Subject: RSP News for Week of Sept 13
From: "Joan Peugh" <[email-masked]>
To: "Eric Schwerin" <[email-masked]>, "Neil Callahan" <[email-masked]>, "Hunter Biden" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 2010 11:16:06 -0400

Guys,

I updated the tax cuts section a tad. I also added a little contact us if
you have questions part at the end and disclaimer…should we be more direct
on who they should contact, ie Eric, Rob, Arlene, etc?

Please let me know if we need more commentary or info, etc.

* *
 *
------------------------------
*

*In this Newsletter:*

v  *Appointment of Elizabeth Warren*

v  *Bush Tax Cuts*

v  *2010 Primary Elections*
 ------------------------------

1.      Appointment of Elizabeth Warren

v  *Stealthy appointment raises skepticism of the credibility of the new
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.*

President Obama has appointed Elizabeth Warren as assistant to the President
and a special advisor to the Treasury Secretary responsible for overseeing
creation of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Officials did not
rule out the possibility that Ms. Warren, a Harvard law professor, might
eventually get the nomination to be the Bureau’s first director, a five-year
presidential appointment that requires the consent of the Senate. Ms. Warren
first proposed the idea of a consumer financial-products regulator in 2007,
and many Democrats want her to be the first person to lead the agency.

Elizabeth Warren faces logistical, legal and political challenges as she
attempts to build credibility for the new Bureau. In selecting Ms. Warren,
administration officials picked an outspoken critic of many credit-card and
mortgage-lending practices who has called for an overhaul of the way banks
treat consumers. And because she will instead be a senior adviser, Ms.
Warren won't have the full powers that a Senate-confirmed director of the
agency might have, but will also bypass the Senate confirmation process.
This has created a stir of skepticism as supporters want to see a more
permanent director in place and business groups fear Ms. Warren's loosely
described job description will make the creation of the new agency less easy
to track, especially since White House assistants are typically shielded
from the Freedom of Information Act and can refuse to testify before
Congress.

A White House official said that Mr. Obama and Ms. Warren both felt that it
was better to get her started on establishing an agency from scratch than on
getting mired on a long confirmation fight or a controversy over a recess
appointment. And until the agency’s first director is confirmed and powers
from existing regulators are fully transferred to the new agency, much of
the work at the CFPB will be planning and structural decisions as opposed to
examinations

*Check out:
*WSJ’s Deal Journal: “Elizabeth Warren: Why Is Everyone Afraid of
Her?”*-*<http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2010/09/17/elizabeth-warren-why-is-everyone-afraid-of-her/>Compiles
various opinions regarding Ms. Warren’s new appointment.
* *
 ------------------------------

2.      Bush Tax Cuts

v  *The fate of the Bush tax cuts remains highly unlikely to be resolved
before the midterm elections in November.*

The expiration of President George W. Bush's 2001 tax cuts at the end of the
year, has developed into a thorny economic issue for Congress as mid-term
elections loom with expectations for a shift in control in the House and
possibly Senate.  Obama has repeatedly called for Congress to extend the
Bush tax cuts benefiting the middle-class while letting tax breaks for the
wealthy to expire on schedule at the end of the year.

 The fate of the Bush tax cuts remains highly unlikely to be resolved before
the midterm elections in November. The Senate has already announced it will
not take up the Bush tax cuts until after the election, but there are mixed
signals in the House. As expected, both Democrats and Republicans are
finding their stated positions on the issue to be valuable for electoral
purposes. There are sharp divisions among Democrats in both chambers, and
party leaders appear unwilling to force the issue at a time when their party
is battling to retain control amid voter anger over the economy. But if
Republicans win the Senate races in Illinois, Delaware and West Virginia,
the new members could be sworn in immediately following the elections,
instead of January, because the lawmakers who currently occupy those seats
were appointed with terms ending after Nov. 2. This means Democrats could
have a harder time in November to pass legislation that extends the
middle-class tax cuts while allowing tax breaks for the wealthy to expire on
schedule at the end of the year. Republican leaders in both chambers have
repeatedly stated that a tax increase on anyone while the economy is weak
would hinder recovery efforts. Several rank-and-file Democrats also support
this position. There is no emerging consensus on a path forward, and thus
there is a significant possibility that these tax breaks expire at year-end
due to inability to find consensus in Congress.

*Check out:
*WSJ Political Diary: “Let Them Eat Tax
Hikes”-<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703904304575497894157033342.html?KEYWORDS=tax+cut>Discusses
the letter from House Democrats to Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging a
vote on extending the tax credits and the conundrum from all sides of the
spectrum the Speaker faces in allowing or not allowing the vote.
 ------------------------------

3.      2010 Primary Elections

v  *It is unlikely the Republicans will take back control of the Senate in
November's midterm elections**.*

Christine O’Donnell’s surprise victory in the Delaware Senate GOP primary
left Republicans worried that the Senate is now out of their reach come
November. Delaware, a state that would have almost certainly been a pick-up
for the GOP is now likely to stay with the Democrats. This was the
culmination of a primary season that saw voters turn against establishment
Republicans. Tea Party-backed candidates have toppled two of the party’s
incumbents and six candidates who were supported by insiders in Washington.

Ms. O’Donnell’s win almost certainly reduces the possibility of a Republican
takeover of the Senate. Strategists in both parties believe the number of
competitive Senate races has now dropped to 10 from 11, which means winning
the chamber would require Republicans to take every one of those races.
Democrats and independents that caucus with them currently hold 59 seats in
the 100-member Senate.

It is obvious with these results that the GOP has largely failed to harness
the power of Tea Party voters. Party leaders had hoped to tap into the
frustration with the Democratic agenda and the hunger for a change in
direction, especially with regard to the economy, however it has become
obvious Tea Party voters have no desire for one party’s agenda over another.

In effect, Democrats now can counter the GOP’s attempt to nationalize the
election around the unpopular policies of the administration and Congress by
making the case that the Republican Party has been taken over by extremists
and asking voters if that’s the Republican Party they want to return to
power.  Together, the victories of the insurgent candidates in Republican
primaries have given some hope to a dispirited Democratic party.

*Check out:*

NYT: The Caucus, “The Morning After: Whose Party Is
It?”<http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/15/the-morning-after-whose-party-is-it/?hp>
*- *Discusses the uneasy relationship with the Republican Party and the Tea
Party movement, questioning how unified the command structure is within the
GOP now, and how these two can get along as Democrats become the common
enemy.

 ------------------------------

Please do not hesitate to contact us for any specific questions you may have
regarding the above information or for any other issues you may have
questions about.

Best,
Rosemont Seneca Partners

202-333-1880

*Please note that **the information given in this bulletin is solely for
informational purposes**. ***

*Joan K. Peugh*

*Rosemont Seneca Partners*

1010 Wisconsin Avenue, NW

Suite 705

Washington, DC 20007

T:(202) 333-1880

F: (202 333-1886

M: (202) 841-8543

[email-masked]