In mulling over the question of whether the passage of the continuing resolution omnibus spending bill (shortened to “CRomnibus”) by the House was a good thing or not, something that caught my eye was the unanimity with which the amendment to Dodd-Frank in the bill was condemned. Being something of a contrarian I always wonder what the counter-argument might be.
It was darned hard to find one but I finally located an argument in favor of the amendment at Powerline of all places (not regular reading for me) in the form of a lengthy quote from an unnamed “expert on risk management in the banking industry”. It’s long and dry and has a number of digressions but having read it I have a much better understanding of the political contours of the issue.
The “expert” makes one other good point that is too frequently ignored: a good deal of the federal government’s attention in the financial crisis was devoted to bailing out government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs), the public-private hybrids which fulfill functions which in most developed countries would be performed by government agencies, e.g. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. From my point of view those are pretty good things to hate. I can’t figure out why political appointees doing the work of a federal bureaucrat should be paid the wages of a Wall Street Banker. Maybe it’s just me.
It’s a pretty sad state of affairs when the news media whether broadcast or print are in such lockstep on an issue that you can find hardly a mention of what the other side of the question might be. You can find positions arguing in favor of torture but not in favor of repealing an obscure provision of Dodd-Frank. What a strange world we live in!