| Today David Sirota warns of the demise of the Democratic party if high-finance candidates represent the party, using the upcoming Illinois Senate Democratic primary as an illustration. In that race, the bank owned by Senate candidate and Illinois Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias' family was chided recently by state regulators for essentially funneling depositors' funds into owners' pockets instead of the institution's reserves. As the Bloomberg analysis Sirota linked to points out, it's a bad time to run a high-fiance scandal-plagued candidate for office.
Sirota:
Thus, if Giannoulias, it would be a clear disaster. He is literally the walking personification of all that the public clearly despises right now - an Establishment politician closely connected to the industry that has destroyed the economy.
With him as the nominee, Democrats could lose yet another senate seat, and more broadly, they could lose any national high ground they need to reclaim. At a time when the Democratic Party desperately needs to reclaim the populist economic mantle and prevent Republicans from being able to mount their own right-wing populist campaign, Giannoulias would become the face of a Democratic Party that has already become increasingly synonymous in voters minds with the most hated aspects of the financial industry.
Like Sirota, I've been railing against big business and its too-cozy relationship with government for...years? At least ever since I've had a blog to write on. And one of the most egregious abuses of taxpayer money was the recent bank bailout, in which the high-finance institutions that caused the recent financial crash with rampant and irresponsible investing after lobbying the government to deregulate its industry received billions. (Meanwhile, we can't even pass a health care bill that would give subsidies to people without health insurance.)
There's been some financial regulatory bills circulating in Congress - most notably Chris Dodd's, which, among other things, would create a Consumer Protection Agency intended to streamline bank and finance regulations and protect consumers from the predatory actions of lenders. (Hint: you can't have a "free" market without consumer access to information and protection from swindlers.) And in the SOTU speech yesterday, President Obama vowed to impose a "fee" on the high-finance institutions that caused the crash.
Here's the kicker, though. Jon Tester appears to oppose these regulatory reforms.
Tester is less enthusiastic about the administration's plan to impose a new tax on financial firms that received government aid through the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP.
"I'm very concerned that the tax could be passed on to customers," said Tester, who called for the idea to get close examination by lawmakers....
Proposals to create a new consumer financial protection agency aren't high on Tester's list of desired changes, though.
"Fundamentally, I'm not crazy about building another agency," he said, but added that the idea "wouldn't be a deal-killer on my part" and indicated that Senate lawmakers are debating whether the consumer-protection function might be folded into an existing agency, rather than assigned to a newly created one.
That's right. Our progressive populist Montana farmer is planning to use his Senate Banking Committee to...oppose consumer protection and a tax on big banks?
Let's be frank. Banks are not popular. And the Democratic party is quickly becoming identified with high financial interests, not only in Illinois, but apparently closer to home, in Montana.
And hasn't Jon seen the results of the Massachusetts special election? They weren't clamoring for more backroom dealing and a cozier relationship with corporate America. They voted against Coakley because she was seen as the establishment candidate. This position is electoral suicide. And it's bad policy.
Look, I'm fine with Jon being a one-term Senator...if he lost his seat fighting for his core values. But this? Defending huge, East Coast financial institutions' interests from the little guy? |
