Obama to Propose New Limits on Banks

[TheProfessor]

Obama to Propose New Limits on Banks (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704320104575015910344117800.html)

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama on Thursday is expected to propose new limits on the size and risk taken by the country's biggest banks, marking the administration's latest assault on Wall Street in what could mark a return, at least in spirit, to some of the curbs on finance put in place during the Great Depression, according to congressional sources and administration officials.

The proposal represents a sharply different philosophical shift from the view of banking over the past decade, which saw widespread consolidation among large financial institutions to create huge banking titans. If Congress approves the proposal, the White House plan could permanently impose government constraints on the size and nature of banking.

Mr. Obama's proposal is expected to include new scale restrictions on the size of the country's largest financial institutions. The goal would be to deter banks from becoming so large they put the broader economy at risk and to also prevent banks from becoming so large they distort normal competitive forces. It couldn't be learned what precise limits the White House will endorse, or whether Mr. Obama will spell out the exact limits on Thursday.

Mr. Obama is also expected to endorse, for the first time publicly, measures pushed by former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, which would place restrictions on the proprietary trading done by commercial banks, essentially limiting the way banks bet with their own capital. Administration officials say they want to place "firewalls" between different divisions of financial companies to ensure banks don't indirectly subsidize "speculative" trading through other subsidiaries that hold federally insured deposits.

The proposal could have the biggest effect on Bank of America Corp., Wells Fargo & Co., and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., which control a large amount of U.S. deposits, as well as Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup Inc., which have a large presence on Wall Street.

If the proposal took effect it would reshape Wall Street. Big banks would be forced to break off their investing banking units—which trade and underwrite securities and make their own bets on markets—from traditional businesses, which make loans and take deposits.

The investing banking units have grown dramatically in recent years, were far more profitable than the banking operations and were at the heart of the financial crisis. Bank of America, for example, could be forced to sell off its recently acquired Merrill Lynch brokerage business.

In addition, the limits on size could force breakups. The banking industry has undergone a major consolidation during the financial crisis, leaving the top four banks with an unprecedent market share in businesses such as deposit taking, credit cards and mortgages.

The rules could also keep banks out of the business of running hedge funds, investing in real estate or private equity, all businesses that have become important, profitable parts of these banks. The collapse of two highly leveraged hedge funds began the process that led to the collapse of Bear Stearns.

The changes could benefit American businesses by creating more competition on Wall Street, but potentially hurt them by limiting lending.

Messrs. Obama and Volcker are scheduled to meet tomorrow in advance of the White House announcement.

The White House's proposal, one aide said, wouldn't resurrect the exact limits put in place by the Depression-era Glass Steagall Act, which essentially walled off commercial banks from investment banks and was repealed in 1999. Instead, the White House proposal would seek to return the "spirit of Glass Steagall," meant to limit large banks from becoming too big and complex that create enormous risk.

[Winehole23]

The devil's in the details. The WH is hitting the right note, finally. About a year late by my reckoning. I guess it would have cramped Geithner's style last winter and spring, if Obama made too much noise early on in the process.

[Winehole23]

Socialization of private financial risk is bad. We did it once, recently. We should try to avoid doing it again.

The USG needs to start managing the problem, now that private (TBTF) financial risk is officially backstopped by the US taxpayer. Whatever the government could do in advance to minimze the future risk to taxpayers, as well as to recoup at least the interest on the $14T total pledged so far to bailout efforts, would be to the good. JMO.

[Winehole23]

As I see it the next $4T has already been teed up, so they can start paying for that too.

[Winehole23]

Lookee here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_debt_limit_11

Bet they'd like to sweep this under the rug.

[coyotes_geek]

This is way overdue. Personally I'd still like to see Obama go Sherman Act on the TBTF's, but that's not going to happen.

[coyotes_geek]

Lookee here:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100120/ap_on_bi_ge/us_congress_debt_limit_11

Bet they'd like to sweep this under the rug.

No doubt. It's more ammunition for the republicans come November.

[DarkReign]

Mr. Obama's proposal is expected to include new scale restrictions on the size of the country's largest financial institutions. The goal would be to deter banks from becoming so large they put the broader economy at risk and to also prevent banks from becoming so large they distort normal competitive forces.

Sounds real good. Next sentence, please!


It couldn't be learned what precise limits the White House will endorse, or whether Mr. Obama will spell out the exact limits on Thursday.

Oh...well. If Team Obama can only be judged by their healthcare "reform", then its safe to assume this will be another abortion of common sense.

TBTF's need to be illegalized, period. I am sure Team Obama will put some size restricition on banks/financial institutions, but the ceiling will be so incredibly high, it might as well never been named.

Which, politically speaking, is the entire point. I wish I could say Obama is showing acumen for political gamesmanship, but sadly, he is pulling his strategy right out of a junior college PoliSci class.

[Marcus Bryant]

How about if you are an exec of a TBTF (is that defined in the law yet?) then X%* of your personal wealth must be invested in it? One of the trends that has led to the debacle, imo, is that the major Wall Street firms are no longer GPs, but C corps. What exposure do these people truly have if they run their company into the ground?

If you expect a government backstop, well, expect some limitations.

*being a significant percentage.

[Winehole23]

Fuck that. No backstop.

[Winehole23]

lol

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure. Barring that, some limitations would be prudent.

[Winehole23]

Sure. Agree 100%.

[Marcus Bryant]

We're in violent fucking agreement.

[Winehole23]

I fucking hate that we are the backstop.

[Marcus Bryant]

It's in our best interest. We the People just don't get it.

[mogrovejo]

Narrow-based taxes are one of the most serious symptoms of a political community decaying into totalitarianism - the majority ganging up on a minority.

Alas, it's a consequence of the totalitarian statism modus operandi:

1 - Implement statist measures to solve an imaginary problem or a problem caused by initial state actions.

2 -When it fails and/or a new problem arises due to those measures, attribute the failure to the fact that the statist solution was too modest. Clamour for more statist "solutions".

3 - For each injustice caused by the implementation of the statist solution clamour for the implementation of another statist solution (that will fatally cause new problems).

4 - Repeat ad aeternum until liberties and wealths are decimated.

[DarkReign]

Narrow-based taxes are one of the most serious symptoms of a political community decaying into totalitarianism - the majority ganging up on a minority.

Alas, it's a consequence of the totalitarian statism modus operandi:

1 - Implement statist measures to solve an imaginary problem or a problem caused by initial state actions.

2 -When it fails and/or a new problem arises due to those measures, attribute the failure to the fact that the statist solution was too modest. Clamour for more statist "solutions".

3 - For each injustice caused by the implementation of the statist solution clamour for the implementation of another statist solution (that will fatally cause new problems).

4 - Repeat ad aeternum until liberties and wealths are decimated.

Sooooo, for or against companies becoming so big that their failure results in the nation's failure (apparently, anyway)?

Its nice that you have a philosophy on the wonderful endowments the corporate world allows us plebs to enjoy upon their labor, but clue me in...

Does our national solvency take a back-seat to private business?

As an aside...

I dont put people on ignore, I never have, especially someone as smart as you. But listening to you speak boils me to the bone. You are a pro-corporate, fuck-the-people, Michael Douglas in Wall Street clone. Maybe just a wanna-be clone, but even that infuriates me to no end.

I have hard time understanding your reasoning behind your stances, but I think thats your point. You have one stance...Loyalty to Money.

[mogrovejo]

Sooooo, for or against companies becoming so big that their failure results in the nation's failure (apparently, anyway)?

Its nice that you have a philosophy on the wonderful endowments the corporate world allows us plebs to enjoy upon their labor, but clue me in...

Does our national solvency take a back-seat to private business?

As an aside...

I dont put people on ignore, I never have, especially someone as smart as you. But listening to you speak boils me to the bone. You are a pro-corporate, fuck-the-people, Michael Douglas in Wall Street clone. Maybe just a wanna-be clone, but even that infuriates me to no end.

I have hard time understanding your reasoning behind your stances, but I think thats your point. You have one stance...Loyalty to Money.

Yes, the guy who defends that failed companies should just fail and not benefit from the taxpayer money is the pro-corporate one. That makes a lot of sense.

[Marcus Bryant]

Narrow-based taxes are one of the most serious symptoms of a political community decaying into totalitarianism - the majority ganging up on a minority.

Alas, it's a consequence of the totalitarian statism modus operandi:

1 - Implement statist measures to solve an imaginary problem or a problem caused by initial state actions.

2 -When it fails and/or a new problem arises due to those measures, attribute the failure to the fact that the statist solution was too modest. Clamour for more statist "solutions".

3 - For each injustice caused by the implementation of the statist solution clamour for the implementation of another statist solution (that will fatally cause new problems).

4 - Repeat ad aeternum until liberties and wealths are decimated.


Yawn. The greatest threat to our liberty is being called on to pay for huge financial services firms that fuck up and expect us to bail them out. Funny how that injustice is never considered.

[mogrovejo]

Yawn. The greatest threat to our liberty is being called on to pay for huge financial services firms that fuck up and expect us to bail them out. Funny how that injustice is never considered.

Why isn't it considered? I can't think of a more evident example of a statist policy than subsidies.

[Nbadan]

Yawn. The greatest threat to our liberty is being called on to pay for huge financial services firms that fuck up and expect us to bail them out. Funny how that injustice is never considered.

Didn't a whole lot of Republicans vote for TARP too.....a whole lot of Republicans that will be up for re-election soon? I wonder if Marcus will lobby against every member who voted for TARP as orgasmically as he's lobbied for Pimp Brown..

[Nbadan]

Here is the vote for the $700 billion dollar bail-out bill

All Senators


Akaka, Daniel (D) NAY Honolulu, HI
Alexander, Lamar (R) NAY Nashville, TN
Barrasso, John (R) YEA Casper, WY
Baucus, Max (D) NAY Helena, MT
Bayh, Evan (D) YEA Indianapolis, IN
Begich, Mark (D) NAY Anchorage, AK
Bennett, Robert (R) YEA Salt Lake City, UT
, () NAY ,
Bingaman, Jeff (D) NAY Silver City, NM
Bond, Christopher (R) YEA Mexico, MO
Boxer, Barbara (D) NAY Greenbrae, CA
Brown, Sherrod (D) NV Avon, OH
Brownback, Sam (R) YEA Topeka, KS
Bunning, Jim (R) NV Southgate, KY
Burr, Richard (R) YEA Greensboro, NC
Burris, Roland (D) NAY Chicago, IL
Byrd, Robert (D) NAY Sophia, WV
Cantwell, Maria (D) YEA Mountlake Terrace, WA
Cardin, Benjamin (D) NAY Baltimore, MD
Carper, Thomas (D) NAY Wilmington, DE
Casey Jr., Robert (D) NAY Scranton, PA
Chambliss, Saxby (R) YEA Moultrie, GA
, () NAY ,
Coburn, Tom (R) YEA Muskogee, OK
Cochran, Thad (R) YEA Jackson, MS
Collins, Susan (R) YEA Bangor, ME
Conrad, Kent (D) NAY Bismarck, ND
Corker, Bob (R) YEA Chattanooga, TN
Cornyn, John (R) YEA San Antonio, TX
Crapo, Michael (R) YEA Idaho Falls, ID
DeMint, Jim (R) YEA Greenville, SC
Dodd, Christopher (D) NAY East Haddam, CT
Dorgan, Byron (D) YEA Bismarck, ND
Durbin , Richard (D) NAY Springfield, IL
Ensign, John (R) YEA Las Vegas, NV
Enzi, Michael (R) YEA Gillette, WY
Feingold, Russell (D) YEA Middleton, WI
Feinstein, Dianne (D) NAY San Francisco, CA
Graham, Lindsey (R) YEA Seneca, SC
Grassley, Charles (R) YEA New Hartford, IA
Gregg, Judd (R) NAY Rye, NH
Hagan, Kay (D) NAY Salisbury, NC
Harkin, Tom (D) NAY Cumming, IA
Hatch, Orrin (R) PRS Salt Lake City, UT
Hutchison, Kay Bailey (R) YEA Dallas, TX
Inhofe, James (R) YEA Tulsa, OK
Inouye, Daniel (D) NAY Honolulu, HI
Isakson, Johnny (R) YEA Marietta, GA
Johanns, Mike (R) YEA Omaha, NE
Johnson, Tim (D) NAY Vermillion, SD
Kennedy, Edward (D) NV Hyannis Port, MA
Kerry, John (D) NAY Boston, MA
Klobuchar, Amy (D) NAY Minneapolis, MN
Kohl, Herb (D) NAY Milwaukee, WI
Kyl, Jon (R) NAY Phoenix, AZ
Landrieu, Mary (D) NAY Baton Rouge, LA
Lautenberg, Frank (D) NAY Clifside Park, NJ
Leahy, Patrick (D) NAY Middlesex, VT
Levin, Carl (D) NAY Detroit, MI
Lieberman, Joseph (D) NAY New Haven, CT
Lincoln, Blanche (D) YEA Hughes, AR
Lugar, Richard (R) NAY Indianapolis, IN
Martinez, Mel (R) YEA Orlando, FL
McCain, John (R) YEA Phoenix, AZ
McCaskill, Claire (D) NAY Kirkwood, MO
McConnell, Mitch (R) YEA Louisville, KY
Menendez, Robert (D) NAY Hoboken, NJ
Merkley, Jeff (D) NAY Portland, OR
Mikulski, Barbara (D) NAY Baltimore, MD
Murkowski, Lisa (R) YEA Anchorage, AK
Murray, Patty (D) NAY Seattle, WA
Nelson, Bill (D) NAY Tallahassee, FL
Nelson, Ben (D) YEA Omaha, NE
Pryor, Mark (D) NAY Little Rock, AR
Reed, Jack (D) NAY Cranston, RI
Reid, Harry (D) NAY Searchlight, NV
Risch, Jim (R) YEA Boise, ID
Roberts, Pat (R) YEA Dodge City, KS
Rockefeller, John (D) NAY Charleston, WV
, () NAY ,
Sanders, Bernie (I) YEA Shrewsbury, VT
Schumer, Charles (D) NAY Brooklyn, NY
Sessions, Jeff (R) YEA Mobile, AL
Shaheen, Jeanne (D) YEA Madbury, NH
Shelby, Richard (R) YEA Tuscaloosa, AL
Snowe, Olympia (R) NAY Falmouth, ME
Specter, Arlen (R) YEA Philadelphia, PA
Stabenow, Debbie (D) NAY Lansing, MI
Tester, Jon (D) PRS Big Sandy, MT
Thune, John (R) YEA Sioux Falls, SD
Udall, Mark (D) NAY Eldorado Springs, CO
Udall, Tom (D) NAY Santa Fe, NM
Vitter, David (R) YEA Matairie, LA
Voinovich, George (R) NAY Cleveland, OH
Warner, Mark (D) NAY Alexandria, VA
Webb, Jim (D) NAY Falls Church, VA
Whitehouse, Sheldon (D) NAY Providence, RI
Wicker, Roger (R) YEA Tupelo, MS
Wyden, Ron (D) YEA Portland, OR

Rolecall votes (http://www.rollcallvotes.com/index_2009.html)

[Marcus Bryant]

Maybe when Dano criticizes a Democrat and finds a 9/11 Nutter conspiracy he doesn't cream himself over.

[Nbadan]

Weak. Hypocrite.

[Marcus Bryant]

LOL. I've actually criticized Republicans, unlike yourself who has never found a Democrat who could do wrong.

That's what is "weak." You talk a good game but at the end of the day you are yet another Dem.

[Nbadan]

yeah, yeah, I'm trying to find Republicans who didn't vote for TARP....a rare bird indeed...both Hutch and Cornyn voted for TARP....so I guess you'll be coming out in support of 'Goodhair"...Perry...soon..

