Archive

Reuters blog archive

from The Great Debate:

Populism? Where are the pitchforks?

Photo

Americans are in a surly mood, confronting rules they feel are rigged against them. President Barack Obama captured this populist temper in his re-election campaign.  He then launched his second term declaring that inequality is the “most pressing challenge of our time,” and laying out a popular agenda to raise the federal minimum wage, provide pay equity for women, establish universal pre-school and other initiatives that polls show the public strongly supports.

Republican obstruction, however, has blocked progress on all these -- even as the House GOP last week passed Representative Paul Ryan’s budget, which cuts taxes for the rich and corporations, turns Medicare into a voucher program, slashes spending on education and protects subsidies to Big Oil.

Yet it is the president’s popularity that has cratered. Republicans are expected to easily retain control of the House in the November midterm elections -- though Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) refuses to move bills on any of the public’s agenda. The Democratic Senate majority appears endangered. Data maestro Nate Silver is making the Republicans favorites to take the Senate in the fall midterms.   The New York Times reports Democrats are “scrambling to avoid disaster.”

Why can Republicans block politically popular measures without paying a political cost? Is populism merely entertaining froth, all the rage in Berkeley salons but impotent in real-world politics?

from The Great Debate:

The first woman president is not about the past

Photo

Want to know the latest meme in U.S. politics? Here it is: Hillary Clinton is a candidate of the past.

It's been spreading through the political press. Now Republicans are beginning to echo it.

from Lawrence Summers:

On inequality

Inequality has emerged as a major economic issue in the United States and beyond.

Sharp increases in the share of income going to the top 1 percent of earners, a rising share of income going to profits, stagnant real wages, and a rising gap between productivity growth and growth in median family income are all valid causes for concern. A generation ago, it could have been plausibly asserted that the economy’s overall growth rate was the dominant determinant of growth in middle-class incomes and progress in reducing poverty. This is no longer plausible. The United States may well be on the way to becoming a Downton Abbey economy.

from The Great Debate:

Populism: The Democrats’ great divide

Photo

One day after President Barack Obama called for moving forward on trade authority in his State of the Union address, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) declared, “I am against fast track,” and said he had no intention of bringing it to a vote in the Senate.

Reid’s announcement came after 550 organizations, representing virtually the entire organized base of the Democratic Party outside of Wall Street, called on Congress to oppose fast track. Though obscured by the Democrats’ remarkable unity in drawing contrasts with the Tea Party-dominated Republicans in Congress, the debate between an emerging populist wing of the Democratic Party and its still-dominant Wall Street wing is boiling.

from The Great Debate:

Troubled Ties: The Clintons and populism

What's behind the sudden outburst of populism in the Democratic Party?

Partly the weak economic recovery. Most economic indicators have turned positive -- economic growth is up, unemployment down, the housing market is in recovery. But ordinary Americans are not feeling it. In last month's CNN poll, two thirds of Americans said the nation's economy was poor. More than half expect it to remain poor a year from now.

People at the top of the income ladder have been raking in the money while wage growth for working Americans has stagnated. That's a recipe for a populist explosion.

from The Great Debate:

Searching for a real populist

Photo

In the American political lexicon, few words are as prevalent -- or as confusing -- as “populism.”

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) gets described as a populist because she wants to curb the power of corporations and increase Social Security benefits. So does Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tex.), who thinks small businesses are crippled by “an explosion of regulation” and has called Social Security a “Ponzi scheme” that should be replaced by individual savings accounts.

from The Great Debate:

Clinton: The newest New Democrat

Photo

Democrats have a history of plucking presidential candidates out of obscurity: Jimmy Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. Republicans are supposed to go for whomever is next in line, particularly if they have run before: Richard M. Nixon, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, Mitt Romney.

It looks like just the opposite for 2016.

In the latest Iowa poll, Hillary Clinton completely dominates the Democratic field with 56 percent of the likely caucus vote (she came in third in the 2008 Iowa caucuses, behind Barack Obama and John Edwards). No other potential Democratic candidate gets more than single digit support. It's Clinton's turn.

from James Pethokoukis:

More on the Obama bank tax

My pal John Carney takes a crack at it:

1) Let's start with the idea that we're going to tax banks based on "riskiness." How on earth do we expect the government to assess this? The government has an absolutely awful track record when it comes to assessing risk. Before the crisis, regulators put in place mandatory capital requirements that they believed were "risk weighted." The result was the massive over-indulgence in risky mortgage backed securities that almost destroyed the financial system. A risk tax would just result in new pressure for banks to adopt the regulatory view of risk. No thanks.

2) The other idea floating around is that the tax would be levied on "bank profits." That means the government would wind up in the same position as shareholders pushing for short-term gains

from James Pethokoukis:

Here comes Sarah Palin and the anti-Wall Street GOP

Don't interpret passage of the watered-down Kanjorski amendment as the peak of the "break up the banks" movement. It may be about to get some new allies on the right, folks tired of Big Government, Big Money and crony capitalism.

For the moment, though, it was arguably the best that Representative Paul Kanjorski, a Pennsylvania Democrat, could have gotten through the House Financial Services Committee. All the committee Republicans and even some of the Democrats voted against it. And even in its much-diminished state, the Kanjorksi amendment would likely be weakened further in the Senate. At the same time, the Obama administration seems little interested in such pre-emptive powers.

from James Pethokoukis:

‘A whole mess of crazy’ coming from Capitol Hill

That is how one Congress watcher from the financial industry describes the current state of affairs, from the Fed audit bill to calls for a transaction tax. I think this William Greider piece gets at the heart of it:

The center is not holding. ... It feels like carnival time, when up is down and down is up, when humble folks parade as kings and queens and the reigning royals are dressed as clowns. ... The most startling evidence of reversal is Chris Dodd, chair of the Senate Banking Committee, who has been a loyal friend of Wall Street and especially Connecticut-based insurance companies. Dodd proposes to strip the Fed of its regulatory functions because of its "abysmal failure" to protect the public, and to replace it with an overarching regulatory administration. ...
Taxing Wall Street is a more provocative departure, but some representatives are warming to the idea, drawn to Oregon Representative Peter DeFazio's appealing Let Wall Street Pay for Wall Street's Bailout Act. A very small excise tax on all financial transactions--trading stocks, bonds and derivatives--could yield hundreds of billions in revenue. House majority whip Jim Clyburn suggests the securities tax is "a painless way" to pay for highways. ...

  •