Brown Comes Out Against Recouping Bank Bailout $

Not sure how well this jibes with a populist, anti-establishment posture.

Democrats believe President Barack Obama’s proposed, $90 billion tax on big banks will box in Republicans, giving them the choice between siding with the bankers or breaking with the GOP’s antitax base.

If so, Republican Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown has taken the bait. His Democratic opponent, Martha Coakley, embraced the bank tax and spent the day goading Brown to take a stand.


Responding to The Wall Street Journal, the Brown campaign said this evening, “Scott Brown is opposed to higher taxes, especially in the midst of a severe recession. Raising taxes will kill jobs. Martha Coakley’s tax-raising policies will make it harder to get our economy back on the right track.”

This race remains close, with neither candidate consistently polling above 50 percent, though how some could call a race with one candidate consistently polling ahead of the other a tossup is mystifying to some. But in a tight race, particularly at a time of populist fervor, it's not entirely clear that it's good politics for a candidate to line up with the banking industry -- particularly a candidate trying to score an upset on the backs of populist voters.

Tags: MA-Sen, Senate 2010, Massachusetts (all tags)



To be honest

Brown is correct. If we apply an addition tax to these banks, how do you think they are going to pay it? Thats right, by cutting jobs or not creating jobs. Added taxes on business always has the same effect, it stifles jobs and benefits. Thats a fact...

by BuckeyeBlogger 2010-01-14 07:28PM | 0 recs
RE: To be honest

Or by trying to do that and then getting so much bad press they loose business or the public helps push to dismantle them.  This is a obvious ploy by the Administration to let the banks take care of themselves or else the Govt, by increments, is going to do it for them.

They buried themselves on this and just hearing all the whining from the bankers and money movers, it appears to be working.

by Hammer1001 2010-01-14 07:32PM | 0 recs
RE: To be honest

How can the public push to dismantle them?  The public doesn't seem to have much of a voice in government at all.  See health care.

by orestes 2010-01-14 09:10PM | 1 recs

jobs... lol. Did you happen to miss the entire depression and corresponding collapse of the jobs market that the financial industry just wrought?

Your RW talking points are getting old.

by vecky 2010-01-14 07:42PM | 1 recs
Good God, you were ADVOCATING this like two months ago!

can you stop being a troll now, thanks

by ND22 2010-01-14 08:17PM | 1 recs
As has been noted elsewhere
Because this tax does not apply to all banks, only those that accepted TARP funds, they cannot effectively pass it off to consumers or workers, because if they try to do so, consumers and workers will move to banks that did not accept TARP funds and are not subject to this tax. In general, it is bullshit to say that every tax on any business will be borne by someone other than the business. It's no more sensible than arguing that every tax on any worker will be borne by someone other than the worker. It really depends on the market, so unless the opponent can show that the market is such that the tax will fall on someone else, it's best to assume that the opponent is full of shit.
by Drew 2010-01-14 09:02PM | 1 recs
buckeyeblogger is telling us

that we need to accept that banks and corporations own us and deal with it! Except that when Obama and the Democrats don't come down hard on the banks, buckeyeblogger tells us Obama and the Democrats aren't good leaders because they're letting Wall Street get away with murder, as he said back in November.


buckeyeblogger is not to be taken seriously.

by ND22 2010-01-14 09:30PM | 0 recs
RE: To be honest

Ahahaha.  You've never been honest.  You have been hoisted by your own petard.  Also.

by lojasmo 2010-01-14 09:54PM | 1 recs

Let me see if I have this straight... banks that pay out million-dollar bonuses are going to lay people off if they get taxed rather than reduce a penny of executive compensation... and we're supposed to just surrender to that idea?

These colors don't run.  I am sick and tired of the big business lobby using workers as human shields.  They're not going to lay off profitable people, just call their bluff.

by Steve M 2010-01-14 08:03PM | 1 recs
RE: Brown Comes Out Against Recouping Bank Bailout $

This is good politics.  Now she has to slam him with it over the next couple of days - make it the issue.

by Drummond 2010-01-14 08:51PM | 0 recs

It plays into the meme that this guy is an anti tax nutcase. I've referred to him as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-14 10:15PM | 0 recs
New Distressing Poll from the Herald

From Suffolk University/Channel 7:

Brown 50, Coakley 46, Kennedy 1

This is mystefying as it contradicts the Blue Mass Poll from earlier today. It is also the first poll to show a Brown lead of any significance, and the first poll to put him at 50%.

Have the dynamics of the race changed? I sure hope this is an outlier.

For the record, their breakdown was 39 percent Democrat, 15 percent Republican, and 45 percent unenrolled.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-14 11:00PM | 0 recs
RE: New Distressing Poll from the Herald

Herald - not exactly Mr. Credible there. Their breakdown is interesting however, I don't belive the GOP vs. Dem gap will be that big.

by vecky 2010-01-14 11:15PM | 0 recs
You think more R's and U's in the election?

Or more D's?

