White House Sends Volcker Rule To Congress

by nanute | March 4, 2010 at 03:24 am
219 views | 6 Recommendations | 3 comments

Photos

Volker/Obama

Volker/Obama

see larger image

uploaded by nanute

The Obama administration waded into negotiations over Wall Street regulations Wednesday, calling for limits on the size of financial institutions and insisting that consumer protections remain a central objective of legislative attempts to rein in the industry.

In the Senate, talks continued on how to create a consumer protection entity. Republicans pressing for a watered-down consumer agency even as they voiced optimism that they could reach a deal with Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd, a Connecticut Democrat, within a week.

Attempts to fashion a bi-partisan banking reform and consumer protection ran in to negative reaction by Republicans on the Senate Banking Committee as the Obama Administration weighed in on the negotiations. The Volker Rule, which insists on limiting proprietary trading by commercial banks, and placing limits on the size of financial institutions deemed "too big to fail" is part of a policy proposal first raised in January 2010 by the Obama Administration. Furthermore, the Administration is insisting on strong consumer protections in any overhaul bill.

Opponents of the efforts to establish a separate, independent consumer protection agency are arguing that another level of government oversight is unnecessary, and want to give control of consumer protection to the Fed.  The reaction from House Financial Services Committee Chairman, Barney Frank, D. Mass., was quick and negative. Quipped Frank: "It's like making me the chief judge of the Miss America contest."  Frank insists that the Fed has had consumer protection authority since 1994 when Congress instructed the Fed to protect consumers from sub-prime loans. Then Fed Chairman, Alan Greenspan decided that the Fed could ignore the rules. Frank is insisting that the bill as being fashioned in the Senate isn't coming to the House of Representatives. According to Frank, " They better vote on this in the Senate. If they want to kill consumer protection, there better be 41 Jim Bunnings over there."

Advertisement
recommend This comment thread is now closed
1
Hugh Askew

Barney sounds more confused than i thought.

3
Karen Hatter

On this issue, with the dismantling of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933, with Glass Steagall enacted to prohibit commercial banks from engaging in investment business, married with other efforts to allow the investment firms to go hog wild, was unraveled with the aid of both Republicans and Democrats, clearing the ways for the looting of the American people.

So much for the 'unfettered banking industry will make us all rich' scheme.

The conviction of Madoff was a mere smoke screen.

 

0
t k kidwai

Deregulation has cost  billion of US$ to investors in America only.BLMIS of Bernard Madoff cheated investors,through pronzi schemes, to the tune of 65 billion US$.How such non-banking financial companies operate,or are allowed to operate,is well guarded secrecy.At least US has stringent laws to punish frauds,if not to protect the investor.And in India fraud is a minor crime,for one reason, that our entire political class is corrupt from begining to end.We protect frauds by being extraordinary lenient to them.

Let us hope that Obama administration puts a proper mechanism in place to protect investors.

This story was created over 3 months ago, the comment thread is now closed.

NowPublic on Facebook

What is NowPublic?

NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.

Find out more

Crowd Power

Hugh Askew
First Flagged at 3:29 AM, Mar 4, 2010 by Hugh Askew
These members have powered this story:

Most Recommended Stories in World

Recommendations (6)

Most recently recommended by:
 

closeSign in to NowPublic

is reporting from