Wed. Mar 3rd, 2021

at a time when At the grassroots Democrats are fired and ready to leave, they have for years – spoiled for a fight with President Donald Trump and his partner in the GOP – a group of Senate Democrats joining Republicans , If you believe it, will disable the banks.

Yes, instead of taking action on gun control, this week the Senate will likely approve a rollback of the rules adopted in response to the 2008 financial crisis. About a dozen democrats Trying with almost every Republican, and GOP is Fishing for more votes From the blue side in hopes of turning a win into a rout.

Let’s be clear: It is no surprise that a government bank controlled by the GOP wants to ease the rules. But that the Democrats are lending them for help is terrible policy and terrible politics.

Democrats supporting this are making the case that this is for the benefit of small, community banks, which are politically sympathetic and usually not the cause of the global financial crisis. Do not buy it. While there are portions of this bill that would reduce reporting requirements for small banks, it also includes large benefits for large financial institutions.

For example, the bill would increase the amount of assets a bank needed to qualify for increased regulation from the Federal Reserve from $ 50 billion to $ 250 billion. It will miss a step 25 of the 38 largest banks in the country By strong supervision. The bill also includes an exemption from capital standards – essentially the amount of money that banks need to have on hand in the case of going south – that benefits some large financial firms, and even more lobbying.

This bill will be the tip of the iceberg when it hurts. Read This piece David Deion on The Intercept for all the pathetic details.

Apart from being a very dangerous policy, it is very cheap politics. As senators such as Bernie Sanders, I-VT, and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass. Have shown, when it comes to the Democratic base the energy and vitality is in preventing financial xenophobia, not encouraging them. Poll Bear that feeling. There is a reason Nobody who A top-level 2020 supposed Democratic candidate wants to touch this bank bill with a 100-foot poll.

Political cartoon on economy

So what has happened to those who signed the deal with the Democrats? Some, such as Delaware sensors. Chris Coons and Thomas Kapper are from bank-friendly states, and there are local political reasons, I think, for what they are doing. But all the rest of the venues have won by President Donald Trump in 2016, and are operating under the impression that they need to demonstrate bipartisan bonhomie on something to survive their next election campaign.

I doubt that voters in Montana, North Dakota or Missouri would be more likely to support the censor. John Tester, Heidi Heitkamp or Claire McAskill because they supported the bank deregulation bill. These are places where Sanders ran very well against the 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, so it is not like Democrats clamoring for a pro-corporate candidate who sings Kumbaya with the GOP.

In fact, they are the type of places where a genuinely populist candidate can do better than the standard-digit, centrist-approved Democrats to which Washington advisors flare if they are given the chance.

Perhaps, a simple explanation, then, is that the endorsement of the bill is just about money. Senator in question Have seen a boom in The financial industry charity, and while I generally dismiss the popular view of campaign contributions as an obvious quid pro quo for legislative favors, it certainly stinks the most.

Meanwhile, there are Democratic senators from purple states like Tim Kaine and Mark Warner of Virginia or Michael Bennett of Colorado for whom endorsing this bill is simply unforgivable, whichever community the lenders say anything about.

For Republicans, deregulating banks is the standard operating procedure for which they generally do not pay a political price. This should be a different story on the left. If you live in a state where a Senate Democrat thinks the world needs fewer regulations for big banks, maybe take a long, hard look at a primary challenger?

Again, the proponent would say that the law we are discussing here is about freeing community banks from the shackles of government regulation so that they can take more debt in Main Street. But a bank with more than $ 200 billion in assets is not out of “It’s a Wonderful Life”. It is unacceptable for regulators to reduce the ability to place a handle on them, and sets the country on the road to the 2008 redux.

Ten years ago, we learned what happens when threads of the regulatory system are pulled out at once. No one should abandon those dark days. But many Democrats have memories that are few.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *