Evil GOP bastards vote to gut Dodd-Frank banking regulations


Remember those terrifying days in September 2008 after the housing bubble had collapsed, the world’s financial system teetered on collapse, and the economy was in a free-fall?




Yeah, Tea-Publicans in Congress hope you suffer from short-term memory loss and that you have forgotten all about those dark days.

The evil GOP bastards want to return to what they view as those halcyon days when the banksters of Wall Street ran wild in unregulated casino capitalism — speculation, fraud and theft — that nearly destroyed the world’s financial system. Not one bankster of Wall Street was ever convicted for the greatest financial crime in history, but the GOP is OK with that … the banksters are the “masters of the universe” whom the lickspittle servants of the GOP serve in Congress.

While You Were Paying Attention To Comey, House Republicans Voted For Everything Big Banks Want:

While much of the political world was watching the fallout from former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate testimony Thursday, House Republicans were jamming through a bill that would largely gut the financial regulations in Dodd-Frank, the landmark banking legislation passed in 2010 after the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.

But instead of quietly sneaking the legislation through, Republicans were loudly touting the bill ― which passed, 233-186, with all Democrats and one Republican (Walter Jones of North Carolina) voting no ― as a major victory.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) spent most of the week pointing to the measure as a win for community banks, calling the so-called Financial CHOICE Act the “crown jewel” of a GOP effort to peel back regulations and bolster the economy. And Republicans, largely looking for something to discuss instead of Comey or Trump or any number of the other associated scandals, used the legislation as their preferred talking point of the week.

“The big banks are bigger. The small banks are fewer. We’re losing a community bank or credit union a day,” Financial Services Committee Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), the sponsor of the bill, said Thursday.

When HuffPost asked House Republicans about the bill Wednesday and Thursday ― whether easing Wall Street regulations was really the message of the 2016 election ― GOP lawmakers quickly reframed the measure as a win for community banking.

“We’re getting rid of ‘too big to fail,’ and we’re saving the little banks,” Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.) said. “There was over 14,000 community banks. We’re losing one a day; we’re under 7,000.”

* * *

But Democrats were quick to point out that if Republicans simply wanted to help small banks, they could have crafted a bill that did so without gutting other consumer protections meant to protect the market from risky bets.

“This is about going backwards,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) told HuffPost. “Republicans were never very enthusiastic about holding Wall Street to account or protecting consumers, and this shows it.

It moves us back to an era before the 2008 meltdown when there was no one watching Wall Street,” Rep. Jared Polis (D-Colo.) said of the bill.

“If the Republicans were interested in some productive changes around community banking, there’s many Democrats who’ve been at the table on that as well,” Polis continued, “but this bill would remove the critical consumer protections that were put in place from Dodd-Frank.”

Specifically, the bill would subject the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to the appropriations process, meaning lawmakers could substantially cut, or even defund, the consumer watchdog. Democrats say subjecting the CFPB to congressional appropriations is the first step in eviscerating the agency.

The CHOICE Act would also cut the so-called Volcker Rule, which was meant to stop big banks from making speculative bets with taxpayer-backed funds. (Simple in premise, the Volcker Rule is in fact incredibly complex and contains multiple exemptions too large and purposeful to be called loopholes.) The bill would also remove regulators’ increased power over “systemically important financial institutions.” (Colloquially, these are the ‘too big to fail’ institutions.)

Republicans have cannily described that ‘too big to fail’ designation as meaning the institutions are earmarked for bailouts. In fact, it subjects the institutions to greater regulation and forces them to produce plans showing they can fail without government intervention, and big finance companies fight ― and sometimes sue ― to avoid the tougher regulation the designation brings.

The legislation also would prohibit the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. from overseeing plans on how banks with more than $50 billion in holding assets would be unwound should they need to go into bankruptcy. And the bill would substantially lower capital requirements.

For years, as an alternative to Dodd-Frank, some Republicans have proposed increasing capital requirements as a simple way to make banks safer. Bankers and their lobbyists would often offer general agreement to such a trade. But given the chance to write such a bill, the banking industry and Republican lawmakers showed their hand: Higher capital requirements are out, and a banking system loaded up with more debt is in.

Dodd-Frank, like the complex and interrelated financial system it regulates, does not have a simple, identifiable core. There is no one main thing Dodd-Frank does or stops. Instead, Dodd-Frank reins in the hugely diverse, interconnected financial world ― banks, hedge funds, mortgage originators, insurance companies, debt collectors, payday lenders ― by creating dozens and dozens of new rules, processes and organizations. The CHOICE Act rips almost every bit of this away. If Dodd-Frank is the ecosystem of a wooded hillside and gentle stream, the CHOICE Act is mountaintop removal mining.

* * *

[The CHOICE Act] undeniably allows riskier bets from banks and restrains the ability of regulators to monitor Wall Street. The legislation certainly would make it easier on small-town banks to lend more of their money, but the measure is wrapped in so many other sops to the financial industry that it’s unlikely to go anywhere in the Senate, where it’s subject to 60 votes to pass. Even the Trump administration gave a less than full-throated endorsements of the legislation in a statement, saying the administration “looks forward to working with the Senate on arriving at a final piece of legislation.”

The Tucson Weekly reports that our Rep. Martha McSally was fundraising off her bankster friends promising to vote for the CHOICE Act:

As she was talking to bankers, McSally focused on the latest GOP efforts to repeal the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that regulated banks after the 2007 economic collapse. She characterized Dodd-Frank as a hindrance to banks that needs to be repealed.

“Within the public, there is often a perception that we had the financial meltdown and then Dodd-Frank was good and it was, you know, saving us from future financial meltdowns,” McSally said. “You guys are all experts in the industry and you know that’s not the truth. Really, what Dodd-Frank did, was it provided additional compliance and legislative regulations and more burdens upon you. It doesn’t actually protect the consumer anymore, it just adds more paperwork and compliance.”

“McSally was making these comments as she was asking the bankers to open their checkbooks for her reelection campaign, so it could well be that she was just doing the ol’ fear-mongering-for-dollars act.”


  1. You seem surprised. This is what they do. Anyone in McSally’s district?


    She blames Trump…but:

    She’s voted in total lockstep with Trump’s positions. During a closed-door meeting with her House Republican colleagues ahead of the American Health Care Act (AHCA) last month — a bill that has an approval rating of roughly 21 percent — she reportedly exhorted them by saying, “Let’s get this fucking thing done!”
    McSally’s not-meant-for-public-consumption criticism of Trump is notable for how it differs from what Republicans continue to say about the president in public. There are indications, however, that her sentiments are shared by some of her colleagues in private. Publicly, Republican members of Congress mostly defended Trump and ran interference for him during and after the Comey hearing, but privately, Politico reported that a number of them “were absolutely shocked at how poorly yesterday went for the president.”

Comments are closed.