Another Assault on Capitalism

Categories:

Making Sense, by Michael Reagan

As President Obama pushes for stricter regulations on Wall Street institutions, I want to call us back to caution. Undoubtedly, we should learn from past mistakes and forge a path through to prosperity and an understanding of proper limits on the dangers associated with potentially catastrophic lending and investment practices. But without appropriate caution, we will jump the gun with an over-expanded and unjustifiably influential federal government in the financial sector.

Cartoon by Jeff Parker - Florida Today (click to purchase)
Cartoon by Jeff Parker – Florida Today (click to purchase)

It is imperative that we look at our past to truly understand how we got here. And we need not look further than the Carter administration’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 for the answer. That act required banks to lend to un-creditworthy borrowers, mostly in underprivileged and minority communities.

While the concept of putting more Americans in homes comes across as a “feel good” policy, the fact of the matter is that these types of policies saddle families who don’t have the income or earning potential to meet their payment obligations, leading to foreclosure and displacement.

This type of enabling legislation, coupled with predatory lenders and institutions, including those under federal government control, who would push potential investors into home-buying and other schemes for which they were not fiscally viable, formed an all-too-powerful formula that led to an almost paralyzing economic bust.

Democrats in Washington have looked at this scenario as a political opportunity in the run-up to the midterm elections. Without acknowledging the complexity or history of the issue, they hope to score easy points with a hit on Wall Street and the promise of reform. But insensible reform is nothing but reckless.

Last week, all 41 Republican senators, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, signed a letter stating their opposition to the current version of the “Wall Street reform bill.” If needed, this type of unity could stop the bill.

Key Republicans have declared their intent to use their unity as a negotiating position with which to improve the bill, rather than as a tool to kill it. Sen. John McCain said, “This one is a little bit different [than the health care bill]. We want to keep 41 votes together to have a negotiating position; on healthcare, we didn’t like any of it.”

This is the type of measured, strategic leadership we need in Washington. Promising bipartisan talks are underway, and if Republicans stay strong, we can see a way through to a reasonable reform which does not increase the size and influence of the federal government at the expense of the core components of our economy.

There are a few key provisions Republicans must continue to fight:

First, the suggested creation of a new “Consumer Protection Agency” to tighten government oversight is a blatantly unnecessary power-grab. Its proposed duties could be easily handled through existing agencies.

Second, Democrats are pushing for the creation of a $50 billion fund which could be used by the government to seize and dismantle large, failing financial agencies. This proposal only endorses “too big to fail” and institutionalizes the misguided bailouts of the past two years.

Third, Republicans must oppose a proposed tax on bank liabilities, to the tune of $90 billion over 10 years, which would be designed to help the government recoup losses from the recent bailouts. While Americans are entitled to recoup their lost tax dollars, placing a new tax on a weak financial sector is not the way to go about it.

Lastly, we can expect new regulatory standards for derivatives to soon be passed through committee. Abuse of derivatives must end, but the private sector rightly argues that these proposed regulations are too intrusive and restrictive and would harm America’s ability to compete internationally. More risky investments and sales would potentially be prohibited. We need smart — not smothering — reform on derivatives.

As Washington grapples with these important issues, and the president seeks camera time in our nation’s financial capital, it is important for us all to remember that the reforms of a past failing Democratic administration enabled the very issues over which they are now indignant.

Too-broad reform only serves as a mask for an expanded federal government and will ultimately lead to greater economic uncertainty and market paralysis. When it comes to market innovation, Americans will vote far more effectively with their wallet than through misguided and self-interested members of Congress.

More than ever, we need smart and realistic leadership, not another Washington power grab.

—–

Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is spokesperson for The Reagan PAC (www.thereaganpac.com) and chairman and president of The Reagan Legacy Foundation (www.reaganlegacyfoundation.org). Look for Mike’s books and other information at www.Reagan.com. E-mail comments to [email protected].

©2010 Mike Reagan. If you’re not a paying subscriber to our service, you must contact us to print or Web post this column. Mike’s column is distributed exclusively by: Cagle Cartoons, Inc., newspaper syndicate. For info contact Cari Dawson Bartley. E-mail [email protected], (800) 696-7561.


