Re: Post-Election Risk: Less Limits and Oversight of Banks

Tea-Partiers talk big about being deficit hawks, yet no-one speaks out
about restraining the theft by the big banks.  It’s the big banks that
blew up the economy, caused a devestating recession, and pushed up debt by
40% relative to GDP.   Republicans have no answer to this except for
platitudes about less government regulations....which means allow the
crooks to continue to steal.
This is why I could never vote Republican this year.

regards,
-Lance

> Lance McLain
>
>
>
> regards,
> -Lance
>
> http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/11/post-election-risk-less-limits-and-oversight-of-banks/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheBigPicture+%28The+Big+Picture%29
>
> Post-Election Risk: Less Limits and Oversight of Banks
> By Barry Ritholtz - November 2nd, 2010, 7:12AM
> Our story so far:
>
> Banks and investment houses spent the last 30 years pouring money into
> congressional elections, influencing regulations and oversight of their
> industry. They managed to exempt derivatives from any and all oversight,
> increase leverage from 12-to-1 to unlimited, repeal Glass-Steagall limits
> that kept Wall Street and Main Street Banks separated, create a new
> “Lend-to-securitize unregulated banks.
>
> The most recent decade saw the rise on the Shadow banking system — it
> existed outside of any supervision or government regulations.
>
> The end result of this: A Financial collapse, frozen credit, and the worst
> recession since the Great Depression.
>
> Fast forward to the mid-term elections:
>
> While most of the electorate is focused on Tax Cuts, deficit spending, the
> Tea Party, and who might have practiced witchcraft, my biggest concern is
> none of the above. The threat to long term economic health will be the
> attempted roll back of the re-regulation of the financial markets.
>
> Milquetoast as Financial reform was, I fully expect a run at overturning
> the recent FIn Reg reforms. As hard as it is to believe, 1980s era
> deregulation-speak is already coming out of the not-yet elected, bank
> backed candidates and their deep pocketed corporate sponsors.
>
> Consider this most recent bit of governmental genuflecting:
>
> “The most powerful executives in the banking industry didn’t go to the
> government. The government came to them.
>
> Ben S. Bernanke, the chairman of the Federal Reserve; Timothy F. Geithner,
> the Treasury secretary; and regulators like Mary L. Schapiro of the
> Securities and Exchange Commission and Gary Gensler of the Commodity
> Futures Trading Commission made their way last month to a room called the
> Nest at the Willard InterContinental Hotel in Washington. There, the
> members of a group called the Financial Services Forum awaited them.
>
> The event with the forum, which is composed of chief executives,
> underscored how influential banks, brokerage firms and insurance companies
> remain in Washington, despite all the critical campaign rhetoric from the
> White House, Capitol Hill and other quarters. And Tuesday’s midterm
> elections are likely to leave them in an even stronger position, blunting
> the most serious overhaul of financial regulations since the Great
> Depression.
>
> The widely expected prospect of a Republican takeover of the House of
> Representatives and possibly the Senate would be warmly welcomed by the
> banks, who want a break from the regulatory push of the last two years.
> Divided government makes it harder to pass new legislation and brings with
> it other benefits for the banks, like reducing the chances of an increase
> in corporate taxes.”
>
> This is no accident — great gobs of money has been funneled to candidates
> willing to act as the bitches for the banks in DC:
>
> “The example of Wall Street’s attempts to resist financial regulation—and
> the help provided by the Chamber—is an illustrative one. The Chamber
> pounced early on Congress to dissuade it from passing the Consumer
> Financial Protection Agency Act. Donohue’s troops mounted grassroots and
> media onslaughts around the country, dispatching local chamber officials
> and business members to lobby local lawmakers, and running local
> advertisements directly targeting them. In Montana, the Chamber aired an
> ad targeting Senator Jon Tester that showed a man lying awake in bed in
> the middle of the night, staring at the alarm clock, while a voiceover
> intoned, “Call Senator Tester. Tell him to stop the CFPA, because small
> businesses can’t afford more economic pain.” The Chamber put millions into
> this sort of advertising.”
>
> As much as the Chamber of Commerce claims to represent business, it is
> actually “beholden to a cadre of multinationals whose interests are often
> inimical to those of small business. In 2008, a third of its revenues came
> from just nineteen companies.”
>
> Thus, regardless of the outcome of this election, sunlight and pressure
> must be maintained on those who would once again, allow the biggest banks
> to have their way with us . . .
>
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>


regards,
-Lance


-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot