Associated Press
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.)
Remember shortly after the election, when President Obama had a series of pleasant chats with prominent figures from the Corporate America? The White House seemed eager to improve relations with the business community, and as a result, a small legion of CEOs received quite a bit of face-time with the president in the Oval Office.
It's early, but the outreach paid some dividends fairly quickly. Since the election, we've seen Big Business side with Obama on a series of key measures, including tax policy and the debt ceiling. Just this week, business groups also started lining up in support of immigration reform.
Ryan Grim and Zach Carter have an interesting piece this morning on how a leading House Republican is responding to the developments.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.) is considering legislation that would significantly increase taxes for the nation's largest banks while providing tax breaks to struggling homeowners.
The draft legislation, which may get significant revision before it's presented to a congressional committee, would be vehemently opposed by Wall Street and other major corporations that trade heavily in derivative securities.
The Huffington Post talked to a "Republican operative" who said Camp's proposal is intended as "political payback." In other words, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee is floating a tax hike on banks out of spite.
The efforts seems to be targeted in large part at the Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executives of many of the nation's largest companies, and has a reputation in D.C. for being a reliable Republican ally, but which sided with Democrats on the need for balanced debt reduction, included new revenues.
Camp sent an angry letter to the Business Roundtable a month ago, and now Republicans are saying if there must be new revenue, it should be "on their backs."
How big a deal is Camp's bill? I think it's safe to say the bank lobby won't be impressed.
Camp's new bill would harvest government revenues from complex financial transactions involving derivatives, some of which figured prominently in the 2008 banking collapse. Although the 2010 financial reform legislation would curb some excesses in the derivatives market, the legislation isn't yet fully implemented, and leaves much of the market unregulated. Financial reform advocates have urged new taxes on derivatives to deter excessive risk-taking by big banks. [...]
Camp's bill would establish a new tax regime for derivatives, requiring banks to declare the fair market value of the products at the end of each year. Any increase in value would be considered corporate income, subject to taxation. It's a more aggressive tax treatment than Wall Street enjoys for either derivatives or for trading in more traditional securities. [...]
The bill would significantly strengthen the Volcker Rule, which bans banks from speculating in securities markets with taxpayer money. The Volcker Rule's implementation has been delayed as bank lobbyists have flooded regulatory agencies in Washington, pillorying the ban with loopholes. Hefty tax burdens for proprietary trading would reduce bank incentives to engage in the risky activity.
How serious is Camp about this? It's hard to say at this point, though I suspect it's mostly about posturing and political chest-thumping. Camp wants to send a message that he's displeased and see this as a vehicle. Even if the committee chair got serious about this, I imagine other Republicans would intervene to stop its progress.
The bill, in other words, is intended more as a brush-back pitch than a meaningful policy proposal.
But it's the bigger picture I find interesting: in the wake of the 2012 elections, private-sector leaders are looking at President Obama as a leader who (a) isn't going anywhere; and (b) is reaching out to them. And at the same time, they're looking across the aisle at an increasingly reckless Republican Party -- their ostensible allies -- who no longer seem as trustworthy as they'd hoped.
It's an angle worth keeping an eye on.
Leave a Comment:
There's a man with a gun over there, telling everybody to beware.
Except it is a plastic toy. Any retribution measures have to pass Schumer, and he is in Wall Street's pocket.
Politics 101 is that if you make a threat you cannot carry out, the move demonstrates your impotence. Perception of power is everything. When you demonstrate you have no power, you don't get invited to the table.
This slow motion meltdown of GOP grip on power is stunning. What is most surprising is the political malpractice being indulged in by players I assumed to be competent at their craft.
Ha. If we can't get large banks and corporations to pay their taxes any other way...let's get them to pay out of spite. OMG, the irony is so think we could cut it with a knife.
Dave Camp? Who is Dave Camp??
I remember when the chairman of Ways and Means was probably the third most powerful guy in the House, after the Speaker and the Majority Leader.
The fact that roles have changed since those days hasn't escaped me, but it still makes my head spin that Ways and Means could be chaired by a relative nobody that a political junkie like me has barely heard of.
