U
Re: TPP & Glass Steagall
4 messages
R
Robby Mook Oct 3, 2015 11:44 AM
TPP would be lethal with labor. We'd loose afscme and likely seiu as well.
Thanks Ron. On Glass Steagall, that's what a stronger Volcker Rule does which is what she is for, but what about requiring banks to downsize?I agree with you on TPP but others (including on this email!) feel strongly to the contrary.Jake,
I had to get off that call before it ended, and I also didn't want to intrude in that group. But FWIW, my view would be:
1. She has to be for TPP. She called it the "gold standard" of trade agreements. I think opposing that would be a huge flip flop. She can say that as President she would work to change it. She can say that it can be better. But I think she should support it.
2. She should move 95% to Warren on Glass Steagall. I think you can avoid the flip flop, but survive the Warren primary by saying:
Just my view, FWIW."Of course I wouldn't bring back Glass Steagall -- that's a law written 80 years ago before we had anything like the current banking system. But I agree with Sen. Warren that -- given the ongoing misconduct in the banking industry -- we need to erect a wall between banking and non-banking activities. If I became President, I would sit down with her and develop a 21st century version of Glass Steagall that provides sound separation between basic banking and riskier activities, but still keeps America's financial institution's competitive."
Ron
J
Jake Sullivan Oct 3, 2015 12:14 PM
That's warrens bill. That's breaking up banks.
The Volker Rule only bans transactions, not structures. I think should could go farther to get to structures as well, albeit with a bit of wiggle room perhaps by allowing a more generous hold co structure such as what had arisen on the eve on GLB in the 1990s. And yes, by imposing structural separation, you are "downsizing," in that you are not allowing all that is currently under one roof to be under one roof.
Perhaps that puts me all the way at Warren;s bill -- I don't know it that well -- but perhaps it is still short of that. My point was that you can avoid the flip flop claim here by ruling out a return to Glass Steagall itself, while still giving Warren most of what she wants.
From: Jake Sullivan [jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:42 AM
To: Ron Klain
Cc: Robby Mook; John Podesta
Subject: Re: TPP & Glass Steagall
Thanks Ron. On Glass Steagall, that's what a stronger Volcker Rule does which is what she is for, but what about requiring banks to downsize?
I agree with you on TPP but others (including on this email!) feel strongly to the contrary.
Jake,
I had to get off that call before it ended, and I also didn't want to intrude in that group. But FWIW, my view would be:
1. She has to be for TPP. She called it the "gold standard" of trade agreements. I think opposing that would be a huge flip flop. She can say that as President she would work to change it. She can say that it can be better. But I think she should support it.
2. She should move 95% to Warren on Glass Steagall. I think you can avoid the flip flop, but survive the Warren primary by saying:
Just my view, FWIW."Of course I wouldn't bring back Glass Steagall -- that's a law written 80 years ago before we had anything like the current banking system. But I agree with Sen. Warren that -- given the ongoing misconduct in the banking industry -- we need to erect a wall between banking and non-banking activities. If I became President, I would sit down with her and develop a 21st century version of Glass Steagall that provides sound separation between basic banking and riskier activities, but still keeps America's financial institution's competitive."
Ron
R
Ron Klain Oct 3, 2015 3:39 PM
Jake,
I had to get off that call before it ended, and I also didn't want to intrude in that group. But FWIW, my view would be:
1. She has to be for TPP. She called it the "gold standard" of trade agreements. I think opposing that would be a huge flip flop. She can say that as President she would work to change it. She can say that it can be better. But I think she
should support it.
2. She should move 95% to Warren on Glass Steagall. I think you can avoid the flip flop, but survive the Warren primary by saying:
Just my view, FWIW."Of course I wouldn't bring back Glass Steagall -- that's a law written 80 years ago before we had anything like the current banking system. But I agree with Sen. Warren that -- given the ongoing misconduct in the banking industry -- we need to erect a wall between banking and non-banking activities. If I became President, I would sit down with her and develop a 21st century version of Glass Steagall that provides sound separation between basic banking and riskier activities, but still keeps America's financial institution's competitive."
Ron
R
Ron Klain Oct 3, 2015 3:57 PM
The Volker Rule only bans transactions, not structures. I think should could go farther to get to structures as well, albeit with a bit of wiggle room perhaps by allowing a more
generous hold co structure such as what had arisen on the eve on GLB in the 1990s. And yes, by imposing structural separation, you are "downsizing," in that you are not allowing all that is currently under one roof to be under one roof.
Perhaps that puts me all the way at Warren;s bill -- I don't know it that well -- but perhaps it is still short of that. My point was that you can avoid the flip flop claim here by ruling out a return to Glass Steagall itself, while still giving Warren
most of what she wants.
From: Jake Sullivan [jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:42 AM
To: Ron Klain
Cc: Robby Mook; John Podesta
Subject: Re: TPP & Glass Steagall
Sent: Saturday, October 3, 2015 11:42 AM
To: Ron Klain
Cc: Robby Mook; John Podesta
Subject: Re: TPP & Glass Steagall
Thanks Ron. On Glass Steagall, that's what a stronger Volcker Rule does which is what she is for, but what about requiring banks to downsize?
I agree with you on TPP but others (including on this email!) feel strongly to the contrary.
Jake,
I had to get off that call before it ended, and I also didn't want to intrude in that group. But FWIW, my view would be:
1. She has to be for TPP. She called it the "gold standard" of trade agreements. I think opposing that would be a huge flip flop. She can say that as President she would work to change it. She can say that it can be better. But I think she should support it.
2. She should move 95% to Warren on Glass Steagall. I think you can avoid the flip flop, but survive the Warren primary by saying:
Just my view, FWIW."Of course I wouldn't bring back Glass Steagall -- that's a law written 80 years ago before we had anything like the current banking system. But I agree with Sen. Warren that -- given the ongoing misconduct in the banking industry -- we need to erect a wall between banking and non-banking activities. If I became President, I would sit down with her and develop a 21st century version of Glass Steagall that provides sound separation between basic banking and riskier activities, but still keeps America's financial institution's competitive."
Ron