By the afternoon of 19 January 2010,
President Barak Obama’s honeymoon had come to an
end. Massachusetts, which hadn’t elected a
Republican senator since 1972, decided to rebel. Big
time.
Thousands of young, middle-aged and older people
formed anti-big government groups under the rubric
of the Tea Party. Using the anti-establishment
symbolism of the Boston Tea Party of December 1773,
they rallied voters throughout the state. The
result: Scott Brown, a good looking, conservative
boy-next-door, born in 1959 and a neophyte in
national politics, staged one of the biggest
electoral upsets in recent times.
In a 43-point swing away from the Democrats, Brown
was given a resounding thumbs up. It was the worst
defeat for a Democrat in recent times. Tens of
thousands of people who had earlier voted for the
Democrats, were worried about US debt and government
profligacy, and had had enough.
The daggers are out for Obama. With the Republicans
now having 41 Senate seats out of 100, the Democrats
have lost their ‘super-majority’ — the three-fifths
needed to bring out a vote of closure or guillotine,
and to end a filibuster. Every key legislative bill
can now face Republican filibustering; and huge
amounts of bi-partisan accommodation will be needed
to pass bills in the Congress. This is particularly
true of Obama’s healthcare reforms bill — difficult
to pass in the best of times, but which may now be
fought to the bitter end. Remember what happened to
William Jefferson Clinton in his first term with
heathcare reforms? That can happen to Obama as well.
Massachusetts may be the beginning. There could be
others to follow, when 16 US senators among the
Democrats come up for re-election. Most are
expecting dangerous times at the hustings.
Today, the US Main Street sentiments are so
anti-government, that even good news doesn’t count
for much. Nobody cares that the economy grew by 5.7
per cent (annualised) in Q4 2009, after 2.2 per cent
in Q3. The voters see non-farm unemployment at 9.7
per cent in January 2010 — higher than what it has
been since June 1983, which was almost 27 years ago.
They see still more job losses; rising home loan
foreclosures; and pain in Main Street at a time when
the Wall Street ‘fat cats’ are giving themselves
huge bonuses.
That’s why, despite earning solid profits, JP Morgan
Chase’s bonus of $9.7 billion to its investment
bankers was slammed by the press. As was Morgan
Stanley’s, which had the gall to reward bonuses in
spite of its first loss in 74 years. And Goldman
Sach’ significantly lower bonus pool. To the US,
these exemplified uncontrolled Wall Street greed.
That bankers could pocket huge bonuses when Main
Street is witnessing high unemployment and rising
home loan foreclosures has infuriated the nation.
And Obama flew his fuse. Twice. First, on 14 January
2010, when he proposed a fee to tax the bigger banks
— $90 billion on the larger banks over 10 years,
averaging $9 billion per year. The tax is limited to
the larger banks and financial institutions (with
over $50 billion in assets), and will go toward
defraying the Troubled Assets Relief Program cost of
$700 billion — taxpayers’ money that was used to
shore up the financial system during the crisis.
When bankers started squealing, Obama hit hard:
““We’re already hearing a hue and cry from Wall
Street suggesting that this proposed fee is not only
unwelcome but unfair... What I say is this: Instead
of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this
proposal or employing an army of lawyers and
accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you
might want to consider simply meeting your
responsibilities — including by rolling back
bonuses.”
The second blow came on 21 January 2010, when Obama
threatened to bring back variants of the old Glass-Steagall
Act, which had remained in force between 1933 and
November 1999. According to Obama and his new
advisor, Paul Volcker, the ex-Chairman of the US
Federal Reserve, proprietary trading, hedge funds
and private equity funds were the reasons for the US
banking collapse in 2007-08. Thus, these should be
sequestered from deposit-taking activities — to
ensure that any failure in high risk financial
ventures do not seriously affect the safety of the
depositors’ funds. So, Obama wants to prevent banks
(or financial institutions that own banks) from
owning, investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or
private equity funds. He also wants to debar
proprietary trading operations to raise bank
profits.
The $90 billion tax will probably go through. The
Glass-Steagall-like stuff probably won’t. But be
prepared for a hurt, worried an angry US railing
against ‘fat cats’ and big-government. For Democrats
losing some more seats. And for Obama having a tough
time selling his presidency to the people. For many
reasons, an angry America favours the Republicans.
Obama must heed this.
Published: Business World, March 2010