MonroeTalks.com > Categories > Politics and Government > Financial Reform: Republicans Fight To Dilute Wall Street Regulations


Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Financial Reform: Republicans Fight To Dilute Wall Street Regulations  (Read 1171 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Baby Hitler

  • Guest

WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama's financial overhaul law is nearly a year old. For congressional Republicans, the fight to weaken it is just starting.

Wary of trying to repeal the entire statute and being portrayed as Wall Street's protectors – banks rank among the country's least popular institutions – GOP lawmakers are trying to nibble away at the behemoth measure. It's a crusade they're waging despite lacking the White House and Senate control they need to prevail.

Days ago, one Republican-run House committee approved bills diluting parts of the law requiring reports on corporate salaries and exempting some investment advisers from registering with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Another House panel voted to slice $200 million from Obama's $1.4 billion budget request for the SEC, which has a major enforcement role.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans are continuing a procedural blockade that has helped prevent Obama from putting Elizabeth Warren or anyone else in charge of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which opens its doors in two weeks.

The law hurts "the formation of capital, the cost of capital and access to capital, and you can't have capitalism without capital," said Rep. Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, a leader of the House Financial Services Committee. "So Republicans in the House will be examining each and every one of the 2,000-plus pages" of the law, which he called "a job creator's nightmare."

Confident that Obama and the Democratic-controlled Senate can prevent the House from doing major damage, Democrats view the Republican drive as a political exercise – for now.

"It's mostly setting a marker for the election. And it helps with their campaign contributions," said Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., who chaired the Financial Services Committee last year and was a chief author of the law. "But it also tells people in the financial community that if they win the next election, they'll be able to undo it all."

The financial industry leans Republican in its campaign contributions but not overwhelmingly. Sixty-one percent of the $9 million that commercial banks gave federal candidates for the 2010 elections went to Republicans, while 54 percent of the securities and investment industry's $9 million went to Democrats, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Democrats are using the GOP drive for their own fundraising.

In one email sent last week under Frank's name soliciting money for House candidates, the party wrote that Republicans want to "bring back the days of unrestrained excess, deception and de-regulation of Wall Street." The mailing called it "payback to their big contributors in the financial services industry."

Obama signed the banking and consumer protection measure last July 21, a keystone achievement that responded to the biggest financial crisis and most severe recession since the 1930s. It passed Congress with solid Democratic support and near-uniform GOP opposition.

Among its provisions, the law:

_ Created the consumer protection agency to oversee mortgages, credit cards and other financial products.

_ Established a body of regulators to scan the economy for threats to the financial system.

_ Required banks to hold back money for protection against losses.

_ Curbed the trading of derivatives, speculative investments partly blamed for the 2008 financial crisis.

_ Gave the Federal Reserve powers to oversee huge companies whose failures could jeopardize the entire financial system.

Yet the law was just a start, since it ordered federal agencies to craft rules to enforce it. As of July 1, out of an estimated 400 regulations to be written, 38 are complete. That leaves 362 proposed, facing a future deadline or having missed due dates for completion, according to the law firm Davis Polk.

Republicans say the overhaul went too far and has saddled banks and other companies with requirements that harm their competitiveness. The House Financial Services panel alone has held more than a dozen hearings on the law, in part to underscore to administration witnesses that some provisions – like forcing banks to hold back capital as a hedge against losses – will hurt business, according to the committee's chairman, Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala.

"What we are doing is rational, it is sensible, it is entirely practical, it is compassionate," said Rep. Nan Hayworth, R-N.Y., a tea party-backed freshman on that panel. "So we are doing the right thing, and it behooves the Senate and the administration to follow suit."

The highest-profile fight has been over Warren, picked by Obama to set up the new consumer bureau. Many Democrats and liberal groups want her to become its first director.

Following a May clash between Warren and a House subcommittee chairman, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., plans to question the Harvard law professor and long-time consumer activist at a July 14 hearing about her role shaping the new agency.

Meanwhile, 44 GOP senators have promised to block a vote on any nominee unless the bureau is made "accountable to the American people" by replacing the director with a board of directors and giving Congress control over its budget. Forty-one senators can prevent a nomination from coming to a vote.

"You try to get leverage where you can. In the Senate, nominations are your leverage," said Mark A. Calabria, who monitors financial regulation at the conservative-leaning Cato Institute.

On another front, Republicans want to cut the budgets of agencies that are supposed to enforce the overhaul.

Besides denying the SEC extra money next year, the House Appropriations Committee would limit the consumer protection bureau to $200 million, well below the $329 million Obama wants. The full House has voted to hold the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees derivatives, to $171 million, short of this year's total and less than two-thirds of what Obama wanted.

Republicans cast the cuts as part of their deficit-cutting drive, but Democrats say the reductions are designed to obstruct the new law.

SEC Chairwoman Mary Schapiro said in a speech this spring that budget cuts would mean "an investor protection effort hobbled."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/05/financial-reform-wall-street-gop-warren_n_890090.html
Logged

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11180

The regulations were pretty darn weak to begin with.  One would thing that everyone, both Dem. Independant, and Repub. would be behind putting in place rules to stop another financial collapse.  Why not?

