|
If you weren't alarmed enough by the news that House Democrats just exempted 98 percent of banks from major regulatory oversight,* then check out this ongoing story about an effort to destroy states' ability to enforce the most basic laws against the most disgusting kinds of financial profiteering.
Earlier this week, I reviewed how the Wall Street-funded New Democratic Caucus is trying to flip President Obama's financial reform package on its head. Specifically, these political harlots are attempting to take a proposal to set federal regulatory minimums that states can go above and beyond and make it a federal maximum that states cannot go above. It's a disgusting and blatant attempt to usurp state power on behalf of banking interests - the same banking interests, by the way, that are more than happy to fight for "states rights" when states rights means less regulation (see, for instance, how the financial industry incorporates itself in states like Delaware and South Dakota where regulations are almost non-existent).
The good news is that state officials are sounding the alarm. Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan, for instance, has lashed out at Rep. Melissa Bean (D). Meanwhile, the National Governor's Association issued a letter saying the Wall Street Democrats' proposal would destroy states' ability to regulate predatory lending and credit card abuse.
The bad news is that these Wall Street Dems are so intent on going to bat for their lobbyist friends that they have resorted to misrepresenting Harvard professor Elizabeth Warren. As Mike Elk at the Campaign for America's Future shows, the Wall Street Democrats are pretending their efforts are backed by Warren, one of the most respected progressive voices on regulatory reform, even though Warren opposes what they're trying to do.
This is how desperate these shills are. They understand that their attempt to turn Wall Street reform into a Wall Street regulatory giveaway would be wildly unpopular in the public sphere - so they are trying to couch it as a progressive measure by misrepresenting a major progressive voice.
* NOTE: I ought to add that this may not be as awful as it seems, in the sense that the new regulatory agency will still have jurisdiction over the big banks, which, of course, were the big problem (as opposed to the small community banks).
|
STATE BLOGS
