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?