Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 2009
| Subscribe to Newser's RSS feeds RSS | Follow Newser on Twitter Twitter


 NATE SILVER 
14

Bank Reform Shatters Usual Party Lines

Next big domestic issue will be 'fascinating' to watch

Share

(Newser) – Once health care reform is “settled,” Nate Silver writes, the White House will be searching for a new domestic issue. Card check is too hard, immigration will have to wait for 2012’s “younger, more diverse electorate,” and gay rights is a slog. The winner, in Silver’s opinion, is bank reform. What's "fascinating" is how the issue has so far elicited responses from Congress that are “the strangest in the history of the institution.”

When it comes to finance, the parties are split “between leadership and rank-and-file, between service-sector states and manufacturing states, and between swing districts and safe districts,” Silver writes on FiveThirtyEight. The debate will be between those who want tougher regulation (Summersists) or the wholesale breakup of large banks (Volckerists). The "hardline" left will make up the latter camp. "How the right will respond is less predictable, but this may become the issue that tests whether the 'tea party' movement is ultimately more libertarian or populist in character."

Bank of American Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis.
Bank of American Chief Executive Officer Kenneth Lewis.   (AP Photo)
A protester carries a giant novelty check outside the Washington offices of AIG.
A protester carries a giant novelty check outside the Washington offices of AIG.   (AP Photo)
President Barack Obama speaks at a campaign rally for Gov. Jon Corzine in Hackensack, N.J.
President Barack Obama speaks at a campaign rally for Gov. Jon Corzine in Hackensack, N.J.   (AP Photo)
« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

I don't think the Republican Party as a whole can afford to take an anti-regulation stance...They may simply argue that whatever type of regulation the Administration wants to do is the wrong kind. - Nate Silver

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow
14 comments
VIEWING:
 
davjc09
Oct 22, 09 11:51 AM CDT
The right will take an anti-WH policy. But I think they're will be more bipartisianship than with healthcare. Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+4
IN RESPONSE:
Jayster999
Oct 22, 09 12:38 PM CDT
I agree. There are many such as myself who are very much against the "public option." We look at medicare and medicaid as disasters and know full well that a health care takeover by the federal government would be an even bigger one. Bank reform however has nearly universal appeal. Our current situation of rewarding bank bosses for their stupidity and greed doesn't please anyone (well, unless you're privileged enough to be one of the fat cats who are taking the rest of us to the cleaners). Using taxpayer money to bail out banks and buyout companies flies in the face of constitutional law and free enterprise--of course, socialized medicine does too, sorry folks but it's true.
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
IN RESPONSE:
LovinLife
Oct 22, 09 1:50 PM CDT
I agree, Jayster. Our corporate lobbyists are cherry picking that Constitution - wanting to socialize losses and privatize profits - forgetting all about that part of forming a more perfect Union by promoting the general welfare - making sure our citizens well-being is a priority. Where I disagree with you is in excluding basic healthcare for our citizens. Private industry has failed in that regard. We must have reform and a public option will provide competition that will spur the private industry to make a better product for its consumers.
Vote up! Vote down!
+1
IN RESPONSE:
ultramarine13
Oct 22, 09 2:11 PM CDT
And private insurers work so much better, do they Jayster? Your idea that "socialized medicine... flies in the face of constitutional law and free enterprise" is absolutely ridiculous. I don't hear anyone suggesting we privatize police, fire departments, public schools and libraries or the military, not to mention the many other socialized services we enjoy. I also disagree with your apparent view that the bailouts were a disaster and are, apparently, unconstitutional. Although I am not a big fan of the bailouts themselves, I believe that Pres. Obama chose the lesser of two evils in order to prevent the entire economy from collapsing, which I think would have happened had he not acted (remember the decade(s) long recession in Japan and the economists pointing to a slow reaction from the government as a key factor in the severity and duration of the recession?). So credit where credit is due; I suspect historians will credit Pres. Obama's actions in the last 9 months as key to keeping our economy afloat.
Vote up! Vote down!
-1
Guava_Jelly
Oct 22, 09 12:08 PM CDT
I'll propose a new group, called the "Summer-Volks". Breaking apart these large companies is a NECESSITY as is tough regulation so "too big to fail" doesnt happen again Reply
Vote up! Vote down!
+3
LEAVE A
COMMENT
Comment Policy
Facebook ConnectPost this comment to Facebook?

After connecting you will have the option to post your comment on your Facebook profile.