Here's the breakdown for MA:

D: 37%, R: 12%, U: 51%

R2k had D: 40%, R: 18%, U: 42%

Suffolk had D: 39%, R: 15%, U: 45%

So if anything, the R2k poll should have been more hostile. The R2k poll found 95% undecided, while the suffolk poll found only 1% undecided. The responses in the suffolk poll were far more conservative, on Obama and on healthcare compared to the Ras poll. But the R2k poll seems to be the outlier in finding such soft Brown support amongst undeclareds.

by NoFortunateSon 2010-01-14 11:45PM | 0 recs
This tax is about penalizing success, and rewarding failure

Union-friendly GM gets a pass in this so-called "policy", in spite of the massive bailout funds they've received. And what about the Dems' favorite sandbox, Fannie and Freddie? Or AIG?

Bottom line, most of the banks originally involved in TARP have already paid their "responsibility fee"'s called "interest". And the Treasury has also made money off the sale of warrants. Given that GS, JPM, BAC, C, and WF have all paid back their TARP funds with interest, the title of this diary is a little disingenuous, since most of the "bank bailout $$" have been recovered. It's the failures---like GM, Fannie, and Freddie---that are getting a pass from team Obama in the crafting of this so-called policy.

And as this incredible shrinking President feigns outrage about "immoral bonuses", one has to wonder if he's been sleeping during the holidays. Is he aware that the top management at Fannie and Freddie are slated to rake in a combined $6 million in bonuses???

Voters will see through this stunt today, as just another effort at class warfare. Now Mr. President, get back to work: where are the jobs? 10% unemployment is unacceptable.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-01-15 01:32AM | 0 recs
RE: This tax is about penalizing success, and rewarding failure

One of the most amusing political myths is that voters despise so-called "class warfare."

by Steve M 2010-01-15 01:52AM | 0 recs
RE: This tax is about penalizing success, and rewarding failure

I don't think that voters "despise" class warfare. I'm simply saying that it doesn't resonate with them---especially when the economy is still losing jobs, and real unemployment is probably around 17%. Most people know what the big issues are, and that trivial crap like the "bank responsibility fee" is just another Obama solution in search of a problem.

Politicians like John Edwards, and to a lesser degree Dick Gephardt have tried the class warfare strategy, and they generally run like a dry creek.

by BJJ Fighter 2010-01-15 02:16AM | 0 recs
RE: This tax is about penalizing success, and rewarding failure

The point you missed is that taxing the banks who casued the financial meltdown is not perceived as "class warfare" except by the rabid right, who act hand-in-hand with the bankers anyway. Thus your using of it to defend the "rich" it simply does not resonate with either middle or lower class americans.

by vecky 2010-01-15 02:38AM | 0 recs
RE: This tax is about penalizing success, and rewarding failure

GM et al did not a) Cause the financial crises, b) Pay out huge bonses.

The CEO of GM was effectively fired. The guys over at the banks are not only all still there, they're raking in the big bucks.

If you want to know where the jobs are - maybe you should ask the banks. Neither negligence has so far cost this country 9 million jobs and counting.

by vecky 2010-01-15 02:34AM | 0 recs
RE: This tax is about penalizing success, and rewarding failure

The average total compensation at a union shop in Detroit at the time of GM's collapse was $73/hr. At a comparable Hyundai plant in the South, it was $48. Wall St. bonuses make better headlines, but which do you think is more damaging to a sector of the economy: (a) unions driving up wages to a point where American auto makers are no longer competitive, or (b) a few Wall Street bonuses, which are a pimple on a percentage basis relative to total bank revenue.

And whether GM paid out bonuses or not, the combined taxpayer charity to GM and Chrysler is now over $100 billion. By comparison, banks like JPM and BAC have paid back TARP funds. So again, why is Obama going after banks, and not the auto makers, Fannie/Freddie, AIG, etc......i.e., THE GUYS WHO STILL OWE MONEY TO THE TAXPAYERS? Sorry, this just doesn't make good sense, and people can see it.

Don't you think---to use the administration's own words---that it's now time to "pivot to jobs"? After all, we've been told that this is the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. Given that, why would they wait a full year before making "the great pivot"?

by BJJ Fighter 2010-01-15 02:49PM | 0 recs
RE: This tax is about penalizing success, and rewarding failure

Unions don't set wages.  The market sets wages.  All unions do is collectively bargain on behalf of their members.

by Steve M 2010-01-15 03:14PM | 0 recs
RE: This tax is about penalizing success, and rewarding failure

GM's problem is not the worker wages, it's the crap cars they make that no one wants to buy. Sure when gas was cheap they got away with SUV's and Hummers, while other manufacturers were thinking smart. Union workers in Germany and Japan get far better and higher benefits than comparable US workers, but Mercedes, BMW and Toyota also make cars people want to buy.

Meanwhile as GM continued it's market slide, it's executives continued to reward themselves - Wagoner received millions in compensation for leading the company into the dirt.

by vecky 2010-01-15 03:29PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads