For months, I've been waiting for populist rage at the economic collapse and the subsequent bailouts to explode and cause political fallout. In fact last September I thought there was a chance John McCain, looking for a game-changer, would oppose the (first) Wall Street bailout as a conservative populist and reboot and reenergize his campaign. McCain made a few head fakes in that direction, but ultimately he chickened out.
In the months since, politicians on both sides of the aisle have bitched and moaned about Wall Street and the assorted bailouts under way, but no one has truly ignited a populist crusade against those big-money players who have ruined the economy and their pals in Congress. In January, a consultant told me that he had conducted focus groups with Americans of different economic standing, different party affiliations, and different levels of education, and that he had found that few of them were willing to express any anger at either Washington or Wall Street. Many, he noted, had said that perhaps they had spent too much money on things they really didn't need. He was quite surprised by this. No matter how hard he tried to stir up populist resentment--with loaded questions--he couldn't get that sort of a rise of these people.
So where's all the outrage? MSNBC's First Read newsletter has an interesting take on this:
Rage Against The Machine: Anger at Wall Street and at America's financial institutions has been simmering for a while now -- the numerous bailouts, Bernie Madoff, and Jon Stewart vs. CNBC have been just a few examples. But with the news over the weekend that AIG, 80% of which is now owned by the federal government, is awarding millions in bonuses to executives has most likely turned that anger into a furious boil. As the New York Times' Nagourney writes, this populist backlash presents a huge challenge for an Obama administration that might have to hand out additional bailouts to further stabilize the banking industry. ("The biggest risk is that we don't have the political will," Fed chairman Ben Bernanke warned last night on "60 Minutes." "We don't have the commitment to solve this problem, and that we let it just continue.") But the populist rage also might present a bigger challenge to the political party that's more associated with big business, less regulation, and tax cuts for the wealthy. In fact, if there was a time for the Obama administration and Democrats to push to let the Bush tax cuts to expire, to press for the Employee Free Choice Act (or "card check"), or to institute new regulations, this is the time, right? Still, now's a time when everyone in Washington is suddenly going to be channeling his/her inner-populist. Who will have the most credibility doing it? As for the short term, Congress is going to want a pound of flesh (and then some) from AIG. Obama also will discuss AIG during his remarks today.
The White House does have to make a careful calculation. It does not want to end up on the wrong side of a populist wave. And Obama and his aides know this; recall his not-yet-detailed proposal to cap executive compensation and perks. But at the same time, Obama has to fix the system--which means he has to work with the institutions that caused the damage. It's tough to bash and build at the same time. (Obama, no doubt, will be slamming AIG for awarding bonuses to the execs who lead the company to ruin.) The Obama gang has demonstrated that it can thread political needles. But this will continue to be a tough one. Moreover, there will continue to be an opening for Republicans--if any have the spine to go for it.
![[RSS]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/rss_icon.gif){kind=icon}
![[ARCHIVES]](http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/templates/images/archives_icon.png){kind=icon}
Comments
Changing out the management in these large financial institutions would be a good (and justifiable) start. Along with the cash infusions to keep them solvent, we need to create a different mentality in their leadership. The best way to do that is to bring in new management.
We should also insist on breaking into pieces those financial companies that were "too big to let fail."
Posted by: Antidote
| March 16, 2009 12:52 PM
Changing out the management at the top of these financial institutions would be a good (and justifiable) start). We need to create a different mind set in these companies. The best way to do that is to bring in new management.
We also need to break into pieces those financial companies that were "too big to let fail."
Posted by: Antidote
| March 16, 2009 12:55 PM
If any of the AIG execs had either a sense of shame or an ability to perceive the pubic groundswell building against them, they' REJECT the offered bonuses, or give the bonus money to charities dedicated to helping the poor and unemployed in this country.
The first AIG executive to speak up with either a rejection or donation of the bonus would be hailed as a Big Damn Hero.
Posted by: helzapoppn
| March 16, 2009 1:26 PM
No president or politician can ever convince me these bailouts aren't insane.
The money is in numbers I have a hard time imagining.
There will always be problems and frauds and cheats. That certainly didn't start this Jan 20th.
At this point in time AIG should downsize by exactly the numbers of people who quit because they didn't get their bonus. Let them sue if they think they can.
We are talking about the big insurance company that denies little Timmy his treatment because of some obscure exclusion? Their teams of lawyers couldn't just write the executives letter denying bonuses because the company had to go to the public for money?
This whole stinker has more to do with the companies than the Whitehouse - both insane but in different ways.
Posted by: capt
| March 16, 2009 2:13 PM
Even with the crimes of Busheney (or because of them) the RW will try to flank the WH and the dems and portray them as "soft on crime" and "not for justice" the framing will be some old worn out GOP talking points.
If Obama and his team are on top of it - they won't let it happen.
Posted by: capt
| March 16, 2009 2:22 PM
As a reward for killing 1,400 Palestinians in the Gaza blitzkrieg, ignoring U.S. demands to stop the building of "settlements" on the West Bank, and vigorous efforts to breach our security and steal highly classified information via its Washington fifth column, Tel Aviv has been reassured by President Barack Obama that $30 billion in aid will not be cut. World financial crisis? Impending US bankruptcy? Obama's newfound sense of fiscal responsibility? Put it out of your mind. All it takes is one phone call from Chuck Schumer, a tête-à-tête with Nancy Pelosi, and an editorial or two in the Washington Post, and – poof! – "change" turns into continuity. Obama will keep Bush's promise, and you can take that to the bank.
Continuity and Change
http://tinyurl.com/canu9m
Posted by: as_if!
| March 16, 2009 2:36 PM
President Obama orders Treasury secretary to work to block AIG bonuses
http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001011/
*****
Gobama!
Posted by: capt
| March 16, 2009 2:47 PM
Hold those politicians feet to the fire!
Including BHO's.
Even FDR had to be fairly seriously reminded, especially early on.
Posted by: David B. Benson
| March 16, 2009 8:56 PM
there might be some private outrage but we are a long way from significant public displays of outrage.
hey 'American Idle' is still on!
Posted by: as_if!
| March 16, 2009 10:25 PM
Obama "Outraged" at AIG?
Apparently the president was "outraged" that AIG paid out $165M in pay and bonuses after his own congress forced $175B down their throats in the face of reported 10:1 to voter opposition (that was the low end).
I guess the president doesn't follow Goldman Sachs, which paid out a company record $11B in pay and bonuses after grabbing $10B from taxpayers.
Gee, let's see...
$11B (GS) vs. $165M (AIG)
110% of taxpayer funds (GS) vs. 0.1% of taxpayer funds (AIG)
http://tinyurl.com/dxazo9
Posted by: as_if!
| March 17, 2009 2:18 AM
US Troops Killed Iraqi Girl With ‘Warning Shot’
A 12 year old Iraqi girl was killed today when US forces fired “warning shots” at a vehicle in Nineveh Province. The press release said the girl was standing about 100 meters behind the vehicle which was being warned: it was not clear if the drivers of the vehicle were sufficiently surprised by the shooting of the innocent girl just 100 meters from them.
Posted by: as_if!
| March 17, 2009 12:59 PM
Post A Comment