Democrats Are Teaming With Republicans for a Stealth Attack on Wall Street Reform - Polidicks

[url=https://theintercept.com/2018/03/02/crapo-instead-of-taking-on-gun-control-democrats-are-teaming-with-republicans-for-a-stealth-attack-on-wall-street-reform/]Source[/url] [QUOTE]IN MID-JANUARY, Citigroup executives held a conference call with reporters about the bank’s fourth-quarter 2017 earnings. The discussion turned to an obscure congressional bill, S.2155, pitched by its bipartisan supporters mainly as a vehicle to deliver regulatory relief to community banks and, 10 years after the financial crisis, to make needed technical fixes to the landmark Wall Street reform law, Dodd-Frank. But Citi’s Chief Financial Officer John Gerspach told the trade reporters he thought that some bigger banks — like, say, Citigroup — should get taken care of in the bill as well. He wanted Congress to loosen rules around how the bank could go about lending and investing. The specific mechanism to do that was to fiddle with what’s known as the supplementary leverage ratio, or SLR, a key capital requirement for the nation’s largest banks. This simple ratio sets how much equity banks must carry compared to total assets like loans. S.2155 did, at the time, weaken the leverage ratio, but only for so-called custodial banks, which do not primarily make loans but instead safeguard assets for rich individuals and companies like mutual funds. As written, the measure would have assisted just two U.S. banks, State Street and Bank of New York Mellon. This offended Gerspach. “We obviously don’t think that is fair, so we would like to see that be altered,” he told reporters. Republicans and Democrats who pushed S.2155 through the Senate Banking Committee must have heard Citi’s call. (They changed the definition of a custodial bank in a subsequent version of the bill. It used to stipulate that only a bank with a high level of custodial assets would qualify, but now it defines a custodial bank as “any depository institution or holding company predominantly engaged in custody, safekeeping, and asset servicing activities.”) The change could allow virtually any big bank to take advantage of the new rule. Multiple bank lobbyists told The Intercept that Citi has been pressing lawmakers to loosen the language even further, ensuring that they can take advantage of reduced leverage and ramp up risk. “Citi is making a very aggressive effort,” said one bank lobbyist who asked not to be named because he’s working on the bill. “It’s a game changer and that’s why they’re pushing hard.” A Citigroup spokesperson declined to comment. A bill that began as a well-intentioned effort to satisfy some perhaps legitimate community bank grievances has instead mushroomed, sparking fears that Washington is paving the way for the next financial meltdown. Congress is unlikely to pass much significant legislation in 2018, so lobbyists have rushed to stuff the trunk of the vehicle full. “There are many different interests in financial services that are looking at this and saying, ‘Oh my God, there’s finally going to be reform to Dodd-Frank that may move, let me throw in this issue and this issue,’” said Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., in an interview. “There are a dozen different players who decided this is the last bus out of town.” And Coons is a co-sponsor of the bill. A hopeful nation — and the president himself — expected that the Senate would begin debate on major gun policy reform next week, but instead a confounding scenario has emerged: In the typically gridlocked Congress, with the Trump legislative agenda mostly stalled, members of both parties will come together to roll back financial rules, during the 10th anniversary of the biggest banking crisis in nearly a century. And it’s happening with virtually no media attention whatsoever. Aside from the gifts to Citigroup and other big banks, the bill undermines fair lending rules that work to counter racial discrimination and rolls back regulation and oversight on large regional banks that aren’t big enough to be global names, but have enough cash to get a stadium named after themselves. In the name of mild relief for community banks, these institutions — which have been christened “stadium banks” by congressional staff opposing the legislation — are punching a gaping hole through Wall Street reform. Twenty-five of the 38 biggest domestic banks in the country, and globally significant foreign banks that have engaged in rampant misconduct, would get freed from enhanced supervision. There are even goodies for dominant financial services firms, such as Promontory and a division of Warren Buffett’s conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway. The bill goes so far as to punish buyers of mobile homes, among the most vulnerable people in the country, whose oft-stated economic anxiety drives so much of the discourse in American politics (just not when there might be something to do about it). “Community banks are the human shields for the giant banks to get the deregulation they want,” said Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., who is waging a last-minute, uphill fight to stop the bill. “The Citigroup carve-out is one more example of how in Washington, money talks and Congress listens.” [/QUOTE]

Politcians working for oligarchs rather than their constituents? Shocking. These corporate parasites need to be excised from american legislation.

[QUOTE]Aside from the gifts to Citigroup and other big banks, the bill undermines fair lending rules that work to counter racial discrimination and rolls back regulation and oversight on large regional banks that aren’t big enough to be global names, but have enough cash to get a stadium named after themselves.[/QUOTE] :wow: Seems like these days congress and reform shouldn't go together when it comes to financial law [QUOTE=joshuadim;53175713]Politcians working for oligarchs rather than their constituents? Shocking. These corporate parasites need to be excised from american legislation.[/QUOTE] Funnily/sadly, it's been part of the US since like the beginning, like this [QUOTE]Samuel Swartwout was appointed by President Andrew Jackson to the New York City Collector's Office. At the end of his term he had embezzled $1.225 million in customs receipts and used the money to purchase land. He fled to Europe to avoid prosecution.[/QUOTE] Grant and Harding had ridiculously corrupt cabinets, the effort by Jay Gould in the 1870s to control the US gold market, the Gilded Age, so on. (seriously look at the page of US political [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States"]scandals[/URL], it is enormous)

Moral of the story: Most congressional Democrats are [i]not[/i] your friends. They’ll rail against Trump to win votes, but when push comes to shove most of them are just as corrupt as the Republicans they oppose. What this country needs is a progressive takeover at all levels of government.

[QUOTE=TheBorealis;53175729]:wow: Seems like these days congress and reform shouldn't go together when it comes to financial law Funnily/sadly, it's been part of the US since like the beginning, like this Grant and Harding had ridiculously corrupt cabinets, the effort by Jay Gould in the 1870s to control the US gold market, the Gilded Age, so on. (seriously look at the page of US political [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States"]scandals[/URL], it is enormous)[/QUOTE] The gilded age/Jackson are not the beginning.

Deregulating Wall Street would not look good. Right now Reuters is reporting at least 12 Dem Senators support it, and all Republicans of course. They'll have targets on their back from the grassroots if they do.

They want another financial crisis affecting the whole world just so they can line their pockets.

[QUOTE=mcharest;53175770]Moral of the story: Most congressional Democrats are [i]not[/i] your friends. They’ll rail against Trump to win votes, but when push comes to shove most of them are just as corrupt as the Republicans they oppose. What this country needs is a progressive takeover at all levels of government.[/QUOTE] has this billpassed? No.

[QUOTE=Hilton;53175792]The gilded age/Jackson are not the beginning.[/QUOTE] You're right, but the earliest example of abject corruption in the US were during the Articles of Confederation. [QUOTE]Silas Deane was accused of mismanagement and treason while ambassador to France. Intending to clear himself of the charges he died suddenly, and the charges were eventually reversed or dropped. [/QUOTE] And the first senator to be expelled was in 1797, when William Blount tried to aid in a British takeover of Florida for personal gain.

There are 12 democrats going to vote for this, out of how many?

[QUOTE=SunsetTable;53176475]There are 12 democrats going to vote for this, out of how many?[/QUOTE] 47 (and two independents, Sanders and King, who caucus with them) If every gop senator and 12 dems vote for it that's more than 60 so it will pass.

[QUOTE=Sableye;53176160]has this billpassed? No.[/QUOTE] My mistake, I didn’t realize the Democrats’ virtue hinges on the passage of this bill alone, rather than on their decades-long history of supporting financial deregulation and talking out of both sides of their mouth.

[QUOTE=Van-man;53176039]They want another financial crisis affecting the whole world just so they can line their pockets.[/QUOTE] ...and [I]also[/I] so that they can pin the blame on the Democrats in office at the time, once the worst effects of the depression start to manifest.