Politifact: Wall Street reform bill does not provide bailouts. NYT: The issue is more nuanced
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dino Rossi has finally come out today in opposition to the Wall Street reform bill the senate is considering, and taking aim at U.S. Sen. Patty Murray,D-Wash., for supporting what he says is legislation that will allow for bank bailouts.
The criticism comes on the same day that Murray is touting her support for the bill, and, via Twitter and Facebook, bragging about a speech she made on the floor in support of the legislation.
So is the claim that bailouts will continue under the legislation true?
Politifact says no. And the claim has been debunked for a few months now by them. Said Politifact when they analyzed the exact same claim from Republican U.S. Sen. Mitch McConnell:
It clearly states that the intention is to liquidate failing companies, not bail them out. To do that, it creates a fund with contributions from financial firms, not from taxpayer funds. We do not see any element of the bill that expressly permits ongoing, “endless” outlays from the federal treasury. … Nothing in the bill “guarantees” future bailouts of Wall Street banks. We rate his statement False.
But The New York Times has an in-depth piece out that shows the issue is far more complicated, just as is our economic system in the first place.
You’ll need to check it out to get the full picture. But, basically, the gist is that while there is specific language barring bailouts, there is flexibility in terms of how a company would be liquidated. The legislation is specifically intended to show the markets that the government won’t act as a backstop against failures, and that one portion of the bill that might allow for what some could perceive as a “bailout” is written in a way that it might never be used. But, they caution, no financial crisis is the same, and that there’s no way of knowing how the legislation might impact a future financial issue without it being enacted.
Said Steven M. Davidoff:
Still, eliminating regulation by deal in a financial crisis is impossible. This is because we simply do not know the nature of the next crisis and the law cannot account for all future possibilities. And sometimes frankly, this deal-making may result in better outcomes.
This part of the bill makes inevitable compromises that will leave some unsatisfied. The bill may not end all bailouts, but it is still a significant improvement toward more effectively regulating the financial system.
Facebook Fan page
July 15th, 2010 at 10:45 AM
The financial-reform bill that hits the president’s desk this week is a 2,500-page failure that will only create more problems for federal regulators, argues former SEC Chairman Harvey L. Pitt….
We’re about to receive legislation that could better be entitled “The Lawyers’ and Lobbyists’ Full Employment Act.”
The bill sets the SEC up for failure. The SEC is given more rulemaking, more studies and more onerous responsibilities than any other financial regulatory body. Worse, the SEC must now regulate 10,000 hedge funds and several thousand private-equity firms, but was denied what many other financial regulators have—the ability to self-fund its operations. The SEC presumably was denied this authority because the members of its Appropriations Committees don’t want to jeopardize campaign contributions from those the SEC regulates.
In other words: Congress has labored mightily, and brought forth a mouse!
http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-07-14/a-failed-financial-bill/?cid=hp:exc
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 15th, 2010 at 3:08 PM
Wonder if any of these 60 stalwarts who voted for this, have actually read the bill? As not-reading-bills seems to be Dimmocrap SOP, I doubt it.
“We have to pass this bill (said about the Health Care so-called Reform Bill) to find out what’s in it” -Nancy Pelosi.
Deja Vu all over again.
REMEMBER ON NOVEMBER 2ND!
July 15th, 2010 at 3:54 PM
It could do nothing, except maybe benefit small banks who are the prime lenders to small business….
http://www.mybanktracker.com/bank-news/2010/07/02/financial-reform-bill-could-benefit-small-banks/
July 15th, 2010 at 3:55 PM
I thought going back to basics was the Republican mantra, but you guys make my head spin with all your spin..
http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/content/jun2010/sb20100629_183643.htm
July 15th, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Well now you’ll just have to spin and moan and grump and of course scream a lot of “foul” but like all the other programs Obama has pushed through in one of the most sweeping change waves of legislation …almost ever…the successes will be decried by the right as flukes and the working out of details and fine tuning will be obstructed at every turn.
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/business/business/2010/jul/15/regugat15-ar-297129/
July 15th, 2010 at 4:20 PM
The financial regulatory bill is a “disaster,” and its proposed consumer protection agency would create a Fannie and Freddie “on steroids,” Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H.
The bill is a disaster because it doesn’t address the fundamental underlining causes of the economic issue, which were real estate and underwriting,”
You’ll basically have a consumer protection agency which decides to go out and in the morning and say, ‘well everybody who’s XYZ should have a loan, even though the local community bank says XYZ shouldn’t have a loan, because if we give them a loan, we know they’re not going to pay back,’” he said. “It’s going to become an agency that defines lending on social justice purposes instead of safety and soundness purposes.”
“You’ve got this Alice in Wonderland tea party atmosphere around derivatives,”
So they will become even less controllable in the sense of having oversight.”
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37314297
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 15th, 2010 at 4:22 PM
Shaun,
It takes a 2300+ page bill to go “back to the basics”? huh?
If this bill was basic and focused on addressing some of the causes of the recent financial meltdown maybe some of it’s definicies could be overlooked. As it is, this is bill is way over the top and doesn’t even address some of the core problems from the crisis.
Another good example of the Dems serving out Rahm’s’ mantra of:
July 16th, 2010 at 9:33 AM
Hammer time, Says who? Fox News? You’re not paying attention to the overwhelming press on this.
You have not responded to any of the points or issues in the linked articles.
You have just spewed “..deficiencies…” from the cheap seats, but not enumerated any of your hidden points. Consequently, since I’m not Carnac, I’ll just note that you vote no but the “deficiencies” are in you telling us why…
July 16th, 2010 at 9:38 AM
AFY, even those of your own breed are disappointed in the constant chants of no to everything…
And if you listen to Judd Greg, well lo siento, you are what you read….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/15/gop-senator-on-financial_n_538717.html
July 16th, 2010 at 10:33 AM
The Dodd-Frank bill does nothing to deal with Wall Street’s central problem: systemic non-disclosure.
Dodd-Frank is a full-employment act for regulators that addresses everything but the root causes of the financial collapse. It serves up a dog’s breakfast covering proprietary trading, consumer financial protection, derivatives trading, executive pay, credit card fees, whistle-blowers, minority inclusion and Congolese minerals. Dodd-Frank also mandates 68 new studies of carbon markets, Chinese drywalls, and person-to-person lending, and many other irrelevancies.
None of this deals with the central problem–Wall Street’s ability to hide behind claims of proprietary information to facilitate the production and sale of trillions of dollars in securities whose true values are almost impossible for outsiders to determine.
Dodd-Frank is not just a prescription for regulatory sclerosis. It is a bonanza for Wall Street lobbyists and lawyers, who will help determine what this law’s 283,985 words actually mean.
http://www.forbes.com/2010/07/15/dodd-frank-failure-regulation-opinions-contributors-james-henry-laurence-kotlikoff-wall-street.html
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 16th, 2010 at 10:38 AM
It was never supposed to be a one fix solution. It is a foundation…
July 16th, 2010 at 10:41 AM
A foundation for failure!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
July 16th, 2010 at 10:44 AM
The culture on Wall Street (and in Washington for that matter) could easily be changed with a few high profile prison terms. These guys are the dons of white collar crime. Yes, crime. Unfortunately, there is no sheriff.
July 16th, 2010 at 11:54 AM
For once, I agree with Mr. Kirsch.
The prospect of prison would clear a mind or two.
About the bill: If it was passed by this Congress, it’s a bad bill.
July 16th, 2010 at 1:47 PM
Dave, may I remind you also agreed on Cap & Trade.
July 16th, 2010 at 6:11 PM
My apologies!
I certainly did.
Actually, I agree with much of what you write, and we disagree mostly about details, while we agree about corrupt process in Washington.