That’s the gist of yesterday’s post by James Pethoukoukis. The column says:
A historic victory, really. It is hard to overstate just how “blue” a state Massachusetts is. Obama won it by 26 percentage points in 2008. Until now the state’s 10 U.S House members, two U.S. senators and all statewide officers were Democrats. The state hasn’t had a Republican U.S. senator since 1979. And, of course, the seat Brown captured had been held by the late Edward Kennedy since 1962…
Financial reform legislation was already likely to get milder rather than stronger. But not so the rhetoric. Unable to trumpet the economy, hitting Wall Street is one of the few political bullets Democrats have left.
So expect the Obama administration to go all out for the bank tax with increasingly harsh words for big financial institutions. Democrats may also be more willing to consider controversial proposals banks hate, like letting judges rework mortgages.
And this seems to be exactly what is occurring. I see this latest salvo as confirmation that my “incomplete” grade on Obama’s economic policy is the right one. Is Obama all hat and no cattle and doing this just because of voter anger as Marshall Auerback recently said? Or are the Volcker-backed reforms going to be real ones which for which Obama also pushes 100% win, lose or draw?
I’m now running a poll embedded in this post on Obama’s ‘War on Wall Street’ to see what you think.
- a political stunt after the stunning defeat in Massachusetts.
- the real deal. He just needs to stick to his guns.
- only a start. But, it’s the best we’ve seen so far.
- counter-productive. We’ve seen enough big government. Leave Wall Street alone.
Please feel free to comment on why you responded as you did.
You can read the rest of Jimmy P’s post at the link below.
Source
Brown win could spark Obama war on Wall Street – James Pethoukoukis, Reuters
Originally published at Credit Writedowns and reproduced here with the author’s permission.
4 Responses to “Did Brown’s Win Spark Obama’s War on Wall Street?”
Guest • January 22nd, 2010 at 4:42 pm
It’s my belief that Obama waited until most of the bank bailout money was repaid before he entertained the thought of taking away the means of repayment.
Bob Dobbs • January 23rd, 2010 at 5:26 am
A stunt. The current administration is in one time only. They won as a populist personality cult. Now that the truth is setting in, and people are demanding jobs, money, etc . . . they will have to scramble. By the way, the previous administration did no better. They just managed to get reelected once.
villager • January 23rd, 2010 at 7:25 am
The Administration has admitted to no mistake and the President continues to support Bernanke. The ‘War on Wall Street’ is a political stunt.The economic strategy needs to focus not only on Wall Street but on jobs and incomes for all citizens. As one commentator said on another occasion, a ‘Jobs Summit’ is grossly insufficient compared to what has been directed to Wall Street.Supposedly Obama has experience as a community organizer. His learning experience must have been a failure otherwise he would have an understanding on how to proceed in addressing jobs and incomes. This Administration is like the previous one, a fraud.
Guest • January 24th, 2010 at 2:37 pm
A stunt. And a bad one in an already fraqile recovery. Obama is acting like a petulant child. It’s almost like he’s dishing out punishment.
