What Is True/Slant?
275+ knowledgeable contributors.
Reporting and insight on news of the moment.
Follow them and join the news conversation.
 

May. 7 2010 - 3:05 pm | 108 views | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Is weak financial reform better than no financial reform?

American journalist Matt Taibbi, reporter for ...

Image via Wikipedia

Building off of my post yesterday about how I believe it is electorally advantageous for Democrats to pass strong financial reform, I found myself thinking about the whole, “something is better than nothing” argument that seems to hang around pretty much any legislative effort of significance these days. Is this sort of soft pedaling of weak reform really a good argument? Or is it just a specious excuse for lack of political will that, in fact, does more harm than it does good?

Reading Matt Taibbi’s first hand account of last night’s debate and the death of the Brown-Kaufman amendment really tweaked something for me in regards to that question. In particular, this bit stood out,

In a wittily insulting footnote to this massacre, Alabaman Obfuscation King Richard Shelby, the guy who has been leading the transparently lobbyist-driven and shockingly (even by DC standards) cynical Republican filibusters of this bill,  actually voted for the Brown/Kaufman amendment. I have no idea if this was Shelby’s idea of a joke or what, but somehow seeing this bloated old hack cast a quixotic Yea for this urgently necessary measure while 27 Democrats slithered back into the lobbyist camp to cast Nay votes was the most obnoxious part of this whole sordid affair.

As usual, my language doesn’t tend to be as… er, flamboyant as Matt’s, but I certainly get what he’s driving at. There was a period it seemed where the folks on Wall Street were genuinely worried about how all of this was going to play out. The Brown-Kaufman amendment was probably their biggest concern, shortly followed by Blanche Lincoln’s derivatives bill.

With this amendment dead in the water and talk about weakening Lincoln’s bill coming from both the White House and now specific GOP senators, I think that much of that fear has melted away from Wall Street.  As Simon Johnson puts it,

The lack of debate over Brown-Kaufman – and its likely demise – is all about money.  There is a tsunami of contributions from the financial sector washing over Congress right now.  When the dust settles, the pattern will be clear: Wall Street (legally) bought off key senators.

In some senses, this is a worse message to send to Wall Street than having nothing going forward other than talk and populist outrage.

At least with talk but lack of action, there can still believably be the threat of action in the future held over Wall Street to cow bankers in some marginal fashion. In the current scenario, at least as it looks set to play out, it has become clear that everyone from the President on down will talk a good game, but ultimately fail to follow through in any meaningful fashion.

In addition to the hard reality about its revenue resilience, Wall Street will have learned two lessons: 1.) if they get into trouble, government will bail them out, 2.) afterward there may be a lot of hard talk and recrimination to go around, but no matter how deep the hole no one will have the stones to start filling it with dirt.

That just strikes me as a truly dangerous combination. Failing to really and conclusively end too big to fail and passing a dog-and-pony show of regulatory reforms will leave us with an even cockier and more abusive Wall Street than before, if such a thing can be imagined. There will most assuredly be repeat abuses and the sense that anything is really on the line when the tune gets called will be even more strained and unbelievable — likely leading to even greater stakes being laid on the line.

None of which is an argument for doing nothing. I believe firmly and have stated repeatedly that strong reform is a must. But a kid who learns he can get away with doing something wrong rarely simply sticks within the confines of those boundaries. The impetus is to push harder and further, to find new boundaries and engage in even greater sins. So all of this is to say that financial reform needs to get done and it needs to get done right, unless there is interest in seeing what “bad-to-worse” looks like in this context.

My fear is that current efforts, should they take on a weaker formulation, will ultimately do more harm than they do good.


Comments

1 Total Comment
Post your comment »
 
  1. collapse expand

    Scott,

    Weak financial reform is definitely worse than no financial reform because “weak financial” reform is just an attempt at “deception” by politicians of both parties.

    The Democrats are the party in power, and over the last sixteen months, they have not even talked a “good game” with respect to taming Wall Steet. The U.S. public has already taken a “picture” in their minds of what the Democratic party stands for. That is why the Democrats are going to get a severe beating in the mid-term elections. Now that they have helped vote down the amendment for breaking up the big banks, “it is over.” And when I say over, I mean over over. The only question is what kind of lesson both parties, the media, and the public will learn from the mid-term elections.

    The Democratically controlled Congress should have been dragging one Wall Street figure after another, day in and day out, before their vairous committees and bringing out all the dirt and shedding light on the financial crisis. The public, more than anything else, can see the Democrats “lack of effort.”

    The old saying goes like this: You can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all the people all the the time. The public is not fooled by what the Democrats are saying these days, and the Democrats seem bound and determined to learn their lesson the hard way.

Log in for notification options
Comments RSS

Post Your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment

Log in with your True/Slant account.

Previously logged in with Facebook?

Create an account to join True/Slant now.

Facebook users:
Create T/S account with Facebook
 

My T/S Activity Feed

 
     

    About Me

    I'm a Canadian blogger who spends far too much time reading and writing about US politics. I've been involved in various forms of political organizing for the past decade, some of which has earned me recognition and other of which has earned me the title of "no good punk".

    I also blog at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, the Commons, Beams and Struts, and The Washington Examiner's Opinion Zone.

    See my profile »
    Followers: 14
    Contributor Since: March 2010
    Location:Calgary, Alberta