All House Members


Abercrombie, Neil (D-1 ) NAY Honolulu, HI
Ackerman , Gary (D-5 ) NAY Queens, NY
Aderholt, Robert (R-4) YEA Haleyville, AL
Adler, John (D-3 ) YEA Cherry Hill, NJ
Akin, Todd (R-2) YEA Town & Country, MO
Alexander, Rodney (R-5 ) YEA Quitman, LA
Altmire, Jason (D-4) YEA McCandless, PA
Andrews, Robert (D-1 ) NAY Haddon Heights, NJ
Arcuri, Michael (D-24 ) YEA Utica, NY
Austria, Steve (R-7 ) YEA Beavercreek, OH
Baca, Joe (D-43 ) NAY San Bernardino, CA
Bachmann, Michele (R-6) YEA Stillwater, MN
Bachus, Spencer (R-6) YEA Birmingham, AL
Baird, Brian (D-3 ) NAY Vancouver, WA
Baldwin, Tammy (D-2 ) NAY Madison, WI
Barrett, Gresham (R-3 ) YEA Westminster, SC
Barrow, John (D-12 ) YEA Athens, GA
Bartlett, Roscoe (R-6 ) YEA Frederick, MD
Barton, Joe (R-6 ) YEA Ennis, TX
Bean, Melissa (D-8 ) NAY Barrington, IL
Becerra, Xavier (D-31 ) NAY Los Angeles, CA
Berkley, Shelley (D-1 ) YEA Las Vegas, NV
Berman, Howard (D-28 ) NAY North Hollywood, CA
Berry, Marion (D-1 ) YEA Gillett, AR
Biggert, Judy (R-13 ) YEA Hinsdale, IL
Bilbray, Brian (R-50 ) YEA San Diego, CA
Bilirakis, Gus (R-9 ) YEA Palm Harbor, FL
Bishop, Sanford (D-2 ) NAY Albany, GA
Bishop, Tim (D-1 ) NAY Southampton, NY
Bishop, Rob (R-1 ) YEA Brigham City, UT
Blackburn, Marsha (R-7 ) YEA Brentwood, TN
Blumenauer, Earl (D-3 ) NAY Portland, OR
Blunt, Roy (R-7 ) YEA Strafford, MO
Boccieri, John (D-16 ) YEA Alliance, OH
Boehner, John (R-8 ) YEA West Chester, OH
Bonner, Jo (R-1 ) YEA Mobile, AL
Bono, Mary (R-45 ) YEA Palm Springs, CA
Boozman, John (R-3) YEA Rogers, AR
Boren, Dan (D-2) YEA Paden, OK
Boswell, Leonard (D-3 ) NAY Davis City, IA
Boucher, Rick (D-9 ) NV Abingdon, VA
Boustany, Charles (R-7 ) YEA Lafayette, LA
Boyd, Allen (D-2 ) YEA Monticello, FL
Brady, Robert (D-1 ) NAY Philadelphia, PA
Brady, Kevin (R-8 ) YEA The Woodlands, TX
Braley, Bruce (D-1 ) NAY Waterloo, IA
Bright, Bobby (D-2) YEA Montgomery, AL
Broun, Paul (R-10 ) YEA Athens, GA
Brown, Henry (R-1) YEA Hanahan, SC
Brown, Corrine (D-3 ) NAY Jacksonville, FL
Brown-Waite, Ginny (R-5 ) YEA Brooksville, FL
Buchanan, Vern (R-13 ) YEA Sarasota, FL
Burgess, Michael (R-26 ) YEA Flower Mound, TX
Burton, Dan (R-5 ) YEA Indianapolis, IN
Butterfield, G.K. (D-1 ) NAY Warrenton, NC
Buyer, Steve (R-4 ) YEA Monticello, IN
Calvert, Ken (R-44 ) YEA Riverside, CA
Camp, Dave (R-4 ) YEA Midland, MI
Campbell, John (R-48 ) NAY Irvine, CA
Cantor, Eric (R-7) YEA Richmond, VA
Cao, Anh Joseph (R-2 ) YEA New Orleans, LA
Capito, Shelley Moore (R-2) YEA Charleston, WV
Capps, Lois (D-23 ) NAY Santa Barbara, CA
Capuano, Michael (D-8 ) NAY Somerville, MA
Cardoza, Dennis (D-18 ) YEA Atwater, CA
Carnahan, Russ (D-3 ) NAY St Louis, MO
Carney, Chris (D-10 ) YEA Dimock Township, PA
Carson, Andre (D-7 ) NAY Indianapolis, IN
Carter, John (R-31 ) YEA Round Rock, TX
Cassidy, Bill (R-6 ) YEA Baton Rouge, LA
Castle, Michael (R-AL ) YEA Wilmington, DE
Castor, Kathy (D-11 ) NAY Tampa, FL
Chaffetz, Jason (R-3 ) YEA Alpine, UT
Chandler, Ben (D-6 ) YEA Versailles, KY
Childers, Travis (D-1 ) YEA Booneville, MS
Clark, Yvette (D-11 ) NAY Brooklyn, NY
Clay, Wm. Lacy (D-1) NAY St. Louis, MO
Cleaver II, Emanuel (D-5 ) NAY Kansas City, MO
Clyburn, James (D-6 ) NAY Columbia, SC
Coble, Howard (R-6 ) YEA Greensboro, NC
Coffman, Mike (R-6 ) YEA Aurora, CO
Cohen, Stephen (D-9 ) NAY Memphis, TN
Cole, Tom (R-4 ) YEA Moore, OK
Conaway, Mike (R-11 ) YEA Midland, TX
Connolly, Gerald (D-11 ) YEA Mantua, VA
Conyers, John (D-14 ) YEA Detroit, MI
Cooper, Jim (D-5 ) NAY Nashville, TN
Costa, Jim (D-20 ) YEA Fresno, CA
Costello, Jerry (D-12 ) YEA Belleville, IL
Courtney, Joe (D-2) YEA Vernon, CT
Crenshaw, Ander (R-4) YEA Jacksonville, FL
Crowley, Joseph (D-7 ) NAY Elmhurst, NY
Cuellar, Henry (D-28 ) YEA Laredo, TX
Culberson, John (R-7) YEA Houston, TX
Cummings, Elijah (D-7 ) NAY Baltimore, MD
Dahlkemper, Kathy (D-3 ) YEA Erie, PA
Davis, Artur (D-7) YEA Birmingham, AL
Davis, Susan (D-53) NAY San Diego, CA
Davis, Danny (D-7 ) NAY Chicago, IL
Davis, Geoff (R-4 ) YEA Hebron, KY
Davis, Lincoln (D-4 ) YEA Pall Mall, TN
Deal, Nathan (R-9 ) YEA Gainesville, GA
DeFazio, Peter (D-4 ) YEA Springfield, OR
DeGette, Diana (D-1 ) NAY Denver, CO
Delahunt, William (D-10 ) YEA Quincy, MA
DeLauro, Rosa (D-3 ) NAY New Haven, CT
Dent, Charlie (R-15 ) YEA Allentown, PA
Diaz-Balart, L. (R-21 ) YEA Miami, FL
Diaz-Balart, Mario (R-25 ) YEA Miami, FL
Dicks, Norman (D-6 ) NAY Bremerton, WA
Dingell, John (D-15 ) NAY Dearborn, MI
Doggett, Lloyd (D-25 ) YEA Austin, TX
Donnelly, Joe (D-2 ) NAY Granger, IN
Doyle, Mike (D-14 ) NAY Swissvale, PA
Dreier, David (R-26 ) YEA San Dimas, CA
Driehaus, Steve (D-1 ) YEA Cincinnati, OH
Duncan Jr., John (R-2 ) YEA Knoxville, TN
Edwards, Donna (D-4 ) NAY Fort Washington, MD
Edwards, Chet (D-17 ) NAY Waco, TX
Ehlers, Vernon (R-3 ) YEA Grand Rapids, MI
Ellison, Keith (D-5 ) NAY Minneapolis, MN
Ellsworth, Brad (D-8 ) YEA Evansville, IN
Emerson, Jo Ann (R-8 ) YEA Cape Girardeau, MO
Engel, Eliot (D-17 ) NAY Bronx, NY
Eshoo, Anna (D-14 ) NAY Atherton, CA
Etheridge, Bob (D-2 ) NAY Lillington, NC
Fallin, Mary (R-5 ) YEA Oklahoma City, OK
Farr, Sam (D-17 ) NAY Carmel, CA
Fattah, Chaka (D-2 ) NAY Philadelphia, PA
Filner, Bob (D-51 ) YEA San Diego, CA
Flake, Jeff (R-6) YEA Mesa, AZ
Fleming, John (R-4 ) YEA Minden, LA
Forbes, Randy (R-4) YEA Chesapeake, VA
Fortenberry, Jeff (R-1 ) YEA Lincoln, NE
Foster, Bill (D-14 ) NAY Geneva, IL
Foxx, Virginia (R-5 ) YEA Grandfather Comm., NC
Frank, Barney (D-4 ) NAY Newton, MA
Franks, Trent (R-2 ) YEA Glendale, AZ
Frelinghuysen, Rodney (R-11 ) YEA Harding, NJ
Fudge, Marcia (D-11 ) NAY Warrensville Heights, OH
Gallegly, Elton (R-24 ) YEA Simi Valley, CA
Garrett, Scott (R-5 ) YEA Wantage, NJ
Gerlach, Jim (R-6 ) YEA Downington, PA
Giffords, Gabrielle (D-8 ) NAY Tucson, AZ
, () YEA ,
Gingrey, Phil (R-11 ) YEA Marietta, GA
Gohmert, Louie (R-1 ) YEA Tyler, TX
Gonzalez, Charlie (D-20 ) NAY San Antonio, TX
Goodlatte, Bob (R-6 ) YEA Roanoke, VA
Gordon, Bart (D-6 ) NAY Murfreesboro, TN
Granger, Kay (R-12 ) YEA Fort Worth, TX
Graves, Sam (R-6) YEA Tarkio, MO
Grayson, Alan (D-8) YEA Orlando, FL
Green, Al (D-9 ) NAY Houston, TX
Green, Gene (D-29 ) YEA Houston, TX
Griffith, Parker (D-5) YEA Huntsville, AL
Grijalva, Raul (D-7 ) NAY Tucson, AZ
Guthrie, Brett (R-2 ) YEA Bowling Green, KY
Gutierrez, Luis (D-4 ) NAY Chicago, IL
Hall, John (D-19 ) NAY Dover Plains, NY
Hall, Ralph (R-4 ) YEA Rockwall, TX
Halvorson, Debbie (D-11 ) YEA Crete, IL
Hare, Philip (D-17 ) YEA Rock Island, IL
Harman, Jane (D-36) YEA Rolling Hills, CA
Harper, Gregg (R-3 ) YEA Pearl, MS
Hastings, Alcee (D-23 ) NAY Miramar, FL
Hastings, Doc (R-4 ) YEA Pasco, WA
Heinrich, Martin (D-1 ) YEA Albuquerque, NM
Heller, Dean (R-2 ) YEA Carson City, NV
Hensarling, Jeb (R-5 ) YEA Dallas, TX
Herger, Wally (R-2 ) YEA Marysville, CA
Herseth, Stephanie (D-AL) YEA Aberdeen, SD
Higgins , Brian (D-27 ) NAY Buffalo, NY
Hill, Baron (D-9 ) YEA Seymore, IN
Himes, Jim (D-4 ) NAY Greenwich, CT
Hinchey, Maurice (D-22 ) NAY Saugerties, NY
Hinojosa, Ruben (D-15 ) NAY Mercedes, TX
Hirono, Mazie (D-2 ) NAY Honolulu, HI
Hodes, Paul (D-2 ) YEA Concord, NH
Hoekstra, Peter (R-2 ) YEA Holland, MI
Holden, Tim (D-17 ) YEA St. Clair, PA
Holt, Rush (D-12 ) NAY Hopewell, NJ
Honda, Mike (D-15) NAY San Jose, CA
Hoyer, Steny (D-5 ) NAY Mechanicsville, MD
Hunter, Duncan (R-52 ) YEA El Cajon, CA
Inglis, Bob (R-4 ) NAY Travelers Rest, SC
Inslee, Jay (D-1 ) YEA Bainbridge Island, WA
Israel, Steve (D-2) NAY Dix Hills, NY
Issa, Darrell (R-49) YEA Vista, CA
Jackson Jr., Jesse (D-2 ) NAY Chicago, IL
Jackson-Lee, Sheila (D-18 ) NAY Houston, TX
Jenkins, Lynn (R-2 ) YEA Topeka, KS
Johnson, Hank (D-4 ) YEA Lithonia, GA
Johnson, Timothy (R-15) YEA Sidney, IL
Johnson, E. B. (D-30 ) NV Dallas, TX
Johnson, Sam (R-3 ) YEA Plano, TX
Jones, Walter (R-3 ) YEA Farmville, NC
Jordan, James (R-4 ) YEA Urbana, OH
Kagen, Steven (D-8 ) YEA Appleton, WI
Kanjorski, Paul (D-11 ) NAY Nanticoke, PA
Kaptur, Marcy (D-9 ) YEA Toledo, OH
Kennedy, Patrick (D-1 ) NAY Providence, RI
Kildee, Dale (D-5 ) NAY Flint, MI
Kilpatrick, Carolyn (D-13 ) NAY Detroit, MI
Kilroy, Mary Jo (D-15 ) YEA Columbus, OH
Kind, Ronald (D-3 ) YEA La Crosse, WI
King, Steve (R-5 ) YEA Kiron, IA
King, Peter (R-3 ) YEA Seaford, NY
Kingston, Jack (R-1 ) YEA Savannah, GA
Kirk, Mark (R-10) NAY Wilmette, IL
Kirkpatrick, Ann (D-1 ) YEA Flagstaff, AZ
Kissell, Larry (D-8 ) YEA Biscoe, NC
Klein, Ron (D-22 ) NAY Fort Lauderdale, FL
Kline, John (R-2 ) YEA Lakeville, MN
Kosmas, Suzanne (D-24 ) YEA New Smyrna Beach, FL
Kratovil Jr., Frank (D-1 ) YEA Stevensville, MD
Kucinich, Dennis (D-10 ) YEA Cleveland, OH
Lamborn, Douglas (R-5 ) YEA Colorado Springs, CO
Lance, Leonard (R-7) YEA Lebanon, NJ
Langevin, Jim (D-2) NAY Warwick, RI
Larsen, Rick (D-2) NAY Lake Stevens, WA
Larson, John (D-1 ) NAY East Hartford, CT
Latham, Tom (R-4 ) YEA Alexander, IA
LaTourette, Steve (R-14 ) YEA Madison, OH
Latta, Robert (R-5 ) YEA Bowling Green, OH
Lee, Barbara (D-9 ) NAY Oakland, CA
Lee, Christopher (R-26 ) YEA Clarence, NY
Levin, Sander (D-12 ) NAY Royal Oak, MI
Lewis, Jerry (R-41 ) YEA Redlands, CA
Lewis, John (D-5 ) NAY Atlanta, GA
Linder, John (R-7 ) YEA Tucker, GA
Lipinski, Dan (D-3 ) YEA Western Springs, IL
LoBiondo, Frank (R-2 ) YEA Vineland, NJ
Loebsack, David (D-2 ) NAY Mount Vernon, IA
Lofgren, Zoe (D-16 ) NAY San Jose, CA
Lowey, Nita (D-18 ) NAY Harrison, NY
Lucas, Frank (R-3 ) YEA Cheyenne, OK
Luetkemeyer, Blaine (R-9 ) YEA St. Elizabeth, MO
Lujan, Ben Ray (D-3 ) YEA Nambe, NM
Lummis, Cynthia (R-1 ) YEA Cheyenne, WY
Lungren, Dan (R-3 ) YEA Folsom, CA
Lynch, Stephen (D-9) YEA Boston, MA
Mack, Connie (R-14 ) YEA Fort Myers, FL
Maffei, Dan (D-25 ) YEA DeWitt, NY
Maloney, Carolyn (D-14 ) NAY Manhattan, NY
Manzullo, Donald (R-16 ) YEA Egan, IL
Marchant, Kenny (R-24 ) YEA Coppell, TX
Musgrave, Marilyn (R-4 ) YEA Fort Morgan, CO
Markey, Edward (D-7 ) NAY Malden, MA
Marshall, Jim (D-3 ) NAY Macon, GA
Massa, Eric (D-29 ) YEA Corning, NY
Matheson, Jim (D-2) YEA Salt Lake City, UT
Matsui, Doris (D-5 ) NAY Sacramento, CA
McCarthy, Kevin (R-22 ) YEA Bakersfield, CA
McCarthy, Carolyn (D-4 ) NAY Mineola, NY
McCaul, Michael (R-10 ) YEA Austin, TX
McClintock, Tom (R-4 ) YEA Thousand Oaks, CA
McCollum, Betty (D-4) YEA St. Paul, MN
McCotter, Thaddeus (R-11 ) YEA Livonia, MI
McDermott, Jim (D-7 ) YEA Seattle, WA
McGovern, James (D-3 ) NAY Worcester, MA
McHenry, Patrick (R-10 ) YEA Cherryville, NC
McHugh, John (R-23 ) YEA Pierrepont Manor, NY
McIntyre, Mike (D-7 ) YEA Lumberton, NC
McKeon, Howard (R-25 ) YEA Santa Clarita, CA
McMahon, Michael (D-13 ) YEA Staten Island, NY
McMorris, Cathy (R-5 ) YEA Deer Lake, WA
McNerney, Jerry (D-11 ) YEA Pleasanton, CA
Meek, Kendrick (D-17 ) YEA Miami, FL
Meeks, Gregory (D-6 ) NAY Far Rockaway, NY
Melancon, Charlie (D-3 ) YEA Napoleanville, LA
Mica, John (R-7 ) YEA Winter Park, FL
Michaud, Michael (D-2 ) YEA East Millinocket, ME
Miller, Jeff (R-1) YEA Chumuckla, FL
Miller, Candice (R-10 ) YEA Harrison Twp., MI
Miller, Brad (D-13 ) NAY Raleigh, NC
Miller, Gary (R-42 ) YEA Diamond Bar, CA
Miller, George (D-7 ) NAY Martinez, CA
Minnick, Walt (D-1) YEA Boise, ID
Mitchell, Harry (D-5 ) YEA Tempe, AZ
Mollohan, Alan (D-1 ) NV Fairmont, WV
Moore, Dennis (D-3 ) NAY Lenexa, KS
Moore, Gwen (D-4 ) NAY Milwaukee, WI
Moran, Jerry (R-1 ) YEA Hays, KS
Moran, James (D-8 ) NAY Arlington, VA
Murphy, Chris (D-5 ) NAY Cheshire, CT
Murphy, Patrick (D-8 ) NAY Bristol Township, PA
Murphy, Tim (R-18 ) YEA Pittsburgh, PA
Murtha, John (D-12 ) NAY Johnstown, PA
Myrick, Sue (R-9 ) YEA Charlotte, NC
Nadler, Jerrold (D-8 ) NAY Manhattan, NY
Napolitano, Grace (D-38 ) YEA Norwalk, CA
Neal, Richard (D-2 ) NAY Springfield, MA
Neugebauer, Randy (R-19 ) NV Lubbock, TX
Nunes, Devin (R-21 ) YEA Tulare, CA
Nye, Glenn (D-2) YEA Norfolk, VA
Oberstar, James (D-8 ) NAY Chisholm, MN
Obey, David (D-7 ) NAY Wausau, WI
Olson, Pete (R-22 ) YEA Sugar Land, TX
Olver, John (D-1 ) NAY Amherst, MA
Ortiz, Solomon (D-27 ) NAY Corpus Christi, TX
Pallone, Frank (D-6 ) NAY Long Branch, NJ
Pascrell, Bill (D-8 ) NAY Patterson, NJ
Pastor, Ed (D-4 ) NAY Phoenix, AZ
Paul, Ron (R-14 ) YEA Surfside, TX
Paulsen, Erik (R-3 ) YEA Eden Prarie, MN
Payne, Donald (D-10 ) NAY Newark, NJ
Pelosi, Nancy (D-8 ) NAY San Francisco, CA
Pence, Mark (R-6) YEA Edinburgh, IN
Perlmutter, Ed (D-7 ) NAY Golden, CO
Perriello, Tom (D-5 ) YEA Charlottesville, VA
Peters, Gary (D-9 ) NAY Bloomfield Hills, MI
Peterson, Collin (D-7 ) YEA Detroit Lakes, MN
Petri, Tom (R-6 ) YEA Fond du Lac, WI
Pingree, Chellie (D-1 ) YEA North Haven, ME
Pitts, Joseph (R-16 ) YEA Kennett Square, PA
Platts, Todd (R-19) YEA York, PA
Poe, Ted (R-2 ) YEA Humble, TX
Polis, Jared (D-2 ) NAY Boulder, CO
Pomeroy, Earl (D-1 ) NAY Bismarck, ND
Posey, Bill (R-15 ) YEA Rockledge, FL
Price, Tom (R-6 ) YEA Roswell, GA
Price, David (D-4 ) NAY Chapel Hill, NC
Putnam, Adam (R-12) YEA Bartow, FL
Radanovich, George (R-19 ) YEA Mariposa, CA
Rahall, Nick (D-3 ) NAY Beckley, WV
Rangel, Charles (D-15 ) YEA Harlem, NY
Rehberg, Denny (R-AL) YEA Billings, MT
Reichert, Dave (R-8 ) YEA Auburn, WA
Reyes, Silvestre (D-16 ) NAY El Paso, TX
Richardson, Laura (D-37 ) YEA Long Beach, CA
Rodriguez, Ciro (D-23 ) YEA San Antonio, TX
Roe, Phil (R-1 ) YEA Johnson City, TN
Rogers, Mike (R-3) YEA Anniston, AL
Rogers, Harold (R-5 ) YEA Somerset, KY
Rogers, Mike (R-8) YEA Brighton, MI
Rohrabacher, Dana (R-46 ) YEA Huntington Beach, CA
Rooney, Tom (R-16 ) YEA Tequesta, FL
Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana (R-18 ) YEA Miami, FL
Roskam, Peter (R-6 ) YEA Bensenville, IL
Ross, Mike (D-4) YEA Prescott, AR
Rothman, Steven (D-9 ) NAY Fair Lawn, NJ
Roybal-Allard, Lucille (D-34 ) NAY East Los Angeles, CA
Royce, Edward (R-40 ) YEA Fullerton, CA
Ruppersberger, C.A. Dutch (D-2 ) YEA Cockeysville, MD
Rush, Bobby (D-1 ) NAY Chicago, IL
Ryan, Timothy (D-17 ) NAY Niles, OH
Ryan, Paul (R-1 ) YEA Janesville, WI
Salazar, John (D-3 ) YEA Manassa, CO
Sanchez, Linda (D-39 ) YEA Lakewood, CA
Sanchez, Loretta (D-47 ) YEA Anaheim, CA
Sarbanes, John (D-3 ) NAY Towson, MD
Scalise, Steve (R-1 ) YEA Metairie, LA
Schakowsky, Jan (D-9 ) NAY Evanston, IL
Schauer, Mark (D-7 ) YEA Battle Creek, MI
Schiff, Adam (D-29) NAY Burbank, CA
Schmidt, Jean (R-2 ) YEA Cincinnati, OH
Schock, Aaron (R-18 ) YEA Peoria, IL
Schrader, Kurt (D-5 ) YEA Canby, OR
Schwartz, Allyson (D-13 ) NAY Jenkintown, PA
Scott, David (D-13 ) NAY Atlanta, GA
Scott, Robert (D-3 ) YEA Newport News, VA
Sensenbrenner, James (R-5 ) YEA Menomonee Falls, WI
Serrano, Jose (D-16 ) YEA Bronx, NY
Sessions, Pete (R-32 ) YEA Dallas, TX
Sestak, Joe (D-7 ) NAY Wallingford, PA
Shadegg, John (R-3 ) YEA Phoenix, AZ
Shea-Porter, Carol (D-1 ) YEA Rochester, NH
Sherman, Brad (D-27 ) NAY Sherman Oaks, CA
Shimkus, John (R-19 ) YEA Collinsville, IL
Shuler, Heath (D-11 ) YEA Waynesville, NC
Shuster, Bill (R-9) YEA Holidaysburg, PA
Simpson, Mike (R-2 ) YEA Blackfoot, ID
Sires, Albio (D-13 ) NAY West New York, NJ
Skelton, Ike (D-4 ) NV Lexington, MO
Slaughter, Louise (D-28 ) YEA Fairport, NY
Smith, Adrian (R-3) YEA Gering, NE
Smith, Christopher (R-4 ) YEA Robbinsville, NJ
Smith, Lamar (R-21 ) YEA San Antonio, TX
Smith, Adam (D-9 ) NAY Tacoma, WA
Snyder, Vic (D-2 ) NAY Little Rock, AR
Solis, Hilda (D-32) NV El Monte, CA
Souder, Mark (R-3 ) NAY Fort Wayne, IN
Space, Zack (D-18 ) YEA Dover, OH
Speier, Jackie (D-12 ) YEA San Francisco, CA
Spratt, John (D-5 ) NAY York, SC
Stark, Pete (D-13 ) YEA Hayward, CA
Stearns, Cliff (R-6 ) YEA Ocala, FL
Stupak, Bart (D-1 ) YEA Menominee, MI
Sullivan, John (R-1 ) YEA Tulsa, OK
Sutton, Betty Sue (D-13 ) NAY Copley Township, OH
Tanner, John (D-8 ) NV Union City, TN
Tauscher, Ellen (D-10 ) NAY Pleasanton, CA
Taylor, Gene (D-4 ) YEA Bay St. Louis, MS
Teague, Harry (D-2 ) YEA Hobbs, NM
Terry, Lee (R-2 ) YEA Omaha, NE
Thompson, Mike (D-1 ) NAY St. Helena, CA
Thompson, Bennie (D-2 ) NAY Bolton, MS
Thompson, Glenn (R-5 ) YEA Howard, PA
Thornberry, William (R-13 ) YEA Clarendon, TX
Tiahrt, Todd (R-4 ) YEA Goddard, KS
Tiberi, Pat (R-12) NV Columbus, OH
Tierney, John (D-6 ) NAY Salem, MA
Titus, Dina (D-3 ) YEA Las Vegas, NV
Tonko, Paul (D-21 ) NAY Amsterdam, NY
Towns , Edolphus (D-10 ) NAY Brooklyn, NY
Tsongas, Niki (D-5 ) NAY Lowell, MA
Turner, Mike (R-3 ) YEA Dayton, OH
Upton, Fred (R-6 ) YEA St. Joseph, MI
Van Hollen, Chris (D-8 ) NAY Kensington, MD
Velazquez, Nydia (D-12 ) NAY Brooklyn, NY
Visclosky, Peter (D-1 ) YEA Merrillville, IN
Walden, Greg (R-2 ) YEA Hood River, OR
Walz, Timothy (D-1 ) YEA Mankato, MN
Wamp, Zach (R-3 ) YEA Chattanooga, TN
Wasserman Shultz, Debbie (D-20 ) NAY Weston, FL
Waters, Maxine (D-35 ) NAY Los Angeles, CA
Watson, Diane (D-33) NAY Los Angeles, CA
Watt, Melvin (D-12 ) NAY Charlotte, NC
Waxman, Henry (D-30 ) NAY Los Angeles, CA
Weiner, Anthony (D-9 ) NAY Brooklyn, NY
Welch, Peter (D-1 ) YEA Hartland, VT
Westmoreland, Lynn (R-8 ) YEA Grantville, GA
Wexler, Robert (D-19 ) NAY Boca Raton, FL
Whitfield, Edward (R-1 ) YEA Hopkinsville, KY
Wilson, Charlie (D-6 ) NAY St. Clairsville, OH
Wilson, Joe (R-2) YEA Lexington, SC
Wittman, Robert (R-1) YEA Westmoreland, VA
Wolf, Frank (R-10 ) YEA Vienna, VA
Woolsey, Lynn (D-6 ) NAY Petaluma, CA
Wu, David (D-1 ) NAY Portland, OR
Yarmuth, John (D-3 ) NAY Louisville, KY
Young, Don (R-AL) NV Fort Yukon, AK
Young, Bill (R-10 ) YEA Indian Rocks Beach, FL

[mogrovejo]

I wonder why is Obama yet to announce a special tax on automakers.

[Nbadan]

...probably because they are a industry that creates American jobs....I know that means so little to globalist like yourself, but.....

[Marcus Bryant]

eh, plenty of GOP House members voted against TARP. And plenty of Dems voted for it. I'll wait to see if you criticize any of those.

[mogrovejo]

The president has endorsed a tax on banks by size to collect a projected $90 billion over the next 10 years. The president argues that the tax will help repay taxpayer losses in the TARP bailout program for banks.


It’s a crummy argument. Most of the TARP losses will be racked up not at banks, but at the AIG insurance company and the rescued automakers, GM and Chrysler. No tax for them.


Meanwhile, banks that received not a dime from TARP will be taxed.


http://www.frumforum.com/obamas-bank-tax-flunks-on-every-count

[Nbadan]

You can't have it both ways....first you argue against bank bailout and then you argue against charging banks for the security the American tax-payers provide them..the FEDS provided a commodity.....liquidity..they deserve to be compensated..at the very least charged a small fee for this security..

...besides, I'm not gonna cry and tears for those 24%-400% yearly interest MF's...

[Marcus Bryant]

Yet, I haven't argued against. If you couldn't rely on strawmen and stereotypes you wouldn't be able to post anything. Oh, and those crackhead 9/11 nutter theories.

[Nbadan]

that was for Mogrevo...hmmm...

[mogrovejo]

You can't have it both ways....first you argue against bank bailout and then you argue against charging banks for the security the American tax-payers provide them.

How is that having it both ways?!?

I'm against tax-payers "providing security" (nice euphemism) to banks or any other private enterprise and, obviously as a consequence, I'm against taxing them for "providing security".

The fact that you think this is having it both ways is quite telling and cringe inducing. It's the consummate statist mind-frame.

As I've said:

1 - Implement statist measures to solve an imaginary problem or a problem caused by initial state actions.

3 - For each injustice caused by the implementation of the statist solution clamour for the implementation of another statist solution(that will fatally cause new problems).

4 - Repeat ad aeternum

---

The reasoning you're following can be summarized like this:

- government subsidizes X using the money that belongs to Y

- that creates the right for the government to meddle into X's affairs

- even if X didn't want/requested the help and Y didn't consent the use of his money.

It's a very old and common trick - Mussollini used it abundantly, for example.

[DarkReign]

Yes, the guy who defends that failed companies should just fail and not benefit from the taxpayer money is the pro-corporate one. That makes a lot of sense.

Fair enough, I misunderstand you completely it seems. My apologies for trying to pidgeon hole you.

Mind you, if you care to, I would be interested to hear your total position on the topic.

[Nbadan]

I'm against tax-payers "providing security" (nice euphemism) to banks or any other private enterprise and, obviously as a consequence, I'm against taxing them for "providing security".

So you were for a complete collapse of the financial system, insolvency of our government, and 20%+ unemployment...you think that $700 billion, much of which has been paid back anyway, is gonna make a difference in a $12 trillion dollar debt...

...nobody liked the bail-out, especially the majority of Democrats who voted against it, but seriously, Obama was just coming into office and the financial system was on the brink of collapse...he did what he thought was right and it seems to have worked much better at creating job that would not have been created without the stimulus.....the Bush tax cuts meanwhile, were a colossal failure...

[angrydude]

the bush tax cuts were irrelevant b/c we just borrowed the money instead. so yes fail.

but the stimulus worked so well at creating jobs that for all intents and purposes about 1/5 of americans are now unemployed.

And tarp saved the financial system. true enough. saved it so banks could start lending money to us again that we will be incapable of paying back because we live beyond our means thanks to the money they lend us. and It does this by enriching the very people who caused the problem in the first place.

and they wonder why America is restless nowadays.

we SHOULD have let the banks fail. Let new banks step in and take their place. If we had we'd actually be coming out of this right now instead of just beginning. No, the only reason we didn't is because Bush was afraid of becoming known as the second J Edgar Hoover. Too bad by ramming through tarp he unwittingly did.

[boutons_deux]

Magic Negro is turning out to be a wimp, and his "attack" on the financial sector is wimpy.

The Repug TARP game was transparent. Scream like stuck pigs about the majority Dems' doing TARP, but Repugs were really for TARP since they are "business friendly" and esp "money business friendly".

[boutons_deux]

Banks already finding ways around Obama financial reforms

"But news that banks are already easily finding ways around the proposed reforms will likely lead to questions over whether Obama's proposed fixes are tough enough, or whether any reforms can actually be effective in the current business environment.

“This thing is about showing the public that Obama is standing up to Wall Street," an unnamed Wall Street insider told BusinessInsider. "So the rhetoric is heated. But the implementation will require far less change than people think right now."


http://rawstory.com/2010/01/bankers-ways-around-financial-reforms/


====

plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose

The corps, and esp the financial sector, just like the Mexican drugs sector, are completely out of range of the government's power. iow, those groups have more money and power to hire and motivate (pay) their group than the govt has to counter them.

The financial sector has been for years sucking up the top students with $150K starting salaries (and multi-millionaires before age 40) for their financial and legal departments, preventing that talent from working productively in society.

[Winehole23]

Glass-Steagall lite

Barack Obama proposes limiting the activities of big banks


Jan 22nd 2010 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com
REUTERShttp://media.economist.com/images/na/2010w04/NAobamabank300.jpg
IT IS a fair bet that one of Barack Obama’s new-year’s resolutions was to rattle Wall Street. A week after hitting America’s largest financial firms with a “responsibility” fee, to recoup up to $120 billion in bail-out losses, on Thursday January 21st the president proposed dramatic new curbs on their activities. Keen to show progress in at least one part of his agenda, especially after an election in Massachusetts stripped the Democrats of their super-majority in the Senate and put health-care reform in doubt, Mr Obama touted the plan as a way to cut the bloated giants of finance down to size and constrain excessive risk-taking with customer deposits. “Never again will the American taxpayer be held hostage by a bank that is too big to fail”, he thundered.
The implausibility of that claim should not detract from the potential impact of the plan. Though not a full return to Glass-Steagall, the law that separated commercial banking and investment banking in the wake of the Great Depression (and was repealed in 1999), it is at least a return to its “spirit”, as one official put it. Reflecting the possible dent it could put in profitability, bank shares tumbled, pulling stockmarkets down sharply around the world.



The first half of the plan concerns restrictions on the scope of activities. Banks that have insured deposits, and thus access to emergency funds from the central bank, would not be allowed to own or invest in private equity or hedge funds. Nor would they be able to engage in “proprietary” trading—punting their own capital—though they could continue to offer investment banking for clients, such as underwriting securities, making markets and advising on mergers.



The second part focuses on size. Banks already face a 10% cap on national market share of deposits. This would be updated to include other liabilities, namely wholesale funding. The aim is to limit concentration, which has increased greatly over the past 20 years, accelerating during the crisis as healthy banks bought sick ones. The four largest banks now hold more than half of the industry’s assets.



These proposals will be wrapped into a broader set of reforms that is grinding its way through Congress. A bill passed by the House of Representatives, but not yet taken up by the Senate, gives regulators the right to limit the scope and scale of firms that pose a “grave” threat to stability. The new plan goes further, requiring them to do so. It is also more radical than the increased capital charges for trading assets proposed by the Basel Committee of international bank supervisors.



The administration had until now seemed content to shackle the banks with tougher regulation, including higher capital ratios, rather than breaking them up or limiting what they could do. But it has warmed to the thinking of Paul Volcker, a former Federal Reserve chairman and Obama adviser, who has long advocated more dramatic measures—indeed, Mr Obama dubbed the latest reforms “the Volcker rule”. Intriguingly, the rethink was prompted as much by banks’ behaviour over the past year as by their pre-crisis sins. In explaining their rationale, officials pointed to the fat profits some banks made in capital markets in 2009 while benefiting from state guarantees. On the same day as the plan’s unveiling, Goldman Sachs reported better than expected results, thanks largely to outsized investment-banking fees.



With details yet to be hammered out, the plan’s effects are hard to gauge. Commercial banks may be unfazed by curbs on trading. Most have already pared their prop-trading desks. JPMorgan Chase derives a mere 1% of its revenues (and 3-5% of its investment bank’s) from such business. But having to divest Highbridge, a big hedge-fund firm, would be “horrible”, says a JPMorgan insider. The bank thinks that may not be necessary since its capital is not invested directly in Highbridge’s funds. But no one is sure.



Things could be trickier for investment banks that became bank holding companies during the crisis. Having built up its deposit base, Morgan Stanley would face a hard choice between remaining a bank and going back to being a broker that can trade freely. Goldman, which gets 10% or more of its revenue from prop-trading, will surely do the latter. That raises an awkward question: once it is cut loose from banking restrictions, and from Fed funding, would it not continue to enjoy implicit state backing? Would it really be allowed to fail if it blew up? Officials argue that other reforms, such as central clearing for derivatives, will make it easier to let such firms die. Convincing markets of that will be difficult.



Enforcement could be tricky, too. Regulators will struggle to differentiate between proprietary trades and those for clients (someone is on the other side of every trade) or hedging. Getting it wrong would be counter-productive: preventing banks from hedging their risks would make them less stable.



Moreover, the plan is unlikely to help much in solving the too-big-to-fail problem. Even shorn of prop-trading, the biggest firms will still be huge (though also less prone to the conflicts of interest that come with the ability to trade against clients). As for the new limits on non-deposit funding, officials admit that these are designed to prevent further growth rather than to force firms to shrink.


They may, in any case, be pointed at the wrong target. Curbing the use of deposits in “casino” banking is an understandable impulse, but some of the worst blow-ups of the crisis involved firms that were not deposit-takers, such as American International Group and Lehman Brothers. And much of the losses stemmed not from trading but from straightforward bad lending (think of Washington Mutual, Wachovia and HBOS).



That just leaves the question of whether the plan will make it through Congress. Scott Garrett, a congressman, captured the mood on the resurgent right when he branded the proposals “a transparent attempt at faux populism.” Republicans are torn between distaste for government heavy-handedness and reluctance to be seen giving scorned bankers an easy time.



Mr Obama certainly cannot be accused of going soft on moneymen. In December, Mr Volcker complained that the reforms proposed so far had been “like a dimple.” With his eponymous rule now on the table, he has changed his tune.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15374543&source=features_box1

[coyotes_geek]

CG: Another read on it. I think the direction Obama is trying to go is the correct one. But like this article and WH's above ask, how far do we need to go and how do we get there? The concerns about how to get something through congress, and the banks ability to circumvent whatever that might be make this an incredibly tough issue.

Politically, it's a land mine for both sides of the aisle. Democrats bear the responsibility of having to find an answer as to how to reign in an industry filled with people smarter than they are, and Republicans stand to lose the public favor they're gaining if they end up being perceived as obstructionist to the process.

*************

President Obama wants to cut down to size those too-big-to-fail banks. But his vow on Thursday to rewrite the rules of Wall Street left many questions unanswered, including the big one: Would this really prevent another financial crisis?

The president's proposals to place new limits on the size and activities of big banks rattled the stock market, but banking executives were perplexed as to how his plan would work. Indeed, many insisted the proposals, if adopted, would do little to change their businesses.

Moreover, it was unclear if the twin proposals -- to ban banks with federally insured deposits from casting risky bets in the markets, and to resist further consolidation in the financial industry -- would have done much if anything to forestall the crisis that pushed the economic system to the brink of collapse in 2008.

Mr. Obama appeared to be leaving crucial details to be hashed out by Congress, where partisan tussling has already threatened another reform the president supports -- the creation of a consumer protection agency that would have oversight over credit cards, mortgages and other lending products.

Wall Street figures, many caught off guard by the news, reacted cautiously.

"I am somewhat skeptical about how much the federal government can actually regulate," said John C. Bogle, the founder of Vanguard, the mutual fund giant. "We need to try, but all the lawyers and geniuses on Wall Street are going to figure out ways to get around everything."

Indeed, Mr. Obama acknowledged that "an army of industry lobbyists" had already descended on Capitol Hill, but vowed, "If these folks want a fight, it's a fight I'm ready to have."

Shares of big banks -- potentially the biggest losers should the proposals be enacted -- fell sharply, dragging the broader market down by about 2 percent. Even as the markets stumbled, Mr. Obama -- still stinging from the Democrats' loss on Tuesday of the Massachusetts seat formerly held by Senator Edward M. Kennedy -- ramped up his populist approach, one week after he proposed a new tax on large financial institutions to recoup projected losses from the 2008 bailout.

Mr. Obama said the banks had nearly wrecked the economy by taking "huge, reckless risks in pursuit of quick profits and massive bonuses."

The administration wants to ban bank holding companies from owning, investing in or sponsoring hedge funds or private equity funds and from engaging in proprietary trading, or trading on their own accounts, as opposed to the money of their customers.

Mr. Obama called the ban the Volcker Rule, in recognition of the former Federal Reserve chairman, Paul A. Volcker, who has championed the proposal. Big losses by banks in the trading of financial securities, especially mortgage-backed assets, precipitated the credit crisis in 2008 and the federal bailout.

It was not clear, however, how proprietary trading activities would be defined.

Officials said that banks would not be permitted to use their own capital for "trading unrelated to serving customers." Such a restriction would most likely compel banks that own hedge funds and private equity funds to dispose of them over time. Officials said, however, that executing trades on a client's behalf and using bank capital to make a market or to hedge a client's risk would be permissible.

Federal regulators have already leaned hard on banks to curb pure proprietary trading, and the banks expect that regulators will demand more capital if they keep making risky bets, making the practice far less profitable.

Some of the biggest firms, applying a narrow definition, say that pure proprietary trading constituted less than 10 percent of their revenue, and in some cases far less. Morgan Stanley, for example, already abandoned all but two proprietary trading desks last year.

The Buckingham Research Group estimated that the new rules would reduce revenue at Citigroup, Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase by less than 3 percent. Goldman Sachs, which typically derives a tenth of its revenue from such trading, said it would be able to contend with the new rules.

"I would say pure walled-off proprietary-trading businesses at Goldman Sachs are not very big in the context of the firm," David A. Viniar, the firm's chief financial officer, said in a conference call.

Mr. Obama also is seeking to limit consolidation in the financial sector, by placing curbs on the market share of liabilities at the largest firms. Since 1994, the share of insured deposits that can be held by any one bank has been capped at 10 percent.

The administration wants to expand that cap to include all liabilities, to limit the concentration of too much risk in any single bank. Officials said the measure would prevent banks at or near the threshold from making acquisitions but would not require them to shrink their business or stop growing on their own.

The Obama administration said the new proposals were in the "spirit of Glass-Steagall" -- a reference to the Depression-era law that separated commercial and investment banking, which was repealed in 1999.

Economists have debated whether the repeal of that act contributed to the crisis. The two big investment banks that imploded, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers, were not commercial banks, and Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley converted to bank holding companies only after the system started to come unglued.

The industry was left buzzing with questions about timing and scope. Officials said the new restrictions would apply to overseas firms, like Barclays and UBS, with large American operations, but it was not clear how -- or whether -- foreign governments would go along. Officials also said the proposal called for a "reasonable transition period" for firms to comply with the rules, but the timetable was not specified.

Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, and Lawrence H. Summers, the president's chief economic adviser, developed the proposals at the request of the president and worked closely with Mr. Volcker, according to White House officials. The plan was completed over the holidays and submitted to the president with a unanimous recommendation from the economic team.

While Mr. Geithner and Mr. Summers debated concerns that proprietary trading was not at the heart of the recent crisis, they concluded that reforms needed to address potential sources of risk in the future.

Reaction on Capitol Hill also was muted, partly because neither party wanted to be seen as beholden to unpopular banks. The House bill passed last month would consolidate oversight, require stronger capital cushions for the largest banks and impose regulation of some derivatives. In many ways, the new White House proposal amplifies provisions in that bill that would have left regulators discretion over proprietary trading and excessive liability.

http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/108644/obamas-move-to-limit-reckless-risks-has-skeptics?sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

[mogrovejo]

So you were for a complete collapse of the financial system, insolvency of our government, and 20%+ unemployment...

How do you know? Because you've been told so by the politicians who authored it and by the financial analysts working for the industry that they ruined and was bailed out?


you think that $700 billion, much of which has been paid back anyway, is gonna make a difference in a $12 trillion dollar debt...

Huh? What's the rationale for the taxes then? And I was the one having it both ways?


...nobody liked the bail-out

Really? You're extremely naive.


Obama was just coming into office and the financial system was on the brink of collapse...he did what he thought was right and it seems to have worked much better at creating job that would not have been created without the stimulus...

Oh poor guy. I had no idea he was so un-ready to the position.

Accordingly to the Axelrod Administration, the current unemployment rate is higher than it would have been without the stimulus. Nice to see you disagreeing with them for once.

[mogrovejo]

President Obama wants to cut down to size those too-big-to-fail banks. But his vow on Thursday to rewrite the rules of Wall Street left many questions unanswered, including the big one: Would this really prevent another financial crisis?

LOL. I hope this is merely a rethorical question.



Moreover, it was unclear if the twin proposals -- to ban banks with federally insured deposits from casting risky bets in the markets, and to resist further consolidation in the financial industry -- would have done much if anything to forestall the crisis that pushed the economic system to the brink of collapse in 2008.

Unclear?

[spursncowboys]

THe Fed is supposed to provide liquidity for the system. Nothing new needed to be passed for something like that to happened. The tarp was different. They bought into the banks and forced them to participate.

[Winehole23]

For the market the problem was liquidity. For the lenders and erstwhile broker-dealers, it was insolvency.

SnC meekly accepts the socialization of lending in case of financial fracaso, like a good little conservative. That doesn't mean the rest of us have to approve.

[boutons_deux]

Magic Negro can propose all he wants.

Wall St owns enough of Congress so that Congress won't pass any effective legislation, will pass legislation (actually written by Wall St lawyers/lobbyists) with subtle, hidden loopholes so that Wall St can continue its destructive, bubble-lovin, casino ways.

Even if the illusionary legislation were passed, the Wall-St-packed Treasury/SEC/Fed, etc wouldn't enforce it with any teeth, except for the most egregious cases (Worldcom, Kenny Boy, Madoff, Stanford), leaving the much more intelligent, sinister, and destructive Wall Streeters untouched.

So that capital and corps can solidify their stranglehold on America, the Repug-packed SCOTUS has handed them an ever more Lethal Weapon, unlimited funds (it really doesn't take much compared to the funds available) to buy/intimidate/defeat any Congressman who dares vote against the, and to reward any Congressman who votes for Wall St.

Govt is the ONLY defense, countervailing power against capitalist/corporate avaricious predation. The US govt is IRRETRIEVABLY captured and emasculated.

Although Magic Negro's intention to limit Wall St is somewhat announced, the Wall St lying noise machine, knowing full well that there is no real threat, is already screaming bloody murder, a screaming and lying that will only intensify, and will be fully supported and amplified by Repugs and conservatives.

[spursncowboys]

It has nothing to do with accepting. I have said before I would love to see the Fed done away with. Also the market was no less insolvent than on black friday in 87. I think the problem, wasn't as bad as bernanke made it out to be. There still has not been any proof the world financial sector would have collapsed. WH, I cannot figure out what exactly you aren't accepting.