Anyway, what John Messerly said above: this guy is shooting a water pistol, and we're not even talking a Super Soaker. It would be great fun to see this bill get to the House floor, but it won't - the guys who actually have power will make sure of that.
The Business Roundtable also recommended shorting Social Security recipients and destroying Medicare. They claimed the rich can not afford a simple raise on the cap, which is offensive baloney. Any "payback" coming there...
I'm ok with raising revenue in this fashion. Alas, it will never happen.
i really don't care about the "why" Camp is floating this legislation, but only that there is at least some policymaker out there willing to do something about the banksters.
He's not doing something "about" banksters. He's doing something "to" banksters. A point that would be demonstrated if it made it out of committee and he had to vote against it because it would otherwise pass with Democratic votes.
I'm fine with doing something "to" the banksters, and whatever reason a Republican wants to use for doing what is actually The Right Thing is good with me.
"I'm ok with raising revenue in this fashion. Alas, it will never happen."
I think that's what Camp is counting on: He wants to remind the banks that if it wasn't for Republican protection, this sort of thing would be common. This is also called a protection racket.
For the record, I'm all for it as well!
Uh, it's not the Republicans giving Wall St protection. When someone as slimy as Jon Corzine escapes prosecution it involves the DOJ. Democrats are now the new Wall St safe haven.
Such a nasty game of ego and emotion, members of our legislative branch seem to be playing!
Yet another step toward that status of Banana Republic! -Kevo
We have the somber chromatic reflection of Bob Dylan to help through this existential angst
The sun's not yellow it's chicken
Mama's in the fact'ry She ain't got no shoes
I am in the kitchen with the banana fruitcake yellowee blues
I think that is fer shur how it goes .
Yuh huh
oops
Wow, out of spite legislation by a Republican, that novel!
(Would somebody please piously cue up the next anti-abortion bill [w/gunshow loophole!] with no hope of passing please?)
The gunshow loophole will be included with the next World economic ransom package (my bad..).
Push this bill hard and we'll see Camp vote against it.
Gee, if business leaders are starting to back the other side (read: progressive) then the GOTP really has gone over the deep end of crazy. Wake up Americans the GOTP you back are deliberately driving US over the cliff.
Zora: The Business Roundtable is only interested in enriching themselves, as clearly evidenced by their screed about our safety net. They will never be anything close to "progressive", they simply don't want the debt ceiling held hostage. They will continue to back Republicans no matter what IMHO.
ah, the sweet smell of Republicans falling into long-laid Democratic traps. I will be sitting in my seat cackling like an evil overlord regardless of whether anything actually comes of this.
"floating a tax hike on banks out of spite."
works for me.
So much for 'principles'...
Something about biting the hand that feeds you comes to mind.
Are these morons REALLY that stupid?
Forget I asked that.
What the business community needs to learn and maybe, hopefully are beginning to learn is that paying taxes and submitting to regulations is good for THEM. Not raising the debt ceiling would have hurt business even more than it would have hurt us little people on SS. Businesses stood to loose billions.
My sister, 75 years old and living on $1,000.00 a month on SS and about $200.00 on a private pension, spent last week in a panic because of all the talk that her SS check might get delayed. She was out of money and out of toilet paper. That impacts Wal-Mart because that is where she buys toilet paper. She managed to come up with $.87 to buy a role of TP somewhere.
Not getting one's SS on time is a real hardship to millions of Americans, but it is also a loss of income to businesses which depend on consumer spending. It is my belief that the reason that the Great Recession did not become a Great Depression is that we SS recipients kept getting our checks along with those on unemployment and veterans benefits and therefore we could go to Wal-Mart, Cosco, Target, Safeway, etc. to buy the necessities of life and our banks kept getting our deposits, even if they did not keep them very long. The money kept moving.
The business community needs to wake up and learn which side their bread is buttered on and where the butter comes from. All those derivatives they play with on Wall Street are not anything but a bunch of poker chips.
The real money comes from goods and services produced and delivered. And just because many of us did our making between 1960 and 2007 or earlier, and put some of our money into a pension fund like SS, does not make us "takers" instead of makers.
