Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace

Obama's New Economic Plan: The Good, the Bad and the Weak

By Nomi Prins, Mother Jones. Posted June 19, 2009.


His new regulations have been billed as the most sweeping overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression. Obama, alas, is no FDR.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

On Wednesday, after weeks of the requisite press leaks and prefabricated spin, the Obama administration released details of its new "rules of the road" financial regulations, which had been billed as the most sweeping overhaul of the financial system since the Great Depression.

Obama, alas, is no FDR. Roosevelt's New Deal reforms included the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which split complex financial institutions into commercial banks (for consumers) and investment banks (for speculators). This enabled government to safeguard the boring, conventional activities of consumer banking without insuring the dice-rolls of high-risk investors. His reforms also opened the banking sector to independent audits to ensure financial soundness -- as opposed to just taking the banks' word for it, as Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner's recent stress tests effectively did -- and established the Home Owners' Loan Corporation, which helped people at risk of foreclosure cover their mortgages.

The administration's new 88-page white paper, titled "Financial Regulatory Reform: A New Foundation," focuses more on alterations than true reform. Some of them are useful, like requiring lenders to keep a stake in the loans they make, and requiring banks to keep adequate capital on hand. The bill would also regulate a portion of the problematic financial instruments known as over-the-counter derivatives. But other aspects are ill advised, like giving the Federal Reserve more oversight, creating an uber-regulator, and allowing Wall Street's biggest players to keep their hands in every pot imaginable.

Let's break it down:

The Good

Obama's plan consolidates certain regulatory functions and imposes restrictions on certain securities. The Office of Thrift Supervision, which monitors thrifts and S&Ls, including AIG -- which was misclassified as an S&L even though it operated an insurance company hedge fund -- gets the axe. The duties of OTS and another regulatory body, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, would go to a new agency called the National Bank Supervisor. Now OTS was an easy target, since few who aren't employed there really care one way or the other. Still, it'll be a while before we know whether the move really does anything to streamline the regulatory system.

A stronger provision of the Obama proposal gives the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation wider authority over banks on the brink of failure. So far, the FDIC has done an excellent job resolving failed banks -- selling their assets, renegotiating loans with consumers -- and bringing them back to health. So giving it additional responsibility makes sense.

Obama's plan would also establish the Consumer Financial Protection Agency to oversee mortgage- and other credit-related consumer products, and to enforce the Community Reinvestment Act, which encourages banks to make loans in disadvantaged areas. If the CFPA is given the enforcement and indictment power of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and actually uses it (unlike the SEC), then so much the better.

Other winners include a proposal to weaken the influence of credit ratings by agencies like Moody's and Standard & Poor's, which helped drive the crisis by downplaying the risk of subprime and other risky securities. Then there's Team Obama's requirement that lenders keep 5 percent of their loan risk on the books rather than selling all of it to Wall Street -- a move that will make lenders think twice before handing half a million bucks to some McDonald's cashier, but one that Wall Street is already fighting.

Another nice idea, though it doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell, calls for bankers in these complex securities deals to be paid based on the long-term performance of the product, as opposed to simply taking their cut as soon as the deal closes. In practice, though, this would be a bureaucratic nightmare -- policing it would require almost as many regulators as there were bankers involved.
  
The Bad

To oversee big insurers, the Obama team wants to create an Office of National Insurance within the Treasury Department. Now, if it weren't for the fact that many insurance companies, notably AIG, had themselves classified as S&Ls, while others are housed within the bank holding company complexes of firms like Citigroup -- thanks to the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1999 -- this plan might even work. But this isn't the case, and since the plan makes no mention of reconstructing the financial system, this part of it is unlikely to help matters.
 
Establishing a Financial Services Oversight Council chaired by the Treasury Department seems redundant; slapping a new layer of regulatory bureaucracy on an increasingly complex banking system seems more an exercise in appearances than action.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: economy, banking

Nomi Prins is a senior fellow at the public policy center Demos and author of Other People's Money and Jacked: How "Conservatives" are Picking Your Pocket (Whether You Voted for Them or Not).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Bringing the Repubs back
Posted by: Perry Logan on Jun 19, 2009 2:31 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sure enough, Obama's poll numbers are starting to drop--just as they did during the prmiaries.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 45% now trust the GOP more to handle economic issues, while 39% trust Democrats more. His popularity among independents has dropped a staggering 14% in the last month.

If anyone can bring the Repubs back, Obama can. :)

What's PUMA for "I told you so"?


Rupert Murdoch in Pain

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Bringing the Repubs back Posted by: Bob Horn
» RE: Bringing the Repubs back Posted by: pawheel
» Does it matter? Posted by: james108
High Time
Posted by: Tom Degan on Jun 19, 2009 3:44 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's time for Obama to Start Spending Political Capital

When Franklin D. Roosevelt entered the White House on March 4, 1933, he did not even hesitate. The man had a truck load of political capital and did not waste a moment spending it. That is the reason he was able to ram through such an unimaginable amount of legislation through in his famous "first hundred days".

The question, I would argue, is literally screaming to be asked:

WHAT THE HELL ARE OBAMA AND THE DEMOCRATS WAITING FOR?

This instant (and it is only that - an instant) of political fortune is not going to last forever. Indeed the honeymoon seems to be ebbing. Carpe Diem, Mr. President.

In his first months in office the two words FDR was fondest of saying were, "ACTION - NOW!". A MESSAGE TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: You're missing a golden opportunity, sir....He does read AlterNet, right?

"The Rant"

Tom Degan Goshen, NY

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: High Time Posted by: Emmories
» RE: "He does read AlterNet, right?" Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: High Time Posted by: monkeywrench
No Chance
Posted by: warrior woman on Jun 19, 2009 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama and Congress need to do what's right, however, there's no snowball's chance in hell because the Democrats have been infiltrted by the Blue Dog Republican's. How can we expect any action that would benefit the citizens of the US when we have the "fiscal moderates" screwing us at every turn? There is only one party, that of the powerful, greedy oligarchs.

Need I say to you what I've said to my friends for years, "once the Democrats taste the power taken by the Republicans there's no going back, it's an aphrodisiac". We'll see no repeals of bills that granted power such as the Military Commissions, Patriot, Graham Leach, etc. None. They've all taken rights away from the citizens and granted evil doers the ability to make gazillions of dollars.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: No Chance Posted by: Frugalvoter
One goverment/One currency
Posted by: weathered on Jun 19, 2009 6:42 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ifamericansknew.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Obama was always a Reaganite so there's nothing good at all about his package.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 19, 2009 7:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, it's ALL "bad" or "ugly." The regulatory package was written & approved by reps of Goldman Sachs, etc. The only things that superficially appear "good" were deliberately put there by the Wall Street agents who wrote the package, to make the public think "the government is doing something to reform the system."

If the package had been in any way an unpleasant surprise, the stock market would have tanked yesterday. In the event, it yawned.

A more candid evaluation of the package can be found at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/pers-j18.shtml

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The FED is in no way a government agency, it is a privately owned bank.
Posted by: rafaeltoral on Jun 19, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With private shareholders that reap billions if not trillions through control of our monetary policies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Grade D For The Economic Plan
Posted by: Southern Gal on Jun 19, 2009 8:41 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe that some reputable economists and regulators could have come up with an economic plan that scared the hell out of the establishment and wall street and actually took into account the real economy out here in the real communities of the United States of America. Apparently we live or die according to the stock market and wall street.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Really,
Posted by: oregoncharles on Jun 19, 2009 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
what did you expect?

Wall Street runs this government, via Geithner and Summers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ask JP Morgan how to produce fraud
Posted by: ReallyBearish on Jun 19, 2009 12:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In the banking system. JP Morgan and HBSC are naked short a staggering 30 or 40 percent of the world's annual production of silver, gold and palladium. This grossly outstrips all other commodities.

What business does JP Morgan have in these kinds of speculation, and where is the Commodities Futures Trading Commission while this is going on? Why they are "investigating" (almost a year now) and not talking?

Why is this important? Because fraudulent market manipulation has become the hallmark of the Fed thru crooked outfits like JP Morgan. JP Morgan is also the custodian of the silver ETF, so God knows what kind of illegal crap they are pulling with this asset.

What else are these clowns engaging in, and just where is that "transparency" that Obama promised?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do YOU know?
Posted by: jimidee on Jun 19, 2009 1:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am sick and tired of so-called experts trying to find fault in the President's economic package, as this reform issue is a part. Obama's plan is a total package, and it is VERY complicated. It is very complicated because the problems that it is designed to fix are ultra-complicated...nobody understands them. Because it it SO complicated, it is also a gamble as to whether anything we try actually works. As Obama says, "If it doesn't work, we will try something else."

Because our country has never been here before with these conditions, NOBODY really knows what will work. Obama has assembled the brightest and best minds in the financial world to work on this and this plan is what they have come up with. There is a lot of naysaying and second guessing from the arm-chair quarterbacks, but in essence if they were so fuckin' smart, why aren't they President?

The kicker is that anecdotal evidence is worthless here. Conventional wisdom is worthless here, too. Many of the so-called experts were giving out horrible advice right until the last moment when it all unraveled. What do THEY know?

Many on here who have their own ax's to grind and have nothing better to do than call out "I told you so!" haven't a clue either...they don't really even know what they told us so about, but it sure sounds dirty.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Some things are simple. Posted by: james108
» RE: How do YOU know? Posted by: monkeywrench
Obama's change and accountability?
Posted by: Mrs. Jefferson on Jun 19, 2009 3:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.commondreams.org/
view/2009/06/17-4

President "lying lips" Obama

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement