Home > Personal Finance > Romney’s Rage Against Regulation

Comments 1 Comment

The people who brought you the Great Economic Meltdown of 2008 have a new idea for you — although if they get their way, you’ll never hear about it. In fact, one of the most striking things about the new push to undo the consumer-friendly financial reforms that followed the crash is the open contempt its backers show for American democracy.

Since this week’s Republican National Convention will present their carefully orchestrated vision of a perfect unregulated, untaxed world, this might be a good time to revisit America’s recent nightmare on Elm Street.

In the waning months of the George W. Bush administration, as American voters were about to choose between Barack Obama and John McCain, the U.S. economy hit a reef the size of Manhattan — or, more precisely, Wall Street. In the wake of that disaster, two questions were repeated over and over, from coast to coast: How did this happen? How can we make sure it never happens again?

One of the most notable responses to that second question was the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed into law by President Obama in 2010. Dodd-Frank brought about the most profound changes in U.S. financial regulation since the Depression-era reforms of the Roosevelt administration. And the comparison is apt — because without this and other strong corrective measures taken in response to the crisis, the damage to the American economy could have been far worse than it was.

Nevertheless, Dodd-Frank came under heavy attack from the beginning, with some arguing that it goes too far and others insisting that it doesn’t go far enough. Dodd-Frank was enacted despite those objections, and with good reason: without it, the foxes on Wall Street were guarding the henhouse — and the rest of America was getting eaten alive.

But now the regulation-be-damned camp — represented by the Romney campaign — has come up with a “fix” that avoids the messiness of political discussion and debate by sidestepping the democratic process entirely. Never mind the inconvenient fact that Dodd-Frank is the law of the land, and that it is the constitutional duty of the executive branch — to which Republican candidate Mitt Romney aspires — to put it into practice.

Under the would-be president’s plan, agencies would have to eliminate existing regulations in order to implement new ones. Specifically, agencies issuing new regulations would be required to balance the costs of new regulations by identifying offsetting cost reductions in existing regulations. In addition, Congress would have new powers to block regulations that are proposed by the agencies. As Governor Romney’s economic plan affirms, “President Romney will issue an executive order instructing all agencies that they must invite Congress to vote up or down on their major regulations and forbidding them from putting those regulations into effect without congressional approval.”

Sizing up the probable outcome of such a move, American Banker said: “Even if the courts eventually struck down Romney’s proposals — the policies would likely spark legal challenges — they could force delays at agencies such as the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

Now, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB, has been a particular target of the deregulation mafia. The CFPB, a watchdog agency created as part of the Dodd-Frank financial reform, has set out to create a protective buffer against the wave of frauds and abuses inflicted by scammers on struggling homeowners and other consumers — whether those scammers be fly-by-night con artists or Fortune 500 bankers. Its mandate is to stand up for homeowners and for the elderly, for the middle class and the working poor — in short, for all those Americans who were being shredded in the post-crash meat-grinder while the Wall Street vultures were lining their own pockets.

You might wonder how this could be even slightly controversial. Curbing fraud, promoting financial literacy, stopping predatory lenders, protecting seniors from financial abuse, and keeping hard-working families from being thrown out of their homes — the mandate of the CFPB sounds like a no-brainer for any democratic society with a commitment to fairness, free markets, and the rule of law.

Then again, if your success depends on back-room deals, insider trading, rigging markets, skirting the law, and flouting the will of the American people, I can see how you might have a problem with it.

And that’s where the proposals embedded in Governor Romney’s economic plan come in. The Wall Street grave dancers couldn’t win fair and square, so they’re doing what they do so well: protecting their profits by gaming the system — then trying to pass off their slash-and-burn practices and over-the-top greed as “conservative.”

This is, in reality, nothing but an end-run around democracy — winning by cheap and probably illegal tactics what was lost in the realm of American political institutions. In my opinion, it shows blatant disdain for the Constitution and spits in the face of the American people.

Romney’s economic plan sees it differently: “While not a panacea for the problem of over-regulation, implementation of this conservative principle would go some distance toward halting the relentless growth of the regulatory state.”

It’s true that “the regulatory state” is not something that Wall Street has ever really warmed up to. Indeed, the ideologues who profited most from the unfettered excesses that led to the crash — many of whom continue to profit from its aftermath — have done their best to go on as though nothing had happened. If something did happen, they expect us to believe that it happened on President Obama’s watch, probably as a result of his “job-killing” policies. They maintain today — as they always have and apparently always will — that the solution to this and every other economic problem is to abandon regulation, screw scrutiny, and give “market forces” (i.e., them) free rein.

In other words, they think we’re idiots. They expect us to forget that we were nearly eight years into the George W. Bush presidency when catastrophe hit the U.S. economy. They expect us to forget that Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, Citigroup, and AIG either failed, were acquired under duress, or were taken over by the government — all before President Bush left office. They expect us to trust them when they tell us that the cure for the economic crisis that hit us like a freight train in 2008 is — wait for it — to return to the same laissez-faire insanity that got us into this mess in the first place.

The truth is that for the past twenty years, under the negligent stewardship of both Republican and Democratic leadership, the American economy, and the investment and credit markets in particular, were heading at top speed into uncharted territory with no one at the wheel. While ideologues of various stripes now repeat ad infinitum that “government is the problem,” the truth is that huge firms were making massively risky moves — with other people’s money — that no one but the insiders knew anything about. “Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain,” they told us. What could go wrong?

Wall Street was at the wheel, with politicians and regulators riding shotgun and the American economy riding blithely in the back. It was one hell of a ride. But when you drive at full speed with your eyes closed, you’re going to hit something eventually. We did, and we’re living with the consequences.

Of course, when I say “we,” I don’t mean everyone. Some people wound up with very big bonus checks, not pink slips, in the wake of the 2008 crash. In fact, for the most part, Wall Street and the big banks — the authors and architects of the crisis — stepped out of the wreckage without a scratch.

The rest of the country didn’t fare so well. Hard-working Americans lost their jobs, their homes, their savings, their health coverage, their retirement funds. Their kids put off going to college, or abandoned the idea entirely. Many of those people — the lucky ones — are just beginning to put their lives and their credit back together; others are still looking for that fresh start. These are the people that Wall Street and the big banks sold out once. Now they want to do it again — and once again, they want to do it in secret, behind our backs.

The open hostility of these people to the idea of a government “of the people, by the people, and for the people” really comes down to one thing: utter contempt for “you people.” It’s shameful. It’s intolerable. It must be stopped.

Image: Gage Skidmore, via Wikimedia Commons

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Pingback: 5 Ways Romney Will Roll Back Consumer Protections | Credit.com News + Advice()

  • Pingback: MegaBanks Finally Ready to Modify Mortgages… Don’t Miss Out! | ComparePlastic()

  • richard paris

    i am working class poor with short lived experiences of betterment. Which means I have worked hard all my life and had reached a level that I was comfortable but frugal and wathced most of it disapear as I now close in on retirement.
    Part of the problem is public attitude and lack of patience or willingness to save for something. Business as usual from what I can see, no change or not much any. Buy now pay later and we will make it easy.
    I often wonder what would have happened if we bailed out the U.S. tax payer instead of the bank and large corps. What if they broke down what they gave to bail outs and gave it back to the people they got it from in the first place. My house would be paid, a new car, {american made) some new appliances and some new tech. stuff. Retirement would look better and I would feel better, more time to exercise to stay fit.
    All of these things would have an impact on the economy, all brighter. Banks would be paid off, someone can have my job. I would have new appliances, someone working there, out in the fresh air riding bike and keeping illness at bay, some health cost saved there. Maybe I’m just crazy but it seems like it might have been an option, has anyone crunched the numbers, could it have worked ? If not why?

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team