This is totally awesome! The GOP, or at least a prominent leader in their ranks, wants to raise taxes on those obnoxious too-big-to-fail banks? Do it!
The more important fact is that the Business Roundtable is realizing that the Republicans are unstable because they cannot control the Tea Party faction. Campaign contributions that are sent to the party rather than a specific candidate may be going to the radical fringe members. That is not something the Roundtable likes. It is easier for the Roundtable to deal with establishment Republicans and corporatist Dems to get what they want from Congress. Consequently, the Roundtable's campaign contributions are going to be limited to specific candidates so business can starve out the outliers in the Republican party. In fact, business may be willing to secretly fund a primary challenger and possibly a Dem if the primary challenge fails. The Ways and Means chair actions confirms the instability of the Republicans.
"because they cannot control the Tea Party faction"
hmmmm... they adopted the rhetoric of the religious right to gain a block of voters, and they did the same with the tea partiers.... then they realized these people were fanatics. And they didn't know they wouldn't be able to control them??? There is sort of a Dr. Frankenstein parallel there. So, is this debacle a lesson they might have foreseen from paying attention in history class or is this a lesson for future history classes. What I am saying is I don't understand why they though encouraging the crazies was a good idea. My mom always said ignore them dear, they just want attention.
I'm sure there are republicans looking at the teabagger loony bin, secure in their freshly gerrymandered districts, who realized they shot themselves in the foot.
Reagan was responsible for uniting Republicans with the religious right to win the elections, but he did not work to carry out their agenda. He and many Republicans paid lip service to their ideas and did nothing to advance the religious right's causes. However, Reagan did not foresee the religious right gaining so much power within the Republican party. Now, the religious right dominates in many states along with the Tea Party while establishment Republicans are being purged and/or fleeing Congress and state governments. The Republicans again brought the Tea Party in to win elections, but they did not foresee how much power the faction would garner within the party.
Business wants to return to the previous status quo with establishment Republicans and corporatist Dems because it is very easy for special interests to game the system. The Tea Party faction makes Republicans as a party unstable and unreliable, e.g. the debt ceiling crises in 2011 and this year. This instability creates uncertainty in the markets and business because they see a paralyzed government along with a radical faction that is willing to bring down the whole country and economy. William F. Buckley chased the radicals out of the Republican party in the 1960's, but there does not appear to be anyone of stature that can do it again. Republicans have no easy way to divorce these radicals and still win elections because these radicals are winning primaries. Even if Republicans change party primary rules, it is questionable whether these Tea Partiers can be purged in some districts and states. The problem extends beyond the national elections because there are TP governors and state officials. This makes the future of the Republicans as a national party unclear if it continues to be populated with radicals. Dems lost many elections for that same reason.
I'd add Eisenhower in the 50s to those clamping down on the RWNJs.
The business world has had it with the GOP's debt ceiling brinkmanship. On its best day the stock market is an angst ridden teenager, and the fear of default sends it running for the prozac.
It's made for strange bedfellows as democrats and corporate America aren't usually on the same side of any issue.
As for Camp floating a bill strictly out of spite? It's low, but in the universe of GOP dick moves, it's just par for the course.
President Obama smoozed with the Republican leash holders, leaving the Republican middle men completely out...
Hornets are pissed!
When we are remiss in our reflections
Reverberations with slight deceptions
Employing the hard won tools we gained when we were two
Becoming a boomers bell
Lets yank the banks
Not just because
But because
Now aren't I swell
Since the Declaration of Independence, it has always been the assumption in this country that the sanctity of life is an unalienable right. This has been convieniently ignored in death-penalty states, of course, but that's another kettle of fish. Or is it?
The true question here is the "when." When does a life become sacred? This has been and always will be the crux of the matter. Is it at conception? Is it a certain point during pregnancy? Or, is it at birth? This is the question that everything else hinges on.
We could dicuss philosophic points and counter-points, but I fear that we would end up right back where we started with, "Search me." We just don't know.
Apparently, neither does the Catholic Church, at least in this case.
How convienient.