No, this bill won’t prevent bailouts 

“If you like your insurance, you can keep it.”

President Obama made that claim again and again about his health-care bill, even though it wasn’t true. When people pointed out it wasn’t true, he accused them of spreading misinformation about his bill.

And his current “reform” is based on yet another unjustified claim:

“Never Again Will the American Taxpayer be Held Hostage by a Bank that is ‘Too Big to Fail’”

Increasingly, the consensus is that the current legislation on Capitol Hill won’t prevent another bailout. Bloomberg recently cited one expert giving this assessment:

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond President Jeffrey Lacker said proposed U.S. laws to overhaul financial rules keep too much of a safety net in place for firms and probably won’t break a “vicious circle” of crises.

Today, we get another analysis with a similar conclusion from the WSJ:

The financial crisis has only served to expand the size and power of the four largest financial institutions. It may make good policy — and good politics — to say that the U.S. would never stand behind one of those banks in the event of trouble.

But when looking at their sheer size it’s still hard to believe the government would stand idly by.

There was a proposal that would have changed the playing field — breaking up the big banks. I supported this, as did many liberals. Of course, the proposal never had a chance. The irony is that this bill could exacerbate the concentration of wealth in the biggest banks, because regulations tend to crowd out smaller competitors and keep out new entrants. Don’t say this to the President, of course, or he’ll call you names.

About The Author

Timothy P. Carney

Pin It

Speaking of...

More by Timothy P. Carney

Latest in Nation

© 2018 The San Francisco Examiner

Website powered by Foundation