As politicians go, I have a relatively high opinion of both House Financial Services chairman Barney Frank and Senate Banking chair Chris Dodd. If I were to go looking for two people to oversee the regulation of Wall Street, I’d be hard-pressed to find too many people I trust more to do the job. To do an overhaul like that, you have to have experience. Frank and Dodd have worked on these issues for decades. That, of course, is also a source of concern. They’ve both become cozy with the big players in the industries. I don’t really trust any politician to stand up to Wall Street.
Chairman Dodd has released his plan, and it’s getting the correct kind of response.
Industry groups responded to the proposals with outrage.
“To some degree, it looks like they’re just blowing up everything for the sake of change,” said Ed Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association. “If this were to happen, the regulatory system would be in chaos for years. You have to look at the real-world impact of this.”
Dodd responds:
“I could have tried to draft something that was, sort of, already a compromise of ideas here,” Dodd said. “But I think you make a huge mistake by doing that. You’re given very few moments in history to make this kind of a difference, and we’re trying to do that.”
From what I can tell, Barney Frank is crafting something more in line with what the administration is recommending. But that doesn’t mean that Frank’s bill is inferior. In some respects, it may be stronger. I’ve been focused on health care, so I can’t give you an informed opinion on the relative merits of the House and Senate bills, yet. I’m encouraged that Dodd is thinking big and that his plan is causing outrage. Now I’ll have to investigate the details.
consequences for misbehavior.
For instance, if your trades cost a large amount of money to the Feds, you should be either tar-n-feathered or lynched. I suppose it could depend on the amount. If the amount < 1000, tar-n-feather. if > 1000$, lynch.
I have zero faith that the Administration will help Dodd’s efforts in any way. Indeed, I expect them to kill the bill by any means necessary, including “bipartisan” efforts by the GOP animals to block the bill with WH support.
I disagree. Even more important than being on the right side of Health Care Reform, getting on the right side of the animus towards Wall Street (which spans Dems, Repubs and Independents) is the key to political success in 2010 and 2012. To the extent that the White House is guided by political considerations (they are, bigtime), they cannot afford, politically, to be on the wrong side of this issue, period.
In a political sense, you’re right, but the actual record is why I’ve said what I said.
The Administration did nothing to support cramdown when it came to a vote in the Senate. Michael Bennet of Colorado went on record as saying that the White House didn’t push for it and if they did, it would have passed.
HuffPost has stories on the White House meddling in votes on the House version of reform, their efforts gong to weaken some of the reforms Frank wants.
Additionally, during the negotiations over GM’s bankruptcy, the Administration played hardball with everyone involved. No such effort has been made in any way with Wall Street. They get bonuses because their contracts require it? So what. Take their contracts apart like the unions have had theirs decimated over the years. They could do this but choose not to.
Bleh.