Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Scott Brown joins the BS about the Wall Street reform bill

By

So disappointing — and yet, so unsurprising.

Senator Scott Brown said this morning that he would join a Republican filibuster to block a package of financial overhauls from coming to a vote in the Senate….

“I think the president’s political arm is now taking over this debate,” Brown said during a 13-minute interview on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “And it’s unfortunate because I, like many others in my state and throughout the country, want banks to be banks. They don’t want them to be casinos. They don’t want them to take risky bets on our money.”

Apparently, Brown did not bother to explain what it was that he found lacking in the Democratic approach to this issue, other than the made-up claim that it would cost staggering numbers of jobs.

Without elaborating or explaining where he got the estimate, Brown also claimed the bill would cost 25,000 to 35,000 jobs.

Personally, I would love to see an interview with Brown in which someone forces him to actually explain what the problem is on Wall Street and how he would fix it.  It would be Couric/Palin all over again.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. …I called Brown’s office Friday after reading your post and linked article about Brown’s comments that the (weak) reform bill would hurt small banks…I asked how would it do that and the aide said by keeping the “to big to fail” banks alive who would then reck havoc on the smaller banks, which makes little sense.

    <

    p>I then asked if the Senator was in favor of shrinking the “to big to fail” firms by having the government break them up…which of course he said no to.

    <

    p>And there lies their problem…they take a populist rhetorical approach to opposing the reform (“another bailout”), yet there are only two alternatives they can take in opposition to this reform–do nothing which HOPEFULLY the public and the press will see thru that (but I’m often wrong on that point)–or advocate even stronger reforms, which they’ll never do.

    <

    p>Brown’s comment, ” I, like many others in my state and throughout the country, want banks to be banks. They don’t want them to be casinos. They don’t want them to take risky bets on our money” is an example of this.  

    <

    p>The follow up question–in the extended interview you hope Brown has on this–would be, “so if you want ‘banks to be banks’ would you be in favor of repealing the repeal of Glass Steagall? ”  Or, “if you don’t want banks to be casinos, would you require them to have the assets to back up their ‘bets’ and not be allowed to borrow money to place bets?”

    <

    p>Bring back Glass Steagall and/or requiring all “bets” to be backed up with an assets are exactly what Wall Street does not want–so HOPEFULLY this Republican rhetoric opposing reform because they oppose all the bad things Wall Street did, will blow up in their face.  

  3. …he claims a job loss of 25,000 to 30,000 compared to how many unemployed people today thanks to the shenanigans of the Goldman Sachs and AIG types?

  4. Like Palin, Brown kept trying to get back to prepared talking points.  Schieffer was having none of it.

    <

    p>Here’s the Face the Nation version of the Globe story.  

    <

    p>

    Brown suggested that the financial reform bill in its current form would hurt Massachusetts. He specifically referenced Liberty Mutual and Mass Mutual as companies that would be adversely affected, claiming that the bill would lose the country 25,000 to 35,000 jobs.

    Schieffer asked how Brown could make that claim.

    “I can say it very clearly because the regulations that are trying to reel in with some of the risky hedging they’re doing also affects companies like I described in Massachusetts,” he said. “Secretary [of the Treasury Tim] Geithner has some of the same criticisms of the bill in that it doesn’t end the bailout mentality of the big banks are too big to fail concept.”

    He continued, “In addition there are a lot of things in the [Sen. Chris] Dodd (D-Conn.) bill that are just bad for business, small businesses in particular. And we should do better. I called the president out the other day and the administration to do better and stop politicizing these issues and just start solving problems.”

    “Don’t you think that Sen. McConnell might be a little bit guilty of politicizing when he comes out and just said flatly, ‘No! We’re against it’?” asked Schieffer.

    <

    p>BTW, the GOP’s new line is to accuse Obama of politicizing issues.  Amazing.  

    • I’m not arguing that a 13 minute interview on financial reform with a professional journalist is easy.  I couldn’t do it… but it would seem, neither can Senator Brown.  No specifics, rambling, not comfortable with his own talking points, just not senatorial.

      <

      p>Rambling about everybody else politicizing, and yet talking over and over again about being the 41st or the 60th (as if that’s his “job”), and not a single specific detail about a damn thing.

      <

      p>Oh, and Senator Brown: you’re a politician.  There damn well better be “politicization” at your workplace.

  6. He can never go into specifics because he doesn’t know what he is talking about beyond the simplistic populist talking points. I think the Washington Press Corps are starting or realize this guy may be the dullest bulb in the Senate chambers. Not ready for prime time.

  7. This is Brown’s quote when asked for his ideas:

    <

    p>

    When asked what areas he thought should be fixed, he replied: “Well, what areas do you think should be fixed? I mean, you know, tell me. And then I’ll get a team and go fix it.”

    <

    p>He pretty much said that he hasn’t a clue.  Thanks Scott, great job.

Archives