If Luntz says lots of candidates will be using the phrase “checkbook tax” to describe the alleged fees that will be passed on to consumers, we should take him at his word.I'm sure some will. The real key is if the Village uses it over and over again, reducing it to a worthless sound bite that becomes short hand for "Obama made taxes go up again!" That's of course Luntz's point, rather than "Banks are greedy and will raise fees even if we don't do this."
In a sense, this represents an evolution in Luntz’s thinking, and even possibly a concession on his part. In his much-discussed original memo intructing opponents of finanial reform on how to talk about it, he urged them to use the phrase “taxpayer-funded bailouts,” ignoring the argument altogether that banks, not taxpayers, are funding the bank liquidation fund. Now Luntz is at least acknowledging this argument — but he’s replaced it with the new claim that taxpayers will still pick up the tab when big institutions pass on costs in the form of a “checkbook tax.”
It’ll be interesting to track the evolution of this talking point and to see if candidates start using it on the trail.
The "permanent bailout" Luntz point failed because even the Village wasn't buying it. Democrats were clearly making the banks pay for the fund, not the taxpayer. Luntz is now trying to say the taxpayer will be picking up the tab for it by saying the banks will pass along every penny...but isn't that the banks being greedy again?
I don't see this talking point going far, frankly. "What my opponent is saying is that the banks are going to raise fees on you because they think you should pay for their mistakes. Well, we're already tried that. They admit the banks are greedy, and my opponent is on their side, not yours."
Back to the drawing board, Frank. There's just no way out of this other than the GOP is on the side of the banks that wrecked out economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment