Given my focus on my dissertation, I have not had time to review the provisions in (or presumed to be in) the Banking Bill which outgoing U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd (D-Connecticut) had been drafting and championing. Now, naturally, I’m skeptical of anything put forward by a career politician, a man who was first elected to Congress before the president entered high school, a man who has neither created wealth nor fostered innovation.
It seems that for folks like Mr. Dodd, “reform” means regulation, increasing the size and scope of the federal government, as if that would be the panacea to our economic woes. And regulation favors the folks that Dodd and his Democrats so regularly decry, big banks and big companies. They simply have more resources to comply.
Referencing those familiar with the actual legislation, the Washington Examiner’s Timothy P. Carney pretty much sums it up:
Big Business can adapt to more regulation better than small business can. Politico reported last week that the big banks “have the legal resources to deal with a consumer agency.”
Carney cites this report over at Big Government:
Many of those familiar with the banking industry, overall, say that community banks bore little to no responsibility, on balance, for the financial meltdown that occurred in 2008. Nonetheless, an analysis of the Dodd bill indicates that if it passes, community banks will be subject to a whopping 27 new regulations that one individual who has worked with banks professionally and is closely tracking the legislation says “could threaten to put many community bankers out of business, thus reducing competition in the banking sector overall, and diminishing consumer choices.”
To folks like Dodd, regulation is the answer. But, to those familiar with the industry, regulation may well exacerbate the problem. What was it the Gipper said?
This fits my speculation in the other thread: that the real point of Democrat financial “reform” is to make their Wall Street buddies (donors) even more secure, by burdening the little guy; within reason, putting the little guy out of business.
I found something interesting in my feeds today. An opinion poll shows 65% of the public want “stricter federal regulations on the way banks and other financial institutions conduct their business”.
So… you can have a weak, bipartisan financial reform bill to get the Republicans on-board. Or… you can disregard the Republicans and pass a strong financial reform bill in accordance with what the people want.
Haven’t you been citing the continued unpopularity of the healthcare reform bill as a reason to scrap it? Why shouldn’t the reverse be the case? The people want Congress to be tough on the banks and pass strong reform, so do it! Who cares what the Republicans want, do what the people want!
Um, Serenity, something interesting in your talking point inbox? That’s the latest liberal talking point.
Strong reform the American people may want, but I doubt they want “reform” that increases the power of unions which is in Dodd’s proposed bill. Just because people want “strong” reform doesn’t mean they want the Democrats’ reform.
Remember, the people wanted health care reform too, just not the Democrats’ reforms.
Enlighten me. What proposals do the other side have for strong reform? I’d like to know, because I doubt any Republican proposal has the “stricter federal regulations” specifically mentioned in the question asked.
Yeah, they wanted a strong public option that could ensure that insurance companies couldn’t just raise their prices and blame the bill despite it not even coming into effect. Conservative opposition killed it, and now the general public hate the useless, stripped-down bill.
This is easy. We go back to the laws that existed from the Depression until the 90s that kept banks from nuking the whole economy. Yes, reform means more regulation because without regulation we’re going to be right back in this place in the next decade.