Mediaboss Marketing

THE TICKER

To understand where the debate over financial regulation stands today, it helps to rewind the clock.

Two years and two weeks ago, Hillary Clinton delivered a speech on New Yorks Roosevelt Island that formally launched her presidential bid. The address was heavy on personal biography, but it also nodded toward the policy themes shed develop over the campaign. The GOP hopefuls already crowding the race, she said, pledge to wipe out tough rules on Wall Street, rather than rein in the banks that are still too risky, courting future failures in a case that can only be considered mass amnesia.

Three days later, Donald Trump elbowed his way into the Republican field. And over the next several months, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)would rise from a gadfly to a serious threat to Clintons once-assumed coronation. Both outsiders were born aloft by twin engines of anti-establishment animus rumbling out on the parties wings.

Clinton went on to flesh out a program that in any other campaign would be considered notably strict on the financial industry. She advocated extending regulation to the world of so-called shadow banking by big insurance companies and hedge funds. She called for imposing a new risk fee on the biggest banks; raising taxes on activist investors and high-frequency traders; tightening the Volcker Rule; curbing executive compensation on Wall Street; and creating new tools for regulators and prosecutors to hold individual wrongdoers accountable.

Trump, on the other hand, vowed to dismantle the 2010 Dodd-Frank law, which he blamed for slowing economic growth by choking off lending. And he pledged to rip up regulations of every stripe. Yet borrowing a page from the Sanders playbook, he also managed to tag Clinton as the candidate friendliest to the industry. He hammered her for the Wall Street money she collected in speaking fees and checks to the Clinton Foundation. Goldman Sachs, he said at one point, had total control over Clinton. The ad that formed the closing argument of his campaign showed grainy footage of Clinton shaking hands with Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein. It painted Clinton as a tool of a shadowy globalist conspiracy. (Watch it here:)

In the first chapter of Trumps presidency, the struggle over financial regulation has passed through the looking glass. Where Trump offered a confused message on the campaign the Republican platform called both for eliminating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act that separated commercial and investment banking his administration has adopted an unequivocally pro-industry approach. Wall Street alums populate his economic brain trust. The road map for rethinking financial regulation that his Treasury Department issued earlier this month reads like a big bank wish-list.

Meanwhile, Democrats, who competed during the campaign to stake out the most aggressive stance toward policing the sector, now look hopelessly divided over which direction to head. When House Republicans brought their proposal for gutting Dodd-Frank to the floor earlier this month, Democrats disarmed. Instead of pushing amendments designed to highlight the GOPs pro-industry tilt, they held off, in part to avoid forcing their own finance-friendly members onto the record. And there was no talk at all about cranking the regulatory dial in the other direction of tightening rules, as Clinton had proposed on the campaign. The Democratic position instead was simply to defend the status quo: Our alternative is Dodd-Frank, one House Democratic leadership told me.

A similar dynamic has played out in the Senate. Last week, a handful of the most powerful Wall Street regulators assembled before the Senate Banking Committee to offer their thoughts about the future of regulation. The conversation revolved around how far to go lifting the industrys burden. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), for example, joined Republicans in endorsing an easing of the Volcker Rule. That left Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), scourge of the big banks, trying simply to hold the line for a regime under which theyre prospering. Institutions that entered the year nervous that a Glass-Steagall revival would gain traction could breathe a sigh of relief: Over the two-hour course of the hearing, the proposal wasnt mentioned.

Here was one financial regulation reporter's takeaway:

Whats going on here? Industry advocates say a law written in the immediate aftermath of a system-rattling crisis is ripe for technical tweaks. Its a view given credence by regulatory stalwarts calling for adjustments, a roster that includes Federal Reserve ChairJanet L. Yellen, former Fed governor Daniel Tarullo, and former Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) himself.

Critics say the party is missing a historic opportunity. We have a merger of Wall Street and the White House like no time in modern memory, says Dennis Kelleher, president of Better Markets, a nonprofit advocacy group. It should be a no-brainer. Focus groups of Rust Belt voters who backed Obama and then Trump affirm the conclusion. Guy Cecil chairman of Priorities USA, a Democratic super PAC has found those voters feel the Democratic Party no longer stands up for their interests and that it must do more to confront the industry.

Democratic waffling on the Wall Street question points to a more fundamental rift in the party about its shortest path out of the wilderness. The Posts Dan Balz, writing over the weekend, says Democrats are struggling to unify around a broader economic message:

Though united in vehement opposition to the president, Democrats do not speak with one voice. Fault lines and fissures exist between the ascendant progressive wing at the grass roots and those Democrats who remain more business-friendly. While these differences are not as deep as those seen in Trumps Republican Party, that hasnt yet generated a compelling or fresh message to take to voters who arent already sold on the party.

The debate has only just begun. For progressives, Balz writes, the answer to this problem is clear: a boldly liberal message that attacks big corporations and Wall Street and calls for a significant increase in governments role in reducing income and wealth inequality. Moderates are already resisting. But this much is clear: Standing against Trump is an insufficient strategy for defeating Republicans. And another campaign season, rapidly approaching, will force the question.

MARKET MOVERS

13 reactions to the Senate GOP health-care bill:

The GOP's intramural staring contest over health care enters the finals in the Senate this week. At least five Republican senators are now on record opposing the billcrafted behind closed doors by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and a handful of lieutenants. And several more expressed serious reservations over the weekend. A moment of truth is coming this week as the Congressional Budget Office prepares to releaseits analysis of the bill and its impact on costs and coverage. Senate GOP leaders are still pushing for a vote this week but the timing could slip.

If the deal now taking shape reaches the president's desk,millions including some of Trumps most ardent supporters are projected to lose coverage, receive fewer benefits or see their premiums rise.

Jared Kushner's real estate firm received a $285 million loan from Deutsche Bank just before the election, my colleagueMichael Kranish reports.The deal came as the bankwas negotiating to settle a federal mortgage fraud case and charges from New York state regulators that it aided a possible Russian money-laundering scheme. It settled the cases in December and January.The White House, in response to questions from The Post, said in a statement that Kushnerwill recuse from any particular matter involving specific parties in which Deutsche Bank is a party.

Trump is set to meetIndian prime minister Narendra Modi today. Modi is expected to press for more H1B visas for Indian immigrants and a deal to buy more U.S. arms.One point of potential leverage for Trump: the U.S. is the biggest buyer of goods and services from India, with that country enjoying a $25 billion trade surplus in the relationship, despite a $105 billion tradedeficit overall. The meeting between the leaders of the world's two largest democracies comes as the Trump Organization is pushing to double its real estate empire in India.

The global economy has picked up and prospects for the next few months are the best in a long time. But the recovery is maturing and faces risks from populist rejection of free trade and from high debt that could burden consumers and companies as interest rates rise.

Associated Press

Oil rose for a third straight session on Monday, as speculators took advantage of last week's drop to seven-month lows, although a relentless increase in U.S. supply and little evidence of a widespread drop in global inventories capped gains.

Reuters

MONEY ON THE HILL

House Republicans are looking to generate $1.5 trillion over a decade by zeroing out the deduction for interest that companies pay on debt. The proposal would whack everyone from Wall Street to wheat farmers, though it's gotten relatively little lobbying attention so far this year, the Wall Street Journal writes. Eliminating the deduction would have a massive impact on a U.S. financial system that favors debt over equity financing. Repeal is hardly assured, with the administration expressing wariness.

The AP takes a step back, meanwhile, toask and attemptto answer, why Republicans are having such a hard time cutting taxes, a defining priority for the party.

Bernie and Jane Sanders reportedly retained attorneys to represent them in a long-running investigation into the collapse of Burlington College.

David Weigel

POCKET CHANGE

There's some new real-world evidence supporting the argument for raising the minimum wage. UC Berkeley researchers say they've developed a model that shows Seattle's recently-increased pay standard hasn't depressed job availability. Nor has the city's minimum wage, which now stands at $13 an hour for workers atlarge companies, on its way toward $15 by 2021, raised the cost of living, Fast Company reports. But another new study finds that the wage increase has had the net effect of reducing low-wage workers' earnings.

Meanwhile, wage pressure at Uberhas apparently compelled the ride-hailing company to authorize tipping for the first time. The company announced last week it will be rolling out the practice in cities and then nationwide.

Some say former Vice President Joe Biden is too old to run for president in 2020, but he still knows how to throw a verbal punch -- just ask financier Bill Ackman.

Fox Business

CHART TOPPER

The Posts David Fahrenthold and Drew Harwell report that Trumps private Mar-a-Lago resort has seen a drop in events since he announced he would run for president:

TRUMP TRACKER

--Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin tied the knot with actress and producer Louise Linton on Saturday a wedding officiated by Vice President Mike Pence and attended by President Trump and members of his family.

First lady Melania Trump, Ivanka Trump and her husband, Kushner, attended the extravagant nuptials at the Andrew Mellon Auditorium in Washington. The affair included bagpipers and ballerinas, CNN reported.

TRIVIAL PURSUIT: The wedding was held at The Andrew Mellon Auditorium, just blocks from the White House. Andrew Mellon, for whom the building was named, was likewise a wealthy businessman-turned-Treasury Secretary, presiding over the roaring 1920s, through the market crash of 1929 and into the beginning of the Great Depression in 1932. The hall is one of two buildings in Washington named for him. He once lived in the other -- now known as the Andrew Mellon Building, at 1785 Massachusetts Ave. NW, and home to the American Enterprise Institute, the right-leaning think tank.

Welcome to Gurgaon, India, Mr. President. Its a mess.

Annie Gowen

DAYBOOK

Today

Coming Up

THE FUNNIES

From The Post's Tom Toles:

BULL SESSION

Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) announced he would not support the Republican Senate health-care bill:

Watch as Capitol Police officer Crystal Griner, who was injured during the shooting at a Republican baseball practice, throw out the first pitch before the Congressional Women's Softball Game last week:

Jimmy Fallon on Trumps campaign-style rally in Iowa:

Read this article:
The Finance 202: Democrats are more divided than ever over Wall Street regulations - Washington Post

In a piece in the Washington Post today, EJ Dionne allegedly lays out the three big lies about health care. It nicely encapsulates many of the Democrats political arguments against repeal (though unlike many of his allies, Dionne was kind enough to refrain from accusing Republicans of manslaughter in this column.) One of them, however, isnt a lie at all. The other is a debatable policy question, and the third is an absolute strawman.

Lie One:Democrats and progressives are unwilling to work with Republicans and conservatives on this issue.Dionne actually writes the following sentence: In fact, Democrats, including President Barack Obama when he was in office, have said repeatedly that they would like to work with Republicans to improve the Affordable Care Act.

Oh, is that what Obama said?

First off, lets talk about the absurdity of this framing, which drives a lot of coverage. It is odd, to say the least, that even after years of wide-ranging historic winsmany of them driven by an explicit promise to repeal ObamacareRepublicans are still the ones asked to work with Democrats to improve the Affordable Care Act. That isnt the issue. The question is: why dont Democrats have to work with Republicans to find the best way dismantle Obamacare? This is the topic democracy has laid on the table. Because as Obama might say, they won. And won. And won.

Second off, the passing of Obamacareeven more than the policy consequences of the billnot only decimated the Democratic Party but frayed our contemporary political order. The chances of any truly bipartisan major reform in the foreseeable future is nonexistent. Democrats were willing to push through major national restructuring of a massive chunk of the American economy without any buy-in from half the country. They created a new norm. So while no one is expecting liberals to help unravel Obamas signature legislation, the idea that Republicans should be expected to save it is weak.

It is true that Obamacare would likely die without Republican help. But those circumstances, claims Dionne, have been created by the GOP itself. A completely different coalition is available, but Republicans dont want to activate it because they are hellbent on repealing Obamacare. Why?

Democrats, who ignored the Constitution when it came to subsidy payments and ignored basic economics when it came to state exchanges, have only themselves to blame for writing a bad bill. Long before Donald Trump ever became president, insurance companies were fleeing state exchanges. Long before Donald Trump was president, premiums were increasing and choices were constricting.

Perhaps the ACA debate was a reflection of a coming national split, or perhaps it was partly the cause. Whatever the case, it is revisionism to claim that Democrats were interested in conservative ideas (and please spare me the individual mandate myth). The supposed liberal concessions were based on pretend hearings and meaningless feel-good letters. In truth, the only compromises that went on in earnest were between liberals who were worried about capturing the votes needed to pass any bill, and moderate Democrats who were worried that their careers would be destroyed. Both of these things would come to fruition.

Lie Two: This bill is primarily about improving health care for American families. No, this effort is primarily about cutting taxes. Now, its plausible that EJ Dionne can bore into the souls of everyone involved in the bill, but whatever you make of the Senates initial (moderate) proposal, and many conservatives hate it, its about a lot morethan tax cuts. When Democrats lean heavily on their go-to platitude about tax cuts for the rich, it undermines the notion that theyre serious about negotiating on anything.

Moreover, there is nothing in Obamacare that improves health care for American families (its like reading ad copy.) ACA was mostly about expanding coverage, not improving carethough Obamacares expectations and purpose have been dramatically reimagined since 2010 to create imaginary success. If we evaluate ACA using the parameters Democrats themselves laid out when campaigning and passing, it has failed on everything other than the massive expansion of welfare. Even then, it offers access by threatening and forcing people to buy insurance. This is tantamount to celebrating an increase in military recruitment after passing a draft.

Lie Three:The Senate bill is a compromise. Dionne doesnt offer a single example of any Republicans saying that their bill is compromise with Democrats, nor could I find one such example. So perhaps it exists, but certainly isnt a predominant talking point. It is a compromise in the same way that Obamacare was: between wings of the same party. The only difference is that the 2017 GOP is bothering to pretend otherwise.

In Dionnes defense, he does provide one big obvious fiction when admonishing moderate Republican senators not to vote for the GOP bill:

Do they really want to say someday that one of their most important votes in the Senate involved taking health care away from millions of Americans? I would like to believe they are too decent for that. I hope Im not lying to myself.

I think you are. Whatever you make of the Republican efforts to un-knot Obamacares state-driven control of healthcare insurance markets, none of their plans take health care away from a single American. What AHCA might get rid of is the individual mandate, which will end the unprecedented policy of forcing American consumer to buy things they dont want. And they maycolor me skepticalfollow through on rolling back future spending on Obamacares Medicaid expansion. Dont worry, though: despite what you may hear about the end of Medicaid, it will still be, by far, one of the biggest items in the U.S. budget.

Read the rest here:
The Democrats' Three Big Political Lies About Health Care - The Federalist

Two more candidates have filed paperwork to compete for the Democratic nomination to challenge Rep. Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) next year.

Alison Kiehl Friedman, an expert in combating human trafficking, and Deep Sran, founder of the Loudoun School for the Gifted, join an already crowded field.

Democrats think they have a chance to flip the Northern Virginia seat, which has been in GOP hands since 1980, after the area backed Democrat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election.

Comstock supporters say the congresswomans ability to outperform GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump by 16 points to win a second term cemented her dominance in the district.

The district includes Loudoun County and parts of Fairfax and Prince William counties, as well as Clarke and Frederick counties to the west. As the closest thing to a battleground district in the region, it attracts more than its share of activists and donors.

[Why a programmer from Maryland wants Northern Virginia to Dump Comstock]

A native of Takoma Park, Md., Friedman, 38, grew up in an activist household. While pregnant with Friedman, her mother founded Voters for Choice with Gloria Steinem and her father worked for a nonprofit organization that helped build assets for the poor.

Friedman earned a bachelors degree at Stanford University and worked at People for the American Way before joining the staff of then-Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.). She served as executive director of the Alliance to Stop Slavery and End Trafficking and in 2009, went to work for the State Departments anti-trafficking office.

Friedman said she was inspired to run by her daughter. The girl had written to Trump urging him to love instead of hate in the spirit of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., but feared he would discover her letter and bring guns to our house, Friedman said.

If my daughter is brave enough to write a note like that, she said, I do have the ability to do more, and what Ive always loved doing is working on protecting the worlds most vulnerable.

She disputed Comstocks claim that she leads on human trafficking because she supported legislation that President Barack Obama signed. Friedman opposes Trump on a host of issues, including, she said, his disregard for institutions vital to our democracy and his scapegoating of people of color and immigrants.

Friedman, who is pursuing an MBA through Oxford University, left the State Department in 2015, and moved from the District to McLean, in April of this year.

The newest candidate, Deep Sran, 45, grew up in Silver Spring, attended Montgomery County public schools, and earned a bachelors degree from the University of Maryland and a law degree from Georgetown. He worked for firms in Baltimore, Chicago and Washington for three years, but always felt like education was the way to make lasting social change.

Returning to the University of Maryland, he earned a doctorate in educational psychology and went on to teach and serve as curriculum director at the Cesar Chavez Public Charter High School. He moved to Ashburn, in the district where he is seeking office, in 2004, and still lives there with his wife and two daughters.

Tried of the long commute, he started a small private school, the Loudoun School for the Gifted, about a decade ago as a laboratory for education ideas that could work in public school, he said.

Its purely Field of Dreams if you build it they will come, he said. I love education. It is in my mind the way to build a better world.

Sran, whose parents are from India, said that with his background and experience, he can relate to the districts robust South Asian community.

I understand why small-business people dont tend to vote for Democrats, he said. On the other hand, my whole life has been about social justice.

At least seven Democrats, including Friedman and Sran, are running or say they plan to run for the party nomination to challenge Comstock.

State Sen. Jennifer Wexton, a former prosecutor from Loudoun County; Lindsey Davis Stover, who worked in Veterans Affairs during the Obama administration; and Dan Helmer, a Rhodes Scholar and Army veteran, announced their campaigns early, followed by David B. Hanson, a retired Navy intelligence officer from Clifton.

Kimberly Adams, past president of the Fairfax teachers union, said she will begin her campaign next month.

Democratic leaders in the congressional district will decide early next year whether to nominate a candidate through a state-run primary open to all voters or a party-run process.

Follow this link:
Field of Democrats competing to challenge Rep. Comstock grows by two - Washington Post

The eyes of the nation were on the special election in Georgias 6th Congressional District Tuesday. And, once the dust settled, Democratic leaders tried to spin it as a mix of good news and bad news.

The good news, according to Rep. Ben Ray Lujan, D-NM, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is that Jon Ossoff came so close. Despite the loss, we have a lot to be proud of, Lujan said. Which is kind of like the proverbial Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?

The fact is: Georgia 6 has been in Republican hands since 1979. In 2012, Mitt Romney won the district by more than 23 points. Tom Price, who abandoned the seat to become Donald Trumps HHS secretary, never got less than 60 percent. Even though Trump only carried the district last November by 1.5 points, its still a red district in a red state. So it is impressive that any Democrat proved so competitive, losing by only four points.

But: So what? Politics isnt beanbag. In politics, close doesnt mean anything. Theres only winning and losing. And winning is the only thing that counts. Jon Ossoff lost, even though he raised $23 million, more than any other congressional candidate in history, and outspent his Republican opponent Karen Handel. Jon Ossoff lost, even though this was billed as the race that would catapult Democrats back into control of Congress in 2018.

Yes, the bad news is that Jon Ossoff lost. And Democrats have to stop spinning about how well he did, all things considered, and start dealing with the reality of not only why he lost but why, in the four special elections held so far in 2017, Democrats have a record of 0-4.

Why did Democrats lose in Georgia 6? Two factors, above all others: Wrong candidate and wrong message. Jon Ossoff, former congressional staffer and documentary filmmaker, may be a bright young man, but he bombed as a candidate: too stiff, too cold, too reserved. Hes hardly the kind of guy youd want to go out and have a beer with. Hes more like the nerd youd do anything to avoid. He has all the charisma of a banana slug.

But Ossoff also had the wrong message. Not necessarily a bad message. He didnt say anything offensive. Just the wrong message. He didnt say anything particularly inspiring, either. He didnt focus on Donald Trump. He didnt adopt the progressive platform of Bernie Sanders. He just cast himself as the policy wonk who would do good things for his district when the public clearly wanted more.

According to leading political strategist Stanley Greenberg, Ossoff and his team made one other fatal mistake. They were so determined to keep the race based on local issues that they failed to respond when Republicans raised the stakes by painting Ossoff as an acolyte of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and her liberal San Francisco values. Its a tired, old, phony line of attack, but it still works in some parts of the country, especially if you dont respond.

Once Republicans had so nationalized the race, Greenberg told me, Ossoff had no alternative but to also talk about the national importance of Georgia 6. He could have done so by focusing on the Republican health care bill, which would take health protection away from 23 million Americans and be the first vote cast by whoever won the Georgia special. But he chose not to. He stayed local, instead, and lost.

The Democrats loss in Georgia 6 is all the more ironic when compared to what happened in South Carolina 5. In Georgia, Jon Ossoff received $6 million from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and a ton of national publicity. In South Carolina, Democrat Archie Parnell received only $275,000 from the DCCC and zero national publicity.

Yet, when the votes were counted, Parnell scored better than Ossoff. He lost by only 2,836 votes, which says something about where the national Democratic Party is today. The more establishment party leaders love you, the worse voters like you and the less likely they are to vote for you.

It doesnt mean Democrats have less chance of taking back control of the House. According to strategist Charlie Cook, there are 71 districts now held by Republicans that are more favorable to Democrats than Georgia 6. But it does underscore where Democrats have to start in order to win back the House in 2018: find and field better candidates starting with a candidate who lives in the district, which Jon Ossoff did not.

Bill Press is host of a nationally syndicated radio show. He can be reached by email at bill@billpress.com.

Read this article:
Press column: Coming close in Georgia no win for Democrats - Portage Daily Register

Photo: J. Scott Applewhite

Democrats to offer platform on economy in attempt to end losing streak

Democrats have been losing elections by not offering voters a bold economic agenda, and the party plans to change that by releasing a platform within a month that won't be "baby steps," Senate Minority Leader Leader Charles E. Schumer said Sunday.

Congressional Democrats will try to pass the plan legislatively over the next year a remote possibility given Republican control of Congress and will campaign on it during the 2018 midterm elections, Schumer, D-N.Y., said on ABC's "This Week."

"Democrats need a strong, bold, sharp-edged and common-sense economic agenda," Schumer said. "Policy, platform, message that appeal to the middle class, that resonate with the middle class."

With Republicans controlling the White House and Congress, and Democrats unable to score a win in recent special elections for open congressional seats, the party's trying to find an effective approach beyond simply opposing President Donald Trump and Republican policies.

Some Democrats have questioned whether House Minority Leader Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., should be replaced to give the party new leadership heading into the 2018 elections.

Schumer didn't offer details about the g economic plan but said the top lesson for Democrats after losing to Trump in 2016, and more recently a hard-fought and costly special election in Georgia on June 20, is that it's not enough for the party to simply oppose Trump and that an economic message is missing.

Continue reading here:
Democrats to offer platform on economy in attempt to end losing streak - Albany Times Union