Why the Bank Tax is Smart Politics, if Substantively Minor

[alcibiades_mystery]

At the outset, I should say this: the first person to use the word "chess" in this thread is an asshole. I'm making a plain argument for plain politics, not parlor games.

Suppose we believe that the trend is running against the Democrats for 2010. One of the reasons for this is that the Republicans have grasped some faux populist message and positioned themselves, putatively, against the Big Banks, at least as a rhetorical matter. What the bank fee does is pressure that political/rhetorical position.

They have several options, none of them good:

1) Filibuster the bank fee - what would be the implications for siding with the banks in, say, the Spring of 2010. Disastrous for the 2010 midterms, that's what. It's perfect timing to get every GOP floor speech opposing the excise tax into the commercial line-up for November. They'll all be on record siding with the most unpopular group in American society.

2) Own their faux populism and vote for the bank fee. Isn't this easy enough? No, not really, and for two reasons. While the bankers are deeply unpopular with the 15 or 20% mushy middle that Republicans need for big gains, the principled movement conservatives would be outraged that a) the GOPers gave Obama what he wanted (the strategy is the BLOCK EVERYTHING), and b) that the GOPers voted for a tax targeted (in principle) at compensation. Moreover, a bulk of the GOP's fundraising arm comes from precisely the categories of people who will be affected by or opposed to the fee. The GOPers will be seen as siding with a cheap populism against their core constituency, and it may affect fundraising at a crucial time. Again, lose.

The bank fee is starting to look like the Obama version of the 2002 Iraq War Resolution: the vote that cuts the opponents off at the knees at precisely the right time.

Substantively, it is a fairly minor fee, and won't really affect much. Politically, it is smart, and perhaps the first drawn weapon in the midterms.

[SharonAnn]

1. The sound bite "We want our money back, and we're going to get it." was great.

That's the way this will be remembered.

"We want our money back! And we're going to get it!"

Good job on framing the message!

[northzax]

2. interesting take

I hadn't thought of it that way (and I support the fee, by the way) what it also does, I think, is provide a platform for continuing to raise the point that the Obama administration has actually gotten almost all the TARP I and II money back already, at a profit no less. which needs to be said, even here, again and again.

[Robb]

3. Can I say "chess"

...just to be contrarian, then agree with you? :D

Good analysis.

[Catshrink]

7. oh my

:hi:

[napi21]

4. Yep! It sends the message the majority of the Am. people want!

Those damn banks got everything at my expense! I'm sure the join the Prez in saying "I want it BACK!!!!

I can't wait to see what the Pubs do with this one!

[inthebrain]

5. Basicly the fee is REACTIONARY

The cons will play this as "you're taxing people for making money"

The progs will play, "We really showed those thieves."

The truth of the matter is that this lil tax still stands as a big win for the banks. They are handing out more in bonuses this year than this taz will raise over ten. This taz, in what it will raise barely covers what these banks got WITH NO STRINGS ATTATCHED over ten years.

This is a reactionary measure.

[Catshrink]

6. He said he didn't run for President so that fat cat bankers could get bonuses

or something like that. This proves it. And you're right, he captures the populist anti-bank sentiment.