The PCTC Blog

Wherein We Cut Some Frank Luntz Crapola on Wall Street Reform

You know, while many people look upon Frank Luntz as a political genius, most of the time, he’s little more than a right wing con man. And now, he’s set his sights on the financial services reform that sits in the Senate; you know, the one that Republicans tried to block debate on for several days.

In a post on today’s Huffington Post, Luntz tries to tell everyone how bad the Dodd bill is for all Americans, and how it will absolutely backfire on the Democrats come this fall. In other words, everything Democrats accomplish is bad for us. After eight years of complete incompetence and sloth, the Democrats pass an economic stimulus that's working, collects bailout money BACK from the banks and car companies we lent it to (and be serious; would Bush have even asked for repayment?), passed a health insurance bill that allows 30 million people to pay their medical bills, and passes a bill that reforms Wall Street, and he really thinks swing voters will choose to return to incompetence and sloth?

And every reason he gives is made of classic right wing talking points that have no factual basis whatsoever.  I am curious of one thing, however; given the Republican track record on major legislation during this session of Congress, if this bill is so bad for Democrats, why would they block it? It seems to me that, if it was so incredibly bad, Republicans wouldn’t block it; they’d want it passed, so they can be elected in 2010 on a promise of “repeal and replace.” They seem to love that term, don’t they?

No, this bill is great for consumers, and it’s about to get even better with some of the amendments that are being proposed. In fact, it’s so good, Luntz, who is one of the greatest bullshit artists of all time, can’t even produce a solid reason why this bill is actually bad for Democrats. Instead, he lists three incredibly lame rationales for why it's bad for Democrats, and then goes off on another health care rant.

Observe:

The dirty secret of the Senate financial reform bill is that some of its biggest supporters work on Wall Street. Recipients of taxpayer bailout money have no concerns about the bill -- in fact, the CEOs of Citi and Goldman Sachs have publicly endorsed it, and several of the other big banks have expressed support. It keeps the "too big to fail" guarantees in place for another generation of financial services companies.

This is classic Washington Republican double-speak, and it’s actually beneath someone with Luntz’s pedigree. The entire populace wants financial reform, and like it or not, the CEOs of Citigroup and Goldman Sachs need to clean up their reputations in order to make money going forward.  In my memory, only health insurance companies are stupid enough to pull a PR stunt that actually makes them worse in people’s minds. Of COURSE big banks SAY they want financial services reform.  But Luntz is also wrong, at least with regard to the Goldman CEO. Check out this exchange between Sen. Tom Coburn, who voted against even debating this bill, and the CEO of Goldman Sachs just two days ago:

LLOYD BLANKFEIN, Goldman Sachs CEO: “I Listened To A Speech By Barack Obama At Wall Street, And One Of The Points He Made Resonated With Me Because I’d Said It Myself. He Said That The Biggest Beneficiaries Of Reform Will Be Wall Street Itself.” 

SEN. TOM COBURN (R-OK): “Let me ask you a few questions about the bill that's being proposed. Your Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer said you embrace it, you’re generally supportive of the Dodd bill. You've been fairly high profile in your support for it. Do you still maintain that support for this bill? Do you think it solves the problems that caused the problems that we got into?” 

LLOYD BLANKFEIN, Goldman Sachs CEO: “I think execution – well, first of all, some aspects of the bill, I think have morphed over the last - maybe even over the last few days, I’m just not sure.” 

COBURN: “I don't think so. The vote was turned down again. I don't think we've gotten there.” 

BLANKFEIN: “I see, right. I'm generally supportive. To be sure, there are details of it that I think I'm less sure of, but I think, on the whole, financial reform is, absolutely is essential and I will say that last week, in New York, I listened to a speech by Barack Obama at Wall Street, and one of the points he made resonated with me because I’d said it myself. He said that the biggest beneficiaries of reform will be Wall Street itself.”

(From the Homeland Security & Government Affairs, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 4/27/10)

Oops.  You see, Luntz would have done well to pay attention the last few days, because while the CEO of Goldman thinks the idea of reform is a great idea in the abstract, he's not too crazy about this bill. And if he's not too crazy about this bill, well, doesn't that undermine Luntz's main premise, which is that this must be a bad bill because bank CEOs love it? At least one of the two he mentioned doesn't love it at all.

Then, Luntz turns to one of the most-used rhetorical weapons in the right wing’s arsenal; the incredibly lame argument that corporations don’t pay taxes, people do.

(…) The Democrats supporting the current legislation have assured an anxious electorate that whatever funds are used to create whatever regulatory scheme created will come from the banks, not the taxpayers. Let me emphasize that so that even casual readers will catch it: the Democrats promise that you won't pay for their legislation, banks will.

Really?

Since when have corporations ever paid taxes, fees or penalties? Employees end up paying in the form of lower salaries and benefits. Customers end up paying in the form of higher costs.

And in this case, every account holder will be forced to pay higher fees on their checking account and savings account. That's you, my friendly reader. Can you say "checkbook tax"? I can, and I think lots of candidates will be saying it come November. Is that what you really want to do to your constituents, Senator Lincoln? Is that what you really want to explain on the campaign trail, Senator Bennett?

The sophistry in the above can’t be over-emphasized.

If corporations never pay taxes, fees or penalties, then please explain why the largest ones have such huge legal departments in order to fight these things? I mean, all they're going to do is pass it all on to consumers, so why fight it?

As I said, this is a common argument for right wingers to use against any sort of tax increase on corporations and it’s actually pretty easy to explode. If you're going to take the position that corporations don’t pay taxes, then you have to stop bitching about your own taxes, because you don’t actually pay them, either; your employer does. Of course, that’s not true, either; your employer can’t possibly pay your taxes unless someone pays them for the goods and services they provide. But wait; someone paid the people who paid your employer, so that won’t work, either...

See what I mean? Based on the ludicrous concept that corporations don't pay taxes, the reality would have to be that no one actually pays taxes. The entire economy works based on the premise that money circulates through it, and the concept that a corporation simply passes on all of its expenses to its customers depends entirely upon their competition and their customers’ willingness to pay for their product or service.  

The way the Dodd system works is, banks pay into a fund, and if a bank fails, that fund decides whether or not to bail out the bank, or kill it and sell off the pieces. This concept works on roughly the same principle as the FDIC. When a bank fails, the money to rescue it and make depositors whole doesn’t come from taxpayers; it comes from the FDIC trust fund. And banks pay into that fund, and have been paying into that fund since the 1930s. Yet, they all offer free checking, and free ATM use; go figure. Of course, that's not to say that banks don't charge outrageous fees on some "services." But if the fees are so high now, does Luntz really think people will notice an increase to pay for reform?

Ah, but Luntz isn’t finished. He’s used the “Wall Street likes it, so it must be bad” argument, which wasn’t true. Then, he switched to the “checkbook tax” argument, which is complete crap, but the word "tax" sends right wing clowns and teabaggers into a major frenzy. Let’s just eliminate the FDIC and FSLIC, while we’re at it, based on "Luntz Logic"? Now, he’s about to use the “scary lobbyists” dodge.

You’ve seen this "evil lobbyists" argument from both sides, but while the left uses it, the right excels at manipulating people with it. Check this out:

Regardless of what side you're on, the financial reform bill is special interest heaven -- a bill written by lobbyists, for lobbyists, and will probably be implemented by lobbyists. The Dodd bill has carve-outs right from the get-go. Real estate agents, title companies, the Farm Credit system, even Fannie Mae and Freddie Mae are exempt from its onerous and costly provisions. And for everyone else, it's been a special interest feeding frenzy.

More than 130 companies have publicly hired lobbyists seeking their own loophole. Mars Candy wants to continue to use derivatives to hedge against price hikes in sugar and chocolate, so they've hired a lobbyist. Harley Davidson wants to protect dealer financing of their bikes, so they've hired a lobbyist. And eBay wants to not harm its subsidiary, PayPal, so they've hired ... well ... a team of lobbyists.

But most average Americans -- the ones who bailed Wall Street out in the first place -- cannot afford lobbyists, and won't be exempted from the legislation.

If the bill is a “special interest heaven,” then why are Republicans trying to kill it? I mean, if they wanted “better” financial services reform, they had more than enough opportunity when they held both the House and Senate and the White House. And what was about to happen to the financial services industry was pretty well known by 2006, when they were in charge, and could have "saved the day."  Yet, while the Republicans spent the last 30 years removing regulations that had served to turn us into an economic superpower, we’re suddenly supposed to worry because there are (GASP!) lobbyists in Washington?

But this argument falls flat on its face even without all of that.

The man who crafted this particular bill is Christopher Dodd. Forget the fact that Chris Dodd is one of the more honest politicians in Washington, which is not a high bar, admittedly, but the fact is, Dodd has announced his retirement. He’s not running for reelection. Therefore, the initial bill was crafted by a guy who just wants to reform Wall Street, who has no need to raise money or to court voters.

Luntz’ implication is that the mere presence of lobbyists in Washington should signal to voters that this is a bad bill, which is wholly ridiculous. It also demonstrates just how weak Frank Luntz’ arguments are when he tries to claim this bill is bad for Democrats. Seriously; we just experienced six years of Republican Congresspersons employing lobbyists to WRITE bills, and eight years of a Republican administration that not only put lobbyists for moneyed interests into key positions in its own administration, but let lobbyists write administration policy. Why would any Republican  even want to mention lobbyists at this point in time?

By the way, did you notice the lobbyists he mentioned? Look at the list again. The lobbyists he mentioned -- the ones we should fear – are all for industries that have direct contact with the public. They are lobbyists for companies and industries that have direct contact with consumers.  Think about that a moment.

And that’s pretty much his entire argument against the financial services reform bill. Go read the rest of the article, where he goes off on another rant about the health care bill, because that's so relevant to Wall Street reform.

And now you know just how good a bill this is. When an uber-Republican can only bring out three extremely lame and generalized arguments, you know they’re out of ammunition and they’re forced to throw the gun.

Oh, and about the health care rant; all summer, we’re going to hear all about how bad health reform is. But the fact is, about the time swing voters actually start thinking about the coming election, millions of people will be signing up for health insurance who haven’t been allowed to for years. Good luck, Republicans.

Are You Pissed Off Enough Yet? Only a Moron Will Vote GOP in November

The next time someone tells me there’s no difference between  Democrats and Republicans, I swear I’ll kick 'em in the shins.

Ok. I won’t. I’m amazingly non-violent. But I’ll still call you an ignorant sop, because while neither party is perfect, the fact of the matter is, the Democratic Party does give a damn about the country, and the current incarnation of the Republican Party simply does not. 

And to you “independents” who plan to vote for a Republican this year, because the Democrats haven’t done enough, or because the change hasn’t come fast enough, or some other such nonsense, well, screw you, too. I’m sick of hearing it.

Have you heard? Not one Republican Senator voted to allow Wall Street reform to make it to the Senate floor. Not one!  Isn’t this a hell of a democracy, when 57% of an elected body votes in favor of something, and it dies? The Democratic House passed even more stringent reform this past December, and received no support from Republicans on that, either.

And why do Republicans vote in lockstep on absolutely everything? I mean, why they always vote against the people is a good question. But is everything Democrats want to to so completely and utterly wrong that not one Republican can support it? And why do people refer to that as “party discipline”? That’s not discipline; that’s cowardice.

Limbaugh Finally Admits It: Civil Rights No Big Deal to the Far Right...

You know, sometimes you see something that just makes your jaw come apart and fall to the ground.

I had always suspected that the right wing didn't care about an individuals; not really, anyway. Oh, sure, they don't want anyone to mess with their guns. Of course, they don't want women to have abortions (none of us do, really, but for some reason, they think their opposition is special). And they really don't want to pay any taxes. But other than that, what do they believe in?

In a discussion on his radio hatefest today, Limbaugh actually tried to defend the new Arizona law that mirrors Nazi Germany more than it mirrors anything that's happened in the United States since we rounded up Japanese Americans and locked them in internment camps.

The following is courtesy of Media Matters:

Could Be the Most Disgusting Abuse of Christianity By a Celebrity, Ever.

If you've never heard of Stephen Baldwin, you're in good company. He's one of the lesser Baldwins, whose star rose primarily because Alec and Billy have talent, and he shares their name and looks like them, to a degree. Stephen has been able to ride their talent to a far more significant measure of fame than he deserved.

Then, he became a born-again Christian.

Now, he's bankrupt.

Coincidence?

Well, Stephen would like you to think so. According to Stephen Baldwin, his career took a nosedive because he came out as a Christian. Apparently, coming out as either Christian or gay has negative consequences, regardless of how many Christians and gays there are in Hollywood.

Arizona's Racist Immigration Law Must Go!

In the interest of full disclosure, I have lived in Arizona for a fairly significant period of my life, and I understand the frustration many Arizonans  feel, in that the federal government has largely dropped the ball on the problem of illegal immigration, at least from some perspectives.

But to pass a racist and pointless law in response is simply not the way to go about fixing such a problem. In fact, it’s absolutely the opposite approach from one that makes sense.

