Download raw source

Delivered-To: john.podesta@gmail.com Received: by 10.25.43.136 with SMTP id r130csp1722097lfr; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:54:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.98.194 with SMTP id ek2mr597944pbb.152.1441997663061; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <gbsperling@gmail.com> Received: from mail-pa0-x22c.google.com (mail-pa0-x22c.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8si2143459pbs.81.2015.09.11.11.54.21 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:54:23 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gbsperling@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gbsperling@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=gbsperling@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Received: by mail-pa0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id ex6so81932744pac.0; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:54:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:content-transfer-encoding:from:mime-version:date :message-id:subject:in-reply-to:references:to:cc; bh=kI9UE4+1c7wDEPBeFC2uhyvirN5iuGvZ7bVnKq04ayo=; b=UlctAepqGDMIf566Y++Akmea5K01Q/hTq/dK4GA+y4L+gEiFuZK3hk4LRZMAyaAQMQ z3WsMMFncrb1tSXvpwMuG+V5Mgp01nrRNO0mK03qrAKEy+gl4QM6RJnt+vE8wVq+npUx lPy5i5D+aFQFas6/NZ5iUVUXxHLJ6HN+V+01EM9ApMV6t8dqyShzKn5UM8YVYnEmrNhs aA+vgHx0j222ZYPIB5rusOeNTgynbqYJuLlSlcDdc+wSEsyE41lN9D2tMtpwc7CEeKIM 3mMd+C4HvLen5DHGfX7vK2QxjG3KepDg3Sj8bj/YJtl5GgRNo+e+v55cV/LlJwwTv+5J Bm7A== X-Received: by 10.68.234.200 with SMTP id ug8mr591462pbc.13.1441997661777; Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:54:21 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: <gbsperling@gmail.com> Received: from ?IPv6:2600:1010:b023:2f5d:3449:24e2:d9a5:b618? ([2600:1010:b023:2f5d:3449:24e2:d9a5:b618]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id zf5sm1739324pbc.36.2015.09.11.11.54.20 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:54:20 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Gene Sperling <gbsperling@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Date: Fri, 11 Sep 2015 11:49:23 -0700 Message-Id: <8297B14B-0116-4A24-817C-F829FB1D70FC@gmail.com> Subject: Re: Glass steagall In-Reply-To: <CAJiTYQYmTEZLZkrtj0MmKfd6eVYN+ZvUyyYb1m+iSgKLuUdBkQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CAJiTYQYmTEZLZkrtj0MmKfd6eVYN+ZvUyyYb1m+iSgKLuUdBkQ@mail.gmail.com> To: Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com> CC: Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com>, Gary Gensler <ggensler@hillaryclinton.com>, Mike Schmidt <mschmidt@hillaryclinton.com>, Michael Shapiro <mshapiro@hillaryclinton.com>, David Kamin <davidckamin@gmail.com> X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (12B436) A few thoughts on Neera's note: 1. One, I think we can blur Glass Steagall a bit more. Instead of just sayin= g we are against, explain what aspects she is for. After all, Volker Rule is= kind of designed to fend off worst mixing of banking and investing etc. May= be she can say, I do support doing more to protect against the type risky mi= xing of traditional banking and Wall Street practices which Glass Steagall w= as designed to affect, which is why I am for strengthening the Volker Rule a= nd doing.... 2. We need to give her a more visceral hit of the complete and utter failure= of the Bush Administration for crisis. So instead of giving a lecture on wh= y 1998 law did not cause crisis (however much I want to do this!) she pivots= fully on offense into a full throated hit on Bush Administration and replac= ing Arthur Levitt with Cox and their complete failure to regulate Wall Stree= t. So more time on offense as to how Bush causes crisis and less time on def= ense. 3. Instead of being against breaking up banks based on size and explaining w= hy risk is the key, maybe say, I am for breaking up banks before too big to f= ail -- only difference is I am applying two criteria: how big they are and h= ow risky and unmanageable they are. If we just focus on size we will miss br= eaking up and regulating those practices that are most responsible for crisi= s. So again, it feel less like "no" on breaking up biggest banks, it feels m= ore like "yes" - but here is the smart way to do it.=20 So common theme on these comments is not to cave on Glass Steagall or bank s= ize -- but to have more of a feel of agreeing but explaining why she has the= smartest way to do it, as opposed to explaining why she is against.=20 Sent from my iPhone > On 11 Sep 2015, at 11:17, Neera Tanden <ntanden@gmail.com> wrote: >=20 > i think most people know I worry that this is the closest thing to an Iraq= vote we have to face us. And a big potential problem in the debate.=20 >=20 > Why can't she say the following: > Too big to fail are problems. Should never happen again etc. I will take s= teps - higher cap requirements, whatever you have on list -to ensure we prot= ect Americans. I think those will work better. =20 >=20 > I will work every day to make sure we protect Americans so they never suff= er for the excesses on Wall Street. But if banks are growing too big to ma= nage and we need to take these steps tetc etc, believe me I will work to re= instate glass steagall in a heartbeat bc this Americans losing so much for t= he banks can never happen again.=20 >=20 > She's not conceding it was responsible for the financial crisis. But her o= penness will be better than a hard and fast position that puts her on the ba= nk side of the ledger.=20 >=20 > Anyway I just offer it as a thought.=20