Comments

23 responses to “Another Assault on Capitalism”

  1. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    THE PARTY OF "KNOW" IS NOT SURPRISED.

    Big, expensive, poorly managed government is still . . . big expensive, poorly managed government.

    ILLUSION and CONFUSION is the name of the game. Midterm elections will certainly tell the tale.

    "WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama's health care overhaul law will INCREASE the nation's health care tab instead of bringing costs down, government economic forecasters concluded Thursday in a sobering assessment of the sweeping legislation.

    A report by economic experts at the Health and Human Services Department said the health care remake will achieve Obama's aim of expanding health insurance — adding 34 million Americans to the coverage rolls.

    But the analysis also found that the law falls short of the president's twin goal of controlling RUNAWAY COSTS. It also warned that Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and "possibly jeopardizing access" to care for seniors.The mixed verdict for Obama's signature issue is the first comprehensive look by neutral experts.

    Could be trouble for Democrats

    In particular, the warnings about Medicare could become a major political liability for Democratic lawmakers in the midterm elections. Seniors are more likely to vote than younger people and polls show they are already deeply skeptical of the law."

    For the rest of the news article click on link below:
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36726295/ns/politics-

  2. geoff Avatar

    Rob: don't you get dizzy, after a while, from running around yelling "the sky is falling! the sky is falling!" all the time? Reminds me of that Lambro guy.

    Interesting how out-of-tune Reagan is (imbued with nostalgia, driven by reactionary impulses… not surprising, really, just interesting): seems the IMF is proposing a tax (FAT) to try to dissuade all those big financial institutions like AIG, Lehman Bros., Goldman Sachs, etc., from assaulting capitalism. So what's going to happen? the Teabaggers will start protesting against the rest of the world, too?

  3. geoff Avatar

    "When it comes to market innovation, Americans will vote far more effectively with their wallet than through misguided and self-interested members of Congress."

    Strange, how any other kind of "innovation" or "progress" gets the full conservative "NO!" routine (nothing wrong with the way things are, change would only make it worse, blah blah blah), and yet… the banks need more "freedom" to gamble with the world's money. And… "members of Congress" are "misguided and self-interested," but one could never say that about, say… bankers? CEOs? Or (dare we say it?) people like Michael Reagan himself (after all, isn't he paid to write crap like that, regardless of whether it makes sense or not?)?

  4. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    I think Bush driving us into the largest recession we've seen in decades was an assault on capitalism.

    The neocons never mention it though. Funny, that.

  5. Good Life Avatar
    Good Life

    Can anyone name ONE industry that was regulated BEFORE it abuses its workers or the public?

  6. Diane Avatar
    Diane

    I'm puzzled. How does a fund — made up of money from the banks themselves, not from taxpayers — that will be used to *seize and liquidate* troubled banks equal a "bail out" of any kind? When I take some of my own money and set it aside in case I need it later, that's not considered a bail out — at least, not out here in the real world. We call it 'saving for a rainy day" and it's generally considered to be a Good Thing.

    Guess they have a different definition of "bail out" in whatever alternate universe the Republicans are occupying this week.

    Beyond that, since the "rainy day fund" will be used to SEIZE and LIQUIDATE the assets of troubled banks, I fail to see how it even vaguely supports the notion of "too big to fail," much less "institutionalizes" it. By definition, when the assets of a company are seized and liquidated, that company has *failed*. Seems to me all this fund is designed to do is make such failures more of a controlled landing than a catastrophic crash.

    Excellent recitation of the Luntz talking points memo, though. Too bad none of it has anything to do with reality.

  7. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    “I think Bush driving us into the largest recession we’ve seen in decades was an assault on capitalism. The neocons never mention it though. Funny, that.”

    Maybe that’s because before Democrats took control of the congress (which passes ALL legislation to include funding and budgets) in 2007 we’d had 52 straight months of job growth, a stock market over 13,000, unemployment at around 5%, interest rates at historic lows, and a pretty solid economy. Since then, we’ve shed four million jobs and added trillions to our national debt. Funny how libs never mention that. Right, Stug?

  8. Syncopation Avatar
    Syncopation

    And of course we can really afford the hundreds of billions spent on the Iraq War… but it was necessary because they caused 9/11. Oh wait they didn't. Oh, they had WMD. Oh, wait, they didn't. Hmmm…

    http://www.costofwar.com/

    P.S. Bush started them, and Obama hasn't ended them – yet. I'm not happy with the President about that.

  9. geoff Avatar

    "We’d had 52 straight months of job growth." Still repeating that. Despite the fact that most of Bush's "job growth" was in the gov't. Which you've even admitted yourself, Cal, on at least one occasion, but seem to accept because it was GOP gov't work, not Democrat gov't work. Just like it was probably great that Reagan bailed out Chrysler but super evil that Obama did the same for GM.

    "A pretty solid economy." Which is why AIG, Lehman Bros., Goldman Sachs, Greenspan, etc., had to work soooo hard to screw it up.

    Cal: what planet (or drugs?!?) have you been living on for the past few decades? You really haven't got a clue about the economy works, do you?

  10. geoff Avatar

    "Funny how libs never mention that." Actually, Cal, it's kind of funny how even some conservatives have had to point out that the budget for 2009 was penned in 2008, and that much of the new debt was Bush's legacy (i.e. the gift that keeps on taking).

    Funny how you rightwingnuts never seem to accept that. But I did post a couple of links to some commentary from just about the most conservative group I could think of, the Cato Institute.

    After that, the whole US economy during the Bush years was a wonderful bit of smoke and mirrors. Ever heard of a "Potemkin Village"? Lots of real estate speculation and McJobs, not much industry. So the wealth might have existed on paper, but… and this is why the whole house of cards (plastic cards? as in credit…?) came tumbling down so fast. And why Obama had to do something to fix it (where are you getting your credit from these days, Cal? China, Europe, the Arabs…?).

    So I don't know if it's funny funny or just funny pathetic that you keep repeating the same old lies over & over again. I also don't know if you honestly believe them, are just happy to funnel the weekly talking points memoes along, or if you're seriously cynical and passing on BS you know not to be true. The last would at least explain your occasional flip-flops, as though you can't remember which particular set of lies you've been supporting over time.

    And at least you might consider: if the US economy is now going in the wrong direction, why has the Dow gone over 11,000?

  11. ArtW Avatar
    ArtW

    Syncopation: "I think Bush driving us into the largest recession we’ve seen in decades was an assault on capitalism.

    The neocons never mention it though. Funny, that."

    We mention it all the time . . . the DEMOCRAT controlled (as in total control of the purse-strings) Congress 'drove' us into the largest recession we have seen in decades. And, guess what? They are still behind the wheel.

  12. geoff Avatar

    Art: the recession had little to do with the budget & a whole lot to do with deregulation, post-industrial economies (offshoring, outsourcing, globalisation, etc.), the high price of oil, the race to the bottom (i.e. McJobs), some guy named Greenspan, a whole lot of gambling behind words like "deriviatives," etc.

  13. OMG! Avatar
    OMG!

    Comment from Good Life

    Time April 23, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    Can anyone name ONE industry that was regulated BEFORE it abuses its workers or the public?

    I think Henry Ford bumped the pay rate to $5 almost doubling it.

  14. OMG! Avatar
    OMG!

    Comment from Good Life

    Time April 23, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    Can anyone name ONE industry that was regulated BEFORE it abuses its workers or the public?

    The government is close, except it abuses the public for the sake of the employees.

  15. geoff Avatar

    OMG: "I think Henry Ford bumped the pay rate to $5 almost doubling it."

    How is that "regulation"? Ford wanted to retain his workers (who were otherwise rebelling against the mind-numbing task of standing on the production line) and advertise his product. He was being smart, thinking long-term (something rarely done these days, when CEOs only seem to plan ahead to the next quarter, sustainability be damned).

  16. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    A lot of folks can't understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country.

    ~~~

    Well, there's a very simple answer.

    ~~~

    Nobody bothered to check the oil.

    ~~~

    We just didn't know we were getting low.

    ~~~

    The reason for that is purely geographical.

    ~~~

    Our OIL is located in:

    ~~~

    ALASKA

    ~~~

    California

    ~~~

    Coastal Florida

    ~~~

    Coastal Louisiana

    ~~~

    North Dakota

    ~~~

    Wyoming

    ~~~

    Colorado

    ~~~

    Kansas

    ~~~

    Oklahoma

    ~~~

    Pennsylvania

    And

    Texas

    ~~~

    Our dipsticks are located in DC

    Any Questions (except for Geoff)? NO? Didn't think So.

    AUTHOR UKNOWN

  17. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    Geoff posted: "Rob: don’t you get dizzy, after a while, from running around yelling “the sky is falling! the sky is falling!” all the time?".

    Not ANOTHER intellectually fun packed QUESTION from Geoff.

    I see he's back to his liberal two year old argumentative mentality.

  18. geoff Avatar

    Yeah, but Rob: don't you get dizzy? Or is that why you're only capable of cut & pasting, but not having any real thoughts of your own?

    Thinking of Teabaggers: have you read Foucault on how people willingly let themselves be disciplined? That's really the whole basis, isn't it? Someone like Karl Rove or Newt Gingrich says that "socialised medicine is evil" and a whole pile of parrots go on repeating it. They don't stop to think that the "socialised medicine" is the Medicare/MedicAid they depend on, they just repeat this silly mantra. And the people who gain are the health insurance "providers" (or the oil companies, or Wall Street, or the arms industry) and people end up voting against their own interests.

    The thing is: that kind of discipline doesn't just come from the top down: there have to be enough bleeting sheep out there willing to submit. And the big boys know just how to herd you. And do.

  19. Rob Avatar
    Rob

    Just more "paralsysis of analysis" Geoff.

    There are no perfect answers, there are no perfect Presidents or Congresses, it isn't a perfect world, you can't make all the people happy all the time, ask ten people their opinion and you'll get ten different answers, choosing the better of two evils still leaves an evil, two wrongs don't make a right, the republican party is not perfect, the democratic party is not perfect, the government is not perfect, the corporations aren't perfect, we are not perfect individuals with perfect thoughts and answers to create the perfect world . . . blah, blah, blah. "parroting".

    Geoff, give it a break and go play a game of horse shoes where "close" actually counts.

  20. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "Any Questions (except for Geoff)? NO? Didn’t think So."

    – Sure: how much oil is there, how attainable is it in terms of cost, what will prevent the international companies that own the rights to the recovered oil from selling it outside of the US, how long will it take to develop the oil fields, how much damage will be done to the surrounding environments, what percentage of US consumption will it offset on an annual basis?

    Any answers Rob? "NO? Didn’t think So."

    Did you ever wonder why all of your cut and pastes end with "Author Unknown", could it be because nobody wants their name attached to such idiotic drivel? Post the one from Pritchee again, I could use another laugh today.

  21. Stug Avatar
    Stug

    "It is imperative that we look at our past to truly understand how we got here. And we need not look further than the Carter administration’s Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 for the answer."

    – And with this idiotic phrase, Reagan removed himself from reality and relegated the rest of his article to moot fantasy.

  22. Cal Avatar
    Cal

    Rob. I don’t where you get your material but it almost always makes me chuckle. Our “dipsticks” are in DC. If not for those mental midgets we’d be completely energy independent by now. We have vast amounts of resources but the environmental extremists simply won’t let us use them. But at least the Delta Smelt will live on. As they said in Caddyshack, “At least we got that goin’ for us.”

    Stug, If Rob posts Pritchett again, will you also post your drivel response, too, so I can get another laugh?

  23. Jack Sprat Avatar
    Jack Sprat

    Rob

    "I see he’s back to his liberal two year old argumentative mentality."

    Boiling his argument down to the "is so", is far more accurate.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *