Financial Reform Bill passes House

LEFTIST DEMOCRATS PUSH PROPOSAL TO GIVE EXECUTIVE BRANCH UNPRECEDENTED AUTHORITY OVER FINANCIAL SECTOR

by John Charlton

U.S. Representative Barney Frank, who was instrumental in giving Fanny Mae and Freddie Mack license to approve mortgages to those unable to pay them; proposed the solution on Friday, by giving Obama regime authority to regulate them.
U.S. Representative Barney Frank, who was instrumental in giving Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac license to approve mortgages to those unable to pay them; proposed the solution on Friday, by giving Obama regime authority to help such individuals not pay them.

(Dec. 14, 2009) — Ever the masters of misinformation, the Democratic Party has pushed through a “financial reform” bill in the U.S. House having proposed it for a reading on Friday and put it to a vote on Saturday.  The entire Republican Delegation and 27 Democrats voted against the measure, which intends to radically re-organize the U.S. economy according to Socialist principles.  The final vote passed the bill 223 to 202 votes.

The bill aims at effectively ending the free market in America and snuff out the possibility of healthy competition in the market which has been the driving force of the American economic engine for the last 200 years.  It does this by putting the Banking industry directly under the control of the Obama regime, which has no love for capitalism.

However, if even passed by the U.S. Senate in subsequent weeks, no aspect of the bill will have the force of law, because Obama is ineligible to be president, on account of not being a natural born citizen.  His signature will therefore not enact it into law.  Indeed during the rule of his regime, no congressional bill has had the force of law, and everyone who is injured in any way by such a bill, can have recourse to the District Court of Washington, D.C., seeking by means of a Quo Warranto action, the ousting of Obama as usurper.

Moreover the U.S. Constitution gives the Federal Government no authority to control the economy, besides the very limited measures regarding tariffs on imported goods and such regulation as would prevent fraud in interstate commerce.

Liberal Media Lauds the Bill

Darragh Worland, writing for Tonic.com, is in favor of the bill.  From his point of view Socialism is the way to go:

The measure seeks to regulate every financial institution from the smallest bank to the biggest conglomerates. …

Perhaps most importantly, the bill would create a Financial Services Oversight Council made up of the Treasury secretary, Federal Reserve chairman and heads of regulatory agencies to monitor the financial markets for potential threats to nation’s system, while taking power out of the hands of the Federal Reserve. This council would identify firms and activities where more regulations should be put in place, including requiring those at risk to put more money in reserve. The bill also puts the power to dismantle failing firms into the hands of the government.

Many Americans have complained about the excessive control of the Federal Reserve on the U.S. economy, however, that organization, dominated by financiers was at least in favor of free market principles:  to put the regulation of banks in the hands of unlawfully appointed collaborators of a usurper, who espouses a Marxist state, is of the greatest danger to each and every U.S. Citizen, because it puts the bank accounts of everyone under the regulation of the executive branch, which has no business regulating private institutions.

Obama’s supporters in the House cleverly added many a popular measure to get the poison of Socialism accepted:  the annual audit of the Federal Reserve, the breakup of mega banks when they fail; the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), to be charged with policing mortgage lenders who exploit the economically disadvantaged; stricter regulation of credit card companies and derivatives markets.

The All.gov coverage featured laudatory reports of the bill and only those articles which criticized minor points, so as to give an impression that the bill endangered nothing. The Bloomberg News report by Alison Vekshin ignored entirely the power grab by the Executive Branch contained in the bill.

Tom Braithwaite, writing for FT.com, was one of the few to quote one of the Democrats who voted against the bill:

Walt Minnick, a Democrat from Idaho, who led the rebellion on the CFPA, which strips power from existing banking regulators, said: “You don’t achieve better regulation by splitting the responsibility between two regulators, in many cases thousands of miles apart.”

Indeed, the bill greatly weakens the authority of the states to regulate the banks in their own state, by extending the authority of the CFPA over the same areas of bank regulation which traditionally have been their domain.

Braithwaite also reported that the Bill contains a provision to penalize creditors of failed banks with a 10% reduction in their claims.

Bachmann the Lone Voice of Sanity

However, U.S. Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has stiffly criticized the bill.  Jordan Fabian, writing for theHill.com, reported that among Bachmann’s concerns is one provision which would allow ACORN members to sit on regulatory panels:

Bachmann, a consistent opponent of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), said that an amendment given in the House Financial Services Committee could allow the group to sit on an advisory panel that monitors the regulations.

“ACORN may have a seat at the table being on the oversight committee regulating the financial services industry of the United States,” Bachmann said at a press conference. “And that would be a cruel joke.”

But in general the Main Stream Media was strangely silent on the novelty of passing such sweeping measures after only 1 day of debate.

The most dangerous provision is the regulatory provision to prevent the failure of big banks.  This will only increase irresponsibility in view of the hope that if anything goes wrong, the Federal Government will come to the rescue.

On this issue, Bachman issued a press release on Friday, explaining the danger of this provision:

The 1,300-plus-page bill the House is scheduled to vote on today creates a “systemic risk regulator” tasked with determining which firms meet an undefined “too big to fail” test. It allows the government to tap a multibillion-dollar bailout fund to save troubled firms whenever it wants. This fund will be initially financed by a massive new tax on financial institutions and is expected to take $55 billion out of the hands of small businesses and job creators, leading to a loss of as many as 450,000 jobs. Should that fund run dry, taxpayers are on the hook to replenish it. And unlike TARP, this bill authorizes the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve to completely bypass congressional approval and directly provide such lifelines to flailing firms.

The moral hazard this bill creates will ripple through the entire financial marketplace. Providing banks with a bailout guarantee will perpetuate a cycle of irresponsibility, shielding creditors from taking the fall for making risky decisions and forcing taxpayers to ante up again and again.

Rather than increasing transparency within the Federal Reserve and directing it to focus on the nation’s monetary policy, this bill drastically expands the powers of the Fed to intervene in the private marketplace. But the Federal Reserve has already proven its inability to preemptively catch systemic risks as demonstrated by the financial crisis that occurred under its watch. Giving more power to government bureaucracies that have failed in the past will do nothing to stabilize our markets.

Obama’s strategy to slowly take more and more power, required control of the banks first of all; because it is through the banks that the entire economy functions.  With this bill he aims to use the political authority of the Executive Branch to influence banks to grant loans to his political supporters and deny loans to his political enemies.  The bill also advances the agenda of George Soros, who spent years planning the Obama takeover, because through excessive control of U.S. Banks, international financiers with access to the White House will effectively dominate the financial markets in America.

For a breif exposé of the Acorn Agenda to manipulate banks for their social agenda, The Post & Email recommends you read today’s post at The Citizen Wells Blog.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.