Reason: Elizabeth Warren Is Right: The Cromnibus Aids Crony Capitalism

NACBA

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
784
That doesn’t happen very often, so it’s worth taking note of before discussion of the Cromnibus—the $1 trillion spending bill Congress passed this past weekend — fades in the rearview mirror.

During last week’s showdown over the bill, Warren objected to a provision eliminating a certain rule in the 2010 Dodd-Frank law. (Hang on, don’t fall asleep just yet.) That rule prevented traditional banks from betting on financial derivatives with federally insured deposits. The banks could still trade in such exotic securities, but they had to do so with their own capital stock, through non-bank affiliates unsecured by FDIC backing. (In short, they had to “push out” such business.) The idea was to prevent future bailouts like the ones that took place six years ago.

The Cromnibus removes that barrier to bailouts. As Warren has noted several times, the relevant provision repeals a part of the law titled, “Prohibition Against Federal Government Bailouts of Swaps Entities.” Most people understand why it’s not a good idea to bail out financial institutions for making risky bets: It only encourages them to assume more risk than they otherwise would. If they bet right, then they get to keep the profits; if they bet wrong, then the taxpayer gets stuck with the bill. Warren is right to oppose such moral hazard.

She’s right on a couple of other points, too:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/12/17/elizabeth-warren-is-right-the-cromnibus
 
avatar25449_2.gif


^^^ would make an epic post neodemocon showdown for 2016
 
Nevertheless, the rule rollback is precisely the sort of crony capitalism that tea party types have railed against for years. It’s big business as marionette—with Congress playing the part of the puppet, and the little guy stuck holding the tab when the big boys act irresponsibly.

Agree. The "Tea Party" exploded with protests against TARP.

This is an interesting case. Rand and Warren are running into the same dynamic here. When they say something that should appeal to the "other side", there are very few takers. At best, the opposite side will say "I agree with that point, but not the other stuff". Often the response is "They are the enemy! Don't listen! Hell, let's change our position now!"
 
Back
Top