasm is lagging, Obama's approval rating is sinking, unemployment isn't going down: political professionals are looking at all these factors and getting very nervous. Anyone who was considering retiring already has to be thinking that the 2010 election trends make the decision to get out while the getting is good a pretty smart one.

I'm not going to sugarcoat anything here: anytime you have a bunch of incumbents retiring, it's not a good sign for what people think of the party's chances in the fall. However, there is one really important  silver lining: in a year when voters are in this foul a mood, non-incumbents and anti-establishment candidates have some significant advantages over incumbents. In 2006 and 2008, in many of the big primary races the anti-establishment insurgent won, including that 2008 Presidential race you might remember.

Which brings me to the banking issue. The biggest single mistake President Obama has made politically and economically was the one he made in the very earliest days of the transition, which was to signal he wasn't going to take on the big banks aggressively. Swing voters, Democratic base voters, and Democratic activists are all united on one key point: they hate the big banks on Wall Street, and are angry that politicians are not being far tougher on them. In order to survive and win elections in 2010, Democrats are going to have to separate themselves from Bob Rubin-style economic policies and be far more aggressive and populist in their campaigns. Doing that as a non-incumbent will be easier in many cases than trying to do it as an incumbent.

The movement against the banks is building and growing. On May 6th of last year, I wrote a piece about what would need to happen to take on the power of the big banks. I listed six ideas, the first of which- creating a new coalition to take on financial reform issues- happened in the weeks after my article with the formation of Americans for Financial Reform. The middle four ideas are all being worked on to one degree or another- progressives coming up with an economic Plan B to the one we care on now, working to get public financing of campaigns passed, encouraging investigative journalism in the banking arena, progressives forming more alliances with independent community bankers. The sixth idea, starting a nationwide movement to switch over money from the big banks and credit unions, got a huge burst of momentum with the launch of the Move Your Money campaign. Inspired by a dinner one night with Arianna Huffington and a group of top flight political and media strategists (and, no doubt, by the one line in my seven-month-old post- I'm sure everyone there has great memories about my blog posts), a new campaign was launched to encourage people to move their money from the too-big-to-fail banks which wrecked our economy into smaller independent community banks. Read about it here, and join the action.

Bailing out and coddling the big banks is the number one reason that swing voters, Democratic base votes, and Democratic activists have gotten angry at the establishment and less inclined to support Obama. If Democratic candidates on the ballot this year take up the anti-big bank banner, they will reap big benefits, because the anti-Wall Street movement is gaining momentum. And if the rest of us start challenging Wall Street's power in other ways, we might really begin to change America in a serious way.

Mike Lux :: Retirements and the Establishment

Tags: , , , , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Good post, Mike (4.00 / 3)
I think you're right that coddling the big banx has been his biggest error (although I'm not sure it was a choice so much as an inevitable result given his administration's DNA.)

In any case, Thomas Frank wrote a piece about the Republicans attempt to pose as economic populists, a possibility created by Obama's softness on Wall Street.

... it might be the Republicans who seize the opportunity to capture public outrage this time around, denouncing concentrated economic power, insisting on holding big business accountable, and promising to settle scores with the nation's erstwhile financial rulers.

Given the GOP's doings over the past 30 years, such a reversal may strike you as implausible, if not downright ridiculous. But it can be done. The first step in what could become a movement in that direction is the essay by Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) that appeared in Forbes magazine in December. Its title: "Down With Big Business."

Now, Mr. Ryan seems at first like no more of a radical than do the editors of Forbes. The "philosophy of governing" spelled out on his campaign Web site rails against the New Deal, "class envy economics," and a federal "regulatory leviathan."

Mr. Ryan's fund raising also follows an unremarkable conservative pattern. According to the Web site maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics, many of his donations come from people or Political Action Committees associated with insurance, banking and a certain private equity firm that invests in banks and insurance companies.

He savages "crony capitalism," pausing to note the "resentment" it is inspiring. He depicts the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP, as a well-intentioned measure that has become "an ad hoc, opaque slush fund for large institutions that are able to influence the Treasury Department's investment decisions behind-the-scenes." He complains about lobbying, offers the obligatory denunciation of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan, and bemoans the economic disasters befalling small companies while the rescued banks enjoy "record profits."

http://online.wsj.com/article/...


I tried a few weeks ago to add something new to my sig here on openleft (0.00 / 0)
Some software bug prevented the saved changes from ever showing up, so my si is still as you see it below:"We must break up the banks and never again let them get so big that they distort our politics and take down the economy."

I am pleased it fits now. But I think maybe its time to change the link.

Great post. Four. I have heard that the Democrat leadership were so concerned they were running agianst George W. As you say a better tack would be the always powerful, always greedy, always against us huge banks who controil so much of our government. Dodd resigning, for all the good work he did do, eliminates am albatros around our necks.

In fact the Dems might think about running against the entire set of conservatives who did such damage to healthcare, jobs, and fincial reform, including the bailouts, including Dino dems.

Wouldn't that be lovely. Unshackled by the filibuster, not needing the conservadems, not tied to Dodd or Reid, centre left Dems could govern, not kiss the tush of "Blue Suited Captial D" republicans in our party.

--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


Yup, I know the problem with the unchangeable sig line, too. (0.00 / 0)
Couldn't edit mine, too. Had to ask Chris to delete it.

[ Parent ]
One problem (4.00 / 5)
For the bank issue, replacing Chris Dodd with Tim Johnson is bad news.  In fact, in terms of Dem leadership, going from Sarbanes to Dodd to Johnson has been a quick elevator ride down.

for example (4.00 / 1)
HuffPo, when this was a possibility in September:

If Senator Tim Johnson ascends to the chairmanship of the Senate Banking Committee, the biggest winners will be Wall Street, pay-day lenders and credit card companies. The biggest losers: widows and orphans.

No, really.

In late 2006, the South Dakotan spoke out against an effort by his fellow Democrats to cap the interest rates that members of the military pay for short-term loans. "This time it's military. Who's to say it isn't going to be widows and orphans or other sympathetic groups in the future?" he griped in an interview with the American Banker.

That's the man who's next in line to lead the Banking Committee if the current chair, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), as expected, vacates the position to take the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee chair left empty by the death of Ted Kennedy.



[ Parent ]
Too late (4.00 / 2)
Obama hitched his wagon to Wall Street when he took on Rahm Emmanuel as his COS.  It's Rahm's minions in Congress that have been watering down financial reform.

My guess is that Obama was so unnerved by the scale of the economic catastrophe he inherited, that he abdicated decision-making to Wall Street via Summers and Geithner.  The absence of Krugman, Stiglitz and especially Volker from WH counsel and decision-making has been quite striking.  If he isn't trying to avoid thinking about the economy, then the only other explanation I can think of is cognitive capture by the Chicago School, the school that has been completely discredited by the financial collapse.

I'm surprised Franks has so far got a pass, and has not suffered Dodd's fate.  


Barney (0.00 / 0)
Barney Franks gets a pass because he is in the House.  The powers that be have pretty much contempt for the House.  It shows with the outrageous Health Bill and the Ben Nelson wrecking of the stimulus.  A million jobs down the tubes and a lot of useless tax breaks.  That's more than the entire work force of Nebraska.

Dodd changed his tune on AIG bonuses to save Geithner.  He couldn't afford it and it was rotten policy.  Save Geithner and trash Dodd.  That is a very bad trade.


[ Parent ]
Not the powers that be (0.00 / 0)
They would be happy to keep Dodd to carry water for Wall Street in the Senate.

Remember, Barney Frank was the chief steward of the Paulson $700B bailout legislation through the house.  He is shocked, shocked that financial regulation reform is being watered down in committee.

Maybe it's just that Franks is smart and knows when to duck.  Or maybe there are more people to hide behind in the House.


[ Parent ]
several of your statements are simply not true (0.00 / 0)
You state things like: Obama's approval rating is sinking and unemployment isn't going down. I am surprised at how well you are quoting Republican talking points.  First, it appears that since the late Fall, Obama's approval ratings have, overall, stabilized and even improved in some cases.  A month or so ago after hitting a low point of 47% approval in Gallup, he has sustained an approval rating around the 50% to low 50's mark.  Checking the Republican leaning Rasmussen polling very recently, Obama has gone from about a 44% approval rating to now up to 49% the last few days, pretty good numbers for this Republican leaning survey.  Even the most recent CNN survey showed a major rebound for him, up to 54%.  Now these aren't all the surveys obviously, but it disproves the theme that he continues to drop.

And secondly, November's unemplyment numbers DID drop, and rumor is they may drop again for December.  Certainly the overall trends in unemployment have been trending more positively.  Its as if some talking-head liberals want things to be bad for the President to justify their own personal reasons for not getting everything they want.


"November's unemployment numbers DID drop"? Huh? (4.00 / 4)
No, no, no! What did drop was the number of the NEWLY unemployed:
US lost fewest jobs since March 2008
The US lost 84,000 jobs in December, the smallest job loss in nearly two years, according to a private report.

Employment actually increased in the service sector for the first time since March 2008, according to seasonally adjusted numbers in the ADP National Employment Report (.pdf) released Wednesday. But the 12,000 new jobs couldn't offset the 96,000 positions lost in goods-producing industries.


http://www.csmonitor.com/Money...

Sry, but you mixed that up. It's not a drop in unemployment numbers, it's simply that the decline is slowing down. But the US are still losing jobs.


[ Parent ]
Thank you Gray. (0.00 / 0)


--

The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky


[ Parent ]
Gray is wrong (0.00 / 0)
Official unemplyment numbers dropped from 10.2% to 10%...did I dream that??

[ Parent ]
<b>What</b> official unemployment numbers? (4.00 / 2)
Don't let statistical shenanigans fool you, use your common sense! It's logically impossible that unemployment is shrinking when the US are still losing 84000 jobs every month! The US isn't shrinking after all. What's happening instead is that more and more people simply give up, and become homeless, retire early, or are supported by their extended family. The official numbers are about U3, the "unemployment rate per ILO definition". But this excludes those who have temporarily or forever given up, all those hopeless people you'll find in the equally official, but often ignored U6 numbers (currently about 17%)!

So, sorry, but a temporary drop by 0.2% of U3 numbers in November doesn't mean anything (October 10.2, November 10.0, December 10.1). As long as the US loses jobs instead of creating them, unemployment is a real, and increasing problem. And don't forget that zero job loss still wouldn't be good enough, the US are growing, not shrinking, and need a high number of new jobs every single month!


[ Parent ]
Give me your tired, your sick, your hopeless - I won't count them! (4.00 / 2)
That's essentially what the official unemployment rate (U3) is about. Check the official BLS explanation of who is counted as unemployed, and who not:
"Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work."
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htg...

Obviously, anybody who is working at least one hour a week at Walmart or a burger joint is "employed", even if he's starving and living under the bridge. And those who are too sick to look for a job aren't really unemployed, too. Now, do you think this narrow view of unemployment produces a fair representation of reality? D'oh.


[ Parent ]
Reagan (4.00 / 2)
Reagan took a lot of s*** when unemployment in the early 1980s topped 10% for 10 straight months and the Republicans took a whipping in 1982 losing 27 House seats IIRC.  The result was that in 1986 he changed the unemployment definition to exclude those not "actively looking for work."  The current number is bologna.  Phoney bologna at that.

The U-6 number is 17%.

Bush's unemployment rate (U-3) barely moved no matter what the economy did.  What changed was the number of workers "actively seeking employment."  If times got better, "discouraged workers" re-entered the count as they began to "look for work."  Ask some of the people in Detroit how difficult it is to get job interviews.

The point of these shennanigans is that it takes the pressure off the Fed, the President and Congress to take action.

The number of jobs is a better indicator than the fake unemployment percentage.  Maybe if people were really aware of things, we would not be talking about a "jobless recovery" aka further wealth redistribution to the wealthy and the big corporations.


[ Parent ]
Same thing happened in Germany, too, btw (4.00 / 1)
Too lazy to google for specifics now, but it is a well known fact that the goverment has changed the definition of "unemployed" several times in order to make the numbers go down. Damn spindoctors everywhere!

[ Parent ]
offical unemployment dropped from 10.2% to 10% (0.00 / 0)
I believe that is true unless I dreamed it

[ Parent ]
Those are U3 numbers, which exclude lots of people! (0.00 / 0)
Use simply logic: The US population isn't shrinking, and if the US losses jobs, the REAL unemployment numbers can't decrease. It's just that many people drop out of that part of the statistic (U3).  

[ Parent ]
Do the numbers you cite (4.00 / 3)
reflect reality?

Today's jobs report shows another net loss of jobs.

Not a gain, a loss.

Headline Unemployment is a measure of those seeking benefits modified by birth-death models, etc.

The support for Obama has plummeted since his inauguration. Perhaps recently he has gotten a bounce for his Commander in Chief roll (i.e. he may have won over some "Scoop" Jackson Democrats with the surge, bombing Yemen, using the Nobel acceptance speech to argue that war will always be with us, and that that's not a bad thing).

Perhaps there is a "holiday effect" of good cheer all around?

In any case, what you offer is the "another outlier" argument that has essentially killed 2009 for Progressives.

Shall it kill 2010 as well?

Obama is in trouble with the voters who made the difference in 2006 and 2008. End of story.


[ Parent ]
last I saw, unemployment dropped from 10.2% to 10% (0.00 / 0)
did that not happen?  did I dream it??

[ Parent ]
It's just statistical noise. (0.00 / 0)
The US loses jobs every month, since two years. That's a fact. The official statistic concentrates on a subset of the unemployed (U3), not on ALL of them. This number is fluctuating a bit (Oct 10.2, Nov10.1, Dec 10.0) but that only means that more and more people are giving up hope for a new job.

[ Parent ]
we'll see about who he is in trouble with (0.00 / 0)
My guess is its mostly you bloggers, which are very few...when and if Obama runs in 2012, reality will set in as to who he is running against and what that would do to the country...you guys cry too much

[ Parent ]
Buried deep (0.00 / 0)
in the House Finance Bill are some real restrictions aimed at market manipulation.  I learned this today because zerohedge is screaming bloody murder:

As part of the Barney Frank proposed Manager's Amendment, which will accompany HR4173, the "Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009", are three little-noticed rules that, if adopted, will make shorting stocks if not impossible, then extremely problematic and difficult.

To Zerohedge this is the thin edge of the wedge, but to anyone not employed by a Hedge Fund this is a very good thing.  Short selling has become a tool Hedge Funds to rip off everyone else.  It increases volatility, but does nothing to add to the real role of the financial markets.

This is very real reform.  It will be a real test to see if it survives.


No it's not ... (0.00 / 0)
you really don't know a damn thing about the markets .. if you think short selling is a bad idea .. either that .. or you watch too much CNBC

[ Parent ]
Yeah (0.00 / 0)
because short selling creates so much value for the country as a whole.

Why, it adds liquidity, yeah that's why you should let me play the slot machines, err, I mean the stock market.

I bow to your obviously superior knowledge, and thank you for the substantive response showing why I am an idiot.

Oh wait, you didn't actually do anything but call me an idiot.  So, why, pray tell, did you even bother posting anything?


[ Parent ]
Do you read any .. (0.00 / 0)
financial blogs? ... like Calculated Risk?  or Barry Ritholtz?  Because you should

[ Parent ]
Maybe I misunderstand your point... (0.00 / 0)
..but afaik neither calculated risk nor Ritholtz pretend that short selling is an indispensable part of economy. I'm sure they see all the problems associated with it. Compared with those giants, I only have a very limited knowledge about economy, but afaik there has never been a compelling case for shortselling as a necessary mans to improve the welfare of the nation. Shortselling is just gambling, it doesn't have any important role in an economy.

[ Parent ]
Hey mike (4.00 / 1)
Just wanted to say I finally received your book from Amazon today! I opened the shitty UPS packaging and gasped in amazement at the shiny hardcover. I then opened it only to be overcome by a strong progressive smell. Can't wait to be inspired into action!! I love it already

Extraordinary progressive star in the making

Banx #1 and war #2 and health care #3 (0.00 / 0)
The common denominator is money.  He gave our money to the banks, pharma, insurance companies, and war profiteers, and he is hanging people out to dry and preparing to gut social security and medicare.   Obama is the most blatant liar in the WH and that includes Bush.  

move your money=populism (0.00 / 0)
This sounds like a very good way to directly attack our economic foes, with little inconvience to us. They will react because this will allow them to feel some of our pain, and they worship money.

An excellent example of the selective consumer boycott, this action will attract particapants from all political movements and parties who believe people NOT MONEY are sovereign.

Although this is the right concept, didn't see any intention to develop dialog with the big banks mentioned in the Huff post article. Perhaps the originators of this action believe the targeted banks will deduce our wishes  without our input. But they probably will need our help to identify and embrace the required changes.

Regardless the level of success this action, more of this type of fighting will accomplish what politics cannot in this money dominated era. That is, if we enact targeted, successfull selective consumer boycotts to educate our corporate enemies, we will have more political victories for common people.

All that is needed is a percentage (I believe 10% is more than enough) of the buying public to temporarily change their shopping habits. Loss of profit is very motivating for corporate people.
 

Government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob..... FDR


USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox