I think retailers are going to pay very close attention to how they respond to this reduction because frankly there is still the issue of credit card interchange to take on. Passing on savings to consumers is certainly a way to show that further reform will further help consumers.
Members Capital Advisors consulting economist, Robert DeLucia, says that financial markets are likely to remain in an extremely volatile trading range in future months until there is greater clarity regarding the outlook for economic growth and until fears of a double-dip recession diminish. In part, DeLucias cites China's economic status as responsible on the basis that . . .
DeLucia's latest "Economic Commentary" addresses some of the critical questions
involving China and the world economy. Future reports will continue to address important trends within China and the implications for the global economy
By Trey Hawkins, CUNA VP Political AffairsWhat are this year’s Midterm Elections about? Well, it depends on whom you ask.
Ask Republican Congressional candidate John Doe, and the answer will be something like this:
“I’m running against Congresswoman Mary Smith, who has been lockstep with President Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Congressional Democrats. In the middle of a recession and rising unemployment, they are only making matters worse by increasing government spending, raising taxes, and expanding government control of the economy. Vote Republican to fire Mary Smith and Nancy Pelosi and send a message to Obama.”
If you ask his opponent, Democratic incumbent Rep. Mary Smith, she might answer:
“The election is about helping the people here in {YOUR STATE} who are struggling with unemployment, rising health care costs and a shaky economy. That’s why I fought for extended unemployment benefits, health insurance reform, and federal funds to create jobs here in {YOUR TOWN}. We can go backwards by electing John Doe and the Republicans who got us into this mess, or we can keep moving forward. By the way, did I mention that John Doe is a right-wing extremist Tea Partier who wants to take away your Social Security?”
Okay, so these are exaggerations, but the point is this: elections are always about choices, and he who frames the choice to his advantage often wins.
Republicans will win big in every competitive district where the election is “nationalized.” Even Democrats agree the economy, which polls consistently rate as voters’ number one concern, is in the pits. If the choice is between a nameless Democratic incumbent who is a front for the national Democratic Party (Obama, Pelosi, etc.), and an alternative, then independent voters will default to the (Republican) alternative.
Unless…Democrats can localize the race and frame it as a choice between a Congressman fighting for the local community and an extremist who cares more about partisan name calling/is corrupt/is too extreme/fill in the blank. Some Democrats in conservative districts may also be able to differentiate themselves from the national Democratic party by pointing to key votes against Obama initiatives such as health care reform and cap-and-trade (both of which passed despite opposition from dozens of conservative Democrats).
Campaigns matter: the candidate that wins in many swing districts will be the one with the campaign best able to frame the election choice according to their “worldview.” Communicating that message effectively takes financial resources, a smart campaign team, a well-crafted message, and the discipline to stick with it. Democratic campaigns that run smart campaigns may well be able to withstand a coming Republican wave; conversely, well-organized Republican challengers may be able to capitalize on a pro-Republican (or at least anti-Democratic) national environment.
How this choice is framed, district-by-district, will ultimately determine who controls the House and Senate come January, 2011.
Although credit unions may have been closely following all of the debate in Congress asbout finance reform, the majority of Americans claim to have been hearing little to nothing about it.
Alex J. Pollock, previous president and chief executive of the Federal Home Loan Bank of Chicago and now a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, writes in today’s American Banker that the Dodd-Frank regulatory expansion, recently passed by the House and awaiting Senate action, has added a new last-minute theory . . . .charge different banks different deposit insurance premium rates, not according to risk, but by asset size. House rules required the House/Senate conference committee to come up with the means to pay for the estimated $19 billion to implement the regulatory reforms put forth in the bill. Part of the means to do so comes from increased FDIC insurance premiums on banks over $10 billion in assets. That’s 1% of the nation’s banks. Pollock postures that the political motivation for this approach is to appease 99% of the nation’s banks and their trade association so that they don’t complain to legislators. Meanwhile, however, is f you have to keep two sets of books, one for large banks and one for smaller banks, you in effect have two separate funds, so Pollack suggests carrying the idea through by having two separate funds. See the full article here.
Posts
All Comments