Like I said, the SB 1070 is a racist law, certainly not worthy of most Arizonans. The entire premise of the law is based on the concept that it’s possible to look at someone and determine that they are in this country illegally, which is a ridiculous concept on its face. It’s based on two concepts that are classically racist; the first is that all criminals stick out like a sore thumb, and that all Latinos look alike.

If it’s really that easy to spot “them,” then why aren’t the people in favor of this law rounding up all these people themselves and turning them in to the Border Patrol? And if they’re not doing that because, well, it’s the job of police, well then, I have another question for you – how much time do you think a typical police officer has, to go chasing after Latinos? If they already know who’s who, what’s preventing them from calling ICE now?

Facebook libertarian claptrap

So, I saw this in a wall post of a friend of mine on Facebook...

I was in my neighborhood restaurant this morning and was seated behind a group of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard the young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” The young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. They are all crooks and thieves and don’t deserve all of that money.” Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.” At this, I had had enough.

I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment....

“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?” They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point. “I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “Hell Yeah” fills the room.

“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.” Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.” They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.” I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.” They gaped at me for a moment.

“I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them. “Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked. The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table. “Oh hell yeah! Where do I sign up?” I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature. “Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice. All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.” I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumb founded.

“Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated. “You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement.” Was all I said. The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people. “You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man. “You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.” At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent. “What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.” With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man. “This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause. The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pickup the tab.” I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

Use reason,

Clifford A Wright

Isn't that cute?

Aside from the fact that this has probably been floating around a while (the recently-passed healthcare reform bill didn't include a public option, which was the only aspect of the legislation which could have conceivably been referred-to as a government takeover of healthcare, and it's clear, despite the story, that the author himself has not read the healthcare bill that was eventually passed), and aside from the fact that it probably never took place (it's always easier to win an argument when you get to write both sides, and frankly, it reads like a typical libertarian fantasy), there are several aspects of this libertarian screed that are notable.

You could replace the topic of this fairytale with pretty much any government action or regulation, and it would still apply.  This parable is less about healthcare reform in particular than it is simply an anti-government rant.

To most of us not of a libertarian persuasion, some of the ideas in the piece above may seem a little alien.  But let's bring some of the problems with it to the fore.

First of all, several of the premises don't stand up to scrutiny.  For example: libertarians are fond of the idea that they earn their money in a vacuum, on the strength of merit alone.  But this is a fantasy.  No one earns a dime without the government regulations and programs that make our modern capitalist system function in the first place.  As George Will notably once said:

A properly functioning free market system does not spring spontaneously from society's soil as crabgrass springs from suburban lawns. Rather, it is a complex creation of laws and mores... Capitalism is a government program.

And what pays for those programs and the regulation?  Well...that would be taxes.

Which leads to the second point: very few of us get something for nothing from the government.  Far from the mistaken notion expressed in this story, government spending -- whether it be for healthcare or anything else -- is generally paid for by pretty much everyone.

Conservatives are fond of pointing out that only some people pay federal income taxes.  And this is true: some folks (generally lower income, but some wealthy Americans, as well) pay little to nothing in federal income taxes.  What they neglect to mention is that income taxes are only one category of taxes.  Others include payroll (Medicare and Social Security), excise and capital gains, sales, state and local income, and property taxes (to name a few).  Add it all up, and lower income folks generally pay an equal or greater percentage of their incomes in taxes.

What's more, for a significant number of taxpayers, not paying income taxes is a function of engaging in behaviors society finds beneficial, and government is essentially paying them for it.

What it comes down to is this: whether we're talking about a public option healthcare plan, social security or virtually anything else, most of us aren't getting "something for free".  We're paying for it.

Most of the rest of the quoted story consists of little more than fevered Glenn Beckian ravings about the Obama admininstration and totalitarianism.  At the root of much of this baloney is actually political fear that people will find government solutions a net gain, which will be a setback for Republicans and conservatives/libertarians in general.

The cure for such paranoia lies in removing one's head from Fox News' backside.

Folks, there's a lot of crap making the rounds out there.  Most of it is motivated by politics (Republicans evidently believe the path to power is in telling one over-the-top baldfaced lie after another) or by greed (see, for example, millionaire Beck's recent statements about how he doesn't really care at all about politics, and this is all, in his view, just about entertainment).  We'd all be well served by turning a critical eye toward what we're being told.