I am not sure that the ones that the Dems did would stop it, probably would not, but to get rid of what little was tried to stop another collapse?

Ask yourself why the R's are  so in favor of letting it happen again?

Ask yourself why the Dems only had a weak response to a seriously big and bad problem?

Ask yourself why those at the top are doing very well and actually getting huge wage increases and the rest are losing real wages?  Why is it still bad for the working folk and those that caused the problem are doing fantastic?

Why can't people be more important than money?
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

ducksoup

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11180

Oh, and before the right uses the "Republican's don't like any regulation" think again.  Look at Kansas (I think it is) that used regulation to eliminate abortion clinics by making hard and possibly unreasonable regulations.  The R's use regulations to THEIR ideals.
Logged
After one taste, you'll duck soup the rest of your life ... Groucho Marx.

Will Sweat

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4166

Why can't people be more important than money?

Because it takes money to run a campain and get reelected.
Logged
"While we try to teach our childern about life, our childern teach us what life is about"  - Angela Schmidt

313girl

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624

The regulations were pretty darn weak to begin with.  One would thing that everyone, both Dem. Independant, and Repub. would be behind putting in place rules to stop another financial collapse.  Why not?

I am not sure that the ones that the Dems did would stop it, probably would not, but to get rid of what little was tried to stop another collapse?

Ask yourself why the R's are  so in favor of letting it happen again?

Ask yourself why the Dems only had a weak response to a seriously big and bad problem?

Ask yourself why those at the top are doing very well and actually getting huge wage increases and the rest are losing real wages?  Why is it still bad for the working folk and those that caused the problem are doing fantastic?

Why can't people be more important than money?

Good question. Any Republican's on the board care to answer this question?

Same for the Dem's...why the heck are the Democrat's in office so reticent to defend the middle class?

Personally, I'm sick of both parties and worry sick over the future of my nephew and Goddaughter who are entering college this fall.
Logged
Monroe...such a welcoming town.

SMASH

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4863

Ask yourself why the R's are  so in favor of letting it happen again?

Ask yourself why the Dems only had a weak response to a seriously big and bad problem?


Because, as Nixon and Freidman said, "We are all Keynesians now."

The R's and D's are the two sides of the same Fed Unit of Account Coin and can only work together to perpetuate the system they created.

There is ample evidence to prove the Parties are only in existance to preserve their power.
Logged

313girl

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 624

Ask yourself why the R's are  so in favor of letting it happen again?

Ask yourself why the Dems only had a weak response to a seriously big and bad problem?


Because, as Nixon and Freidman said, "We are all Keynesians now."

The R's and D's are the two sides of the same Fed Unit of Account Coin and can only work together to perpetuate the system they created.

There is ample evidence to prove the Parties are only in existance to preserve their power.

Certainly more plausible than Pax's Illuminati theory. The Times article from 1965 is very interesting when reading from a 2011 perspective.
Logged
Monroe...such a welcoming town.

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903

Ask yourself why the R's are  so in favor of letting it happen again?

Ask yourself why the Dems only had a weak response to a seriously big and bad problem?


Because, as Nixon and Freidman said, "We are all Keynesians now."

The R's and D's are the two sides of the same Fed Unit of Account Coin and can only work together to perpetuate the system they created.

There is ample evidence to prove the Parties are only in existance to preserve their power.
I wouldn't describe it as "letting it happen"....the story says the "Republicans want to bring back the days of unrestrained excess, deception and de-regulation of Wall Street."

Keynesian economics is fine.....and while off-topic in a strict sense....I have to wonder if an oligarchy exists in the US and exactly who is pulling the strings?

Tired of the old "both parties are to blame" tune.....all the republicans and the conservative democrats may be bought and paid for but I have to believe most of the Dems are trying to do the right thing.
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com

Frenchfry

  • Hero Talker
  • ******
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 39903

Romney: Financial Reform Bill Too Long

2012 Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney had a weak answer when asked what he thought about the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. Michael Shure explains.

Romney: Financial Reform Bill Too Long
Logged
This is what I see when I visit:

"Sorry Frenchfry, you are banned from posting and sending personal messages on this forum.
This ban is not set to expire."

No emails, no warnings, no communication whatsoever...just that ban

May be what happened to the other libs as well.

I guess disabling the report to admin link only on the lib side was indicative of the slanted games they play.

Enjoy your spoon-fed Faux News type right-wing echo-chamber.

Edited to add:

This is the only way to answer some of the questions posed:

1) I did nothing to warrant the banishment, it's political.

2) It's the router that's blocked but considering all the nonsense right-wing games being played by those running the site...it's just not worth it to bypass the banishment block.

3) The moron stalkers from MT contemplating a visit will be considered a threat and can expect to have a bad day if they act upon those idiotic thoughts.

bumfunkegypt@live.com
Pages: [1]   Go Up