During Wednesday night's presidential debate, Mitt Romney sought to cast himself as a crusader for financial reform, championing tough new Wall Street regulations and sparring with President Obama over delays in the implementation of several key provisions at the heart of the Dodd-Frank Act.
Romney also sought to paint the president as an ally of Wall Street banks, charging that Dodd-Frank enshrined the status of the "Too Big To Fail" financial institutions, thus guaranteeing future taxpayer bailouts. Dodd-Frank, Romney claimed, "designates a number of banks as 'too big to fail,' and they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest kiss that's been given to New York banks I've ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them."
There is, perhaps, a legitimate critique to make of the President's signature financial reform bill -- specifically, that it didn't go far enough in constraining the power of the nation's biggest banks, and that it should have broken up banks deemed "too big to fail."
Nonetheless, Romney's argument is disingenuous. For one thing, Dodd-Frank actually subjects those "too big to fail" banks to much stricter regulatory scrutiny and capital requirements. And it doesn't guarantee that they'll be propped up taxpayers (in fact, it gives federal authorities the power to wind down those banks if they are ever in danger of collapsing).
So Romney's claim is wrong on policy. But it's also politically disingenuous, because the very agencies responsible for writing and enforcing the rules at the heart of Dodd-Frank -- such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- have been under relentless attack from Republicans seeking to neuter or eliminate them since the day Dodd-Frank was passed in July 2010. And for their efforts, Republicans have been handsomely rewarded by their patrons on Wall Street.
The graph above represents the total number of donations given to the top 20 recipients of campaign cash from the finance, insurance and real estate industries, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics. Of the nearly $73.6 million given to those 20 candidates, including President Obama and Mitt Romney, more than 70 percent, or $52 million, has gone to Republicans.
Romney has received the most, by far. Donors in the finance, insurance and real estate industries have given him more than $28 million as of September. President Obam has received just over $12 million from those sources.
After the presidential candidates, the top recipients of donations from finance, insurance and real estate sources are Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and House Speaker John Boehner. The top Democratic recipient of finance, industry and real estate cash is Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York. Of those top 20 recipients, seven are Democrats, and 13 are Republicans.
:: Sal Gentile (@salgentile) is a segment & digital producer for Up w/ Chris Hayes ::
Leave a Comment:
The disingenuous leader has been a successful meme for the right in the past- that of the cunning politician who tricks the rabble or their elected representatives into doing what is best of the nation. Yet this is in opposition to a popular theme in the New Right. In many respects the TParty enthusiasts expressed a groundswell revolt not just against progressive victories, but against the inauthenticity of Romney style politicians- the "read my lips" rich boys who say anything on the campaign trail, but don't deliver. The movement seethes with resentment of betrayal by the country club elites and Wall Street, as their fervent support is repayed by doing the exact opposite in office.
It appears we won't have a debate on what went wrong on Wall Street, and how best to reform our system. Because the champion for Wall Street's point of view declined to show up.
Not that Wall Street will complain much. The status quo of leadership theory is that you must engage in trickery to get large numbers of people of divergent views to follow you. The Machiavellian strategies are an age old and well documented art. The status quo is to rank politicians on their ability at stagecraft and showmanship. What matters to Wall Street is that the leader achieve power so that he take actions that has some bottom line payoffs for them. The skill of salesmanship that Romney delivered is what led Chris Matthews to refer to Romney's performance as "masterful" on the October 5th Charlie Rose . If you were to ask Matthews as different question- whether the debater presented a coherent, logically convincing and factual argument, then I think that Matthews would agree that Romney failed, and not just miserably. It was ludicrous for an American politician who has risen to national prominence to present his position with a relentless stream of deliberately vague assertions about his proposals backed by factually inaccurate statements.
American politicians can do better, and have done better in more heated times with far less educated citizenry, with media much more rudimentary. There was good reason to believe that Romney was going to present himself as he has, and stick to the propositions that the right has advocated. It is an intellectually coherant point of view that Romney expressed in his 47% video. People actually did hold the positions that Stephen Douglas held. When he met Lincoln in a series of debates, both of them earnestly and authentically presented their positions. Lincoln and Douglas pointed to the inconsistencies in each other's position with a backdrop of a public indulging in darkly racist sentiments. In it, Lincoln himself makes some deeply racist statements as he denies Douglas's attempt as branding him as an abolitionist. Historians point out that Lincoln was actually not a saint free of racist sentiment, nor did he privately favor radical reforms and cynically dissemble to the public, presenting a more politically palatable veneer of lies hiding his true intentions. Lincoln honestly had complicated, conflicting views and held a centrist position. What we saw in the Lincoln Douglas debates was pretty much where both of the candidates stood.
The two speakers were authentic and presented their profoundly divergent views in a clear way.
It was the kind of debate that Obama has often said that he looked forward to having. Up until Wednesday, Romney gave every indication he wished to engage in that competition between ideas. They doubled down, tripled down on ideas such as the narrative that the country is at a tipping point into socialism and that what is needed is to cut off those who expect to be dependent on the state. People who honestly believe this point of view did not see their views argued on Wednesday. Romney didn't want to have that debate, because the authenticity of the Right is not playing well politically.
The far Right understandably did not growse about it, as their reveled in the glory a spectacle of a Wizard of Oz routine which did not represent their ideas but appeared to startle the opponent with the audacity of its prestidigitation.
If the president appeared disappointed he had shown up for a debate that would not occur, there is good cause for that disappointment to be shared by all those who are sincerely interested in the open competition between the two starkly opposing views standing behind each of the candidates.
Hayes recieved a tweet and he read it on air correcting the record on legislation that would break up the too big to fail banks. The Brown-Kaufman amendment to Dodd Frank only won 33 votes in the Senate and was vigorously opposed by the Obama White House. Brown reintroduced the idea as the Safe Banks act.
I pointed out that no one nowadays wants to believe how conflicted Lincoln was about race. Similarly, Obama is highly conflicted about Wall Street. He pointed out the Wall Street CEOs in 2008, “My administration is the only thing standing between you and the pitchforks.” Obama has provided a good shield for them, with virtually no prosecutions, and puny settlements that are so insignificant in proportion to profits that they are a cost of doing business.
The system has not been reformed despite the titanic efforts of all the legislators and experts who have thrown their heart and soul into it.
Alex Klein at the Daily Beast had an excellent overview of the subject. It is worth the read.
"We The People" no longer run this government!
Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (F.I.R.E.) sector has invested a total of $4.2 billion in political power
I am NOT a whiz at economics. That said, I wonder why we're not trying to reinstate Glass Steagall. I remember when I first heard about some banks being "too big too fail." And, my immediate was response was --- well, make them smaller. That was made from my economic ignorance. But, I think I was right. It would be right to go back to when the commercial banks and the investment banks were separate. That makes a lot of sense to someone like me.
I'm with Chris all the way. I'm an egalitarian, too.
And, I'm an environmentalist. Nothing about the GOP appalls me more than their lack of concern for the environment. Where do all the rich people think their children and grandchildren will live after the corporations destroy the air, water and land?
Katie Purdon
First I agree, and second they (Rs) don't believe in science, or do not want to anyway, that would cut into their profits, can't have that,,, and judging from all the GOTP posts, they are incredibly selfish,, gimme , gimme, gimme, mine, mine, mine!!!
The genuine irony of the "gimme, gimme, gimme,mine, mine, mine" routine is those are all of the things the right routinely accuses the left of. When Mitt Romney was talking about the 47% he was saying those things to people who wanted to hear them. They wanted to hear them not so much because they genuinely believe them or honestly hate the poor but because they are projecting those things that they know they themselves are guilty of on to others. These are people who will take any avenue open to them to avoid spending money on anyone but themselves. Therefore if they are willing to be that way everyone else must be too and if they aren't they are at least in their opinion suckers.
I do not understand how anyone can conclude that Mitt Romney won the debate. It's true that he put on quite the "performance," but his responses to questions were dismally inadequate, misleading and disrespectful to the audience and President Obama. Romney appeared to be highly or unusually agitated, his eyelids wide open, sweat on his top lip, and unable to remain composed and still. President Obama did not allow himself to be pulled into Romney's routine. Instead, Obama remained distant from Romney's performance, because he understood how seriously flawed Romney's statements were. Why should the president allow a mere challenger to engage him seriously when it was obvious to any observer that Romney was disingenuous and duplicitous.
President Obama should not and did not have to respond to the barrage of dishonesty out of Romney's mouth. Nothing positive would have been accomplished by calling Romney a liar. A point by point refutation of Romney's mendacity would have given unwarranted credibility to his statements, as if it deserved discussion. President Obama did not fall into Romney's trap and by remaining aloof Obama demonstrated how little energy should be expended on an inexperienced businessman's ramblings.
Coffeetrip: Romney responded just like he said his son's do. He stuck to his lies. The tales of tape prove that all he did was tell one lie after another. If he thought iwould be to his political advantage, he would deny that his name is Willard. That is not calling someone out, Romneylike a child, smiled and stood by his lies. I would haave had some measure of respect for him if he stood up for his prior positions and defended them. It's like Senator Kennedy described him, he is "multiple choice". We, the American people got suckered into a war with Iraq based on the lies of the Bush administration. I do not want another liar like Bush in the White House again. We paid too high a price. Since Romney lied so much, he cannot be trusted to run this country!
I would not hire Willard Romney to walk my dog, let alone run the country. His only qualification for the presidency is how badly he wants to be the first Mormon president in the Latter Day Saints entire history. He and Ryan do not discuss policies because Romney's agenda goes far beyond mere policies.
The republican vultures from the George W. Bush administration are circling the White House in the event that Romney should win. The republicans need not worry about their base, because it would vote a monkey or criminal into the White House as long as they win.
The most insulting aspect of Romney's entire campaign is the gall it takes to bribe his supporters with a huge tax cut. A Romney administration will simply return campaign contributions in the form of tax cuts. The press perceived using taxpayer dollars to pay back campaign contributions was an act of "genius" not a criminal act.
Conservatives love it when their elected officials and representatives get away with some whopper or misdeed. Both acts are proof of the pragmatic and realistic perspective that Romney has cultivated to lord over others. Romney's behavior during the debate was a warning about unhinged and dishonest behavior. Though it is true that Romney spoke more wpm than President Obama, he had a difficult time remaining still and calm, he had a wild-eyed expression and once started never stopped sweating. Willard is not the man I want to represent the U.S. with the international community.
If one becomes all warm and fuzzy when the imagine a competent CEO running the U.S. he should remember that there is a reason that government should not be run as a business. The most important missions of government are not profits, but to provide for the national defense, uphold the laws and improve the general welfare of American citizens.
I was just approached by the Republican Party in my State for a donation of which I have been a member of this party for 35 years. I simply told them; any time I do business with someone, I expect honesty, Integrity, being totally forthright, have a feeling of trust, and if you can name me just one example where Romney has shown any of those trademarks without taking any of his words back, or switching position, I have a $2,500.00 donation for them. After listening to each of their examples for five minutes, I got them to admit that in everyone of those cases, Romney lied, switch position, did not represented the truth of what Obama said or was his position. Then I said "that there was no way in hell I was going to donate money to an empty suit who had nothing but his ambition that drove him, and was more concern to him achieving that goal than helping the American People". I then opened my office door and told them "not to count on anymore help from me as long as the Party kept who ever was making decisions in power. The Republican party did not deserve to have less government in our life as long as these crazy people and special interest groups were driving the ship". I then kindly told them to leave.
And hayes hammers American companies on there size and tax classification.
And same for Ro.
The UP with socialism show. 120 minutes of why hayes hates America.
ho-lee-cow
Wow,, you call that hate?
I would love to hear your take on Rush Limbaugh,,,
Rush never goes after American companies.
Next I don't agree with everything rush has to say.
But hayes is a socialist and it shows every time he talks.
He should move to Cuba and give he way of thinking a try in real life.
Somehow I don't think that word means what you think it means. Do you actually know what Socialism is? Do you understand the differences in socialism as applied by Economic policy vs. Social policy? Or do you know what those are either?
DRAGON--- I do, care to discuss. Your Commander In Chief is Socialistic. And No body on this bloody forum can disprove me of it.
Carbon, what on earth is this dude talking about.
Fact is the earth heats up cool downs with out human intervention.
10,000 year ago there was an ice age, and the ice started to melt away and there was no gasoline, oil, coal, being used.
Notice the greenies never talk about that.
Well lets stop calling rapists rapists, murders murders, convects convects, etc.
If the shoe fits wear it.
Magnetic generators have existed since Nicola Tesla the oil companies and their cash cow ruined the free energy industry ...this is worth a topic for "Lean Forward".
New discovery from lightning provides the answer to world "Carbon footprint" ...Antimatter from hydrogen newly discovered. Rpmantle.com
Antimatter from hydrogen.
Okay Mr Spock.
Ever notice hayes points and shakes his finger at everyone.
That is one of the most disrespectful things a person can do to another person.
I dread seeing Lizz Winstead come on a serious show, because she is incapable of discussing serious issues without instinctively cannibalizing them for laugh lines.
The job of a comedienne (-ian) is to get laughs, and some of them know how to shut that off and leave it off, like shutting off your cell phone at a funeral or in class — Jon Stewart and John Fugelsang are two that know this — know how to be on camera out of "character".
And some just never bothered to learn — they are "characters" all the time.
I thought romney was a man of god, why does he lie so repeatedly? the only people who believe his lies is people who are also liers.
I have been looking on these pages for a way to contact the show hosts with a couple of subjects I would like to see discussed or at least considered by interviews with historians. I basically believe that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This belief prompts my need to hear historians discuss any parallels they see between the early stages of National Socialism in Germany during the 1930's and the programs and postions proposed by the far right. My personal sense is that there are numerous parallels - but I do not have the depth of knowledge that good historians could bring to the subject.
I think that posting this here is a bit like casting bread on the waters, but I hope the idea eventually comes ashore and be found by program staff where it can be considered.