Today’s top political news:
Treasury to Auction $104 Billion In Debt Next Week, a Record
The Treasury announced Thursday a record $104 billion worth of bond auctions for next week, part of its herculean efforts to finance a rescue of the world's largest economy.
The sales will exceed the previous record of $101 billion set in auctions that took place in the last week of April and consist of two-year, five-year and seven-year securities. That record was matched by another $101 billion week in May.
Though next week's total was broadly in line with expectations, worries about supply have weighed on the U.S. government bond market, which will see a mammoth $2 trillion worth of new debt issued this year.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/31429270
EXCLUSIVE: Minn. lawmaker vows not to complete Census
Outspoken Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann says she's so worried that information from next year's national census will be abused that she will refuse to fill out anything more than the number of people in her household.
In an interview Wednesday morning with The Washington Times "America's Morning News," Mrs. Bachmann, Minnesota Republican, said the questions have become "very intricate, very personal" and she also fears ACORN, the community organizing group that came under fire for its voter registration efforts last year, will be part of the Census Bureau's door-to-door information collection efforts.
Shelly Lowe, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Census Bureau, said Mrs. Bachmann is "misreading" the law. The involvement of Obama’s ACORN group raises lots of legitimate questions about the honesty of the census process.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/17/exclusive-minn-lawmaker-fears-census-abuse/
House eyes new taxes as senators pare health bill
Early work on the ambitious health care overhaul the Obama administration is seeking has exposed the kinds of in-house fights that typify just how hard it will be to get meaningful legislation this year. Case in point: A proposal to help bankroll universal health coverage with a dime-a-can increase in the price of soft drinks.
House Democrats have lots of potential targets for higher taxes as they aim to expand health care coverage to reach the roughly 50 million that experts say are uninsured.
Also under consideration are higher alcohol taxes, increases to the Medicare payroll tax and a value-added tax, a sort of national sales tax, of up to 1.5 percent or more. Liberal Democrats just cannot pass up any and all ideas for increasing taxes on us all – despite Obama’s “solemn oath” that those making less than $250,000 a year will not see a dime of increase in taxes.
Obviously Obama lied, knew he was lying, and has absolutely no problem with lying. In fact, Obama lies as easily as he swats flies.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20090619/D98TNJC00.html
Opinion:
Growing indications of extremism within Obama’s White House.
We got an inside look at the real Obama when an outtake from a TV interviews showed how he so easily swatted a fly. Obama demonstrated a stoic dismissal of the act. His arrogant upward tilt of his head – the hallmark of his persona – returned immediately. How unfeeling. The hapless housefly could be accepted as an analogy – Obama’s callous disregard for rights, or even life. The fly was only a minor irritant…yet Obama cruelly smashed it.
Of course that satire was ridiculous, but the nuts of PETA DID take it seriously and made fools of themselves again. The PETA foolishness reflects the absurdity and nonsense of much of the liberal way of life and thinking.
Only an idiot would support PETA’s concern for the fly, but those who take the liberal idea -- political correctness – are equally idiotic. It’s utter foolishness of course.
But factors equally foolish are being interoduced by the liberal-dominated Washington these days. Debate regarding Supreme Court nominee Sotomayor is frequently focused on her ability to bring “diversity” to the High Court. “Diversity” is another liberal buzz word that has entered discussion of the failure of public education, and other areas of life. Of course it has little to do with what should be the goal: quality. Sotomayor is famous for a series of racist comments. Her judicial actions raise serious questions – but many ar delighted the Court will get its first Hispanic member.
How ridiculous. The debate should be on whether Sotomayor will be serve as required. Obama’s concern about finding a nominee with “empathy” reveals a flaw in his selection. Sotomayor is probably less than qualified to serve – but her demography and bio gives liberals something to cheer. Quality service is unimportant.
Sadly, Sotomayor’s judicial shortcomings matter not. Liberal Democrats dominate the US Senate and Obama can nominate anyone he wishes and be confident of confirmation. He rules the roost on that.
Besides, even if Sotomayor was derailed, whomever Obama will select as a back up will be every bit as bad, maybe even worse, as far as normal America is concerned. Obama is a radical liberal and more and more his wackiness is being revealed.
Among the recent indications is the incredible announcement that the traditional sabers worn as innocent accoutrements to Annapolis uniforms, will be forbidden when Obama addresses this year’s graduates.
Say “Huh”?
Does the Obama White House really worry that much about his safety? From Annapolis grads? Are they serious – surely there are other reasons. However, so far, the Obama administration is being as secretive about this matter as they are about where Obama was actually born.
Perhaps this rule for Anappolis resulted from a typo on one of Obama’s teleprompters having resulted in an erroneous comment by the President.
There is a bottom line to all of this – these are among a growing number of isolated matters that are increasing in frequency…almost as frequent as the stupid gaffes by the Obama Vice President – the hapless Joe Biden.
I hope I am not alone in stepping back and taking a good look at the Obama presidency. It has failed to provide what its campaign had promised. It should be embarrassed by Obama’s support for the sort of racial hatred that drove the nut who murdered the guard at the Holocaust Museum a week or so ago.
Gosh. A real news outlet could have a field day reporting the true stories regarding Obama’s routines.
Which is exactly what this news outlet has just done.
Have a good day.
Buddy
The morning’s top blogs:
1.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/06/not_just_walpin_three_igs_fire.html
Not just Walpin! Three IGs fired
Thomas Lifson
If a Republican president had fired three inspectors general working on sensitive investigations, the media firestorm would drown out every other story. But that's exactly what The One has done, and only a home town newspaper (well-versed in the ways of Chicago politics), the Chicago Tribune, seems to notice.
(NOTE: We cannot expect our mainstream media to report any negative news about Obama and his administration, even Fox news displayed a moment of Obama-like bigotry in jumping to a conclusion blaming conservative America for the Holocaust Museum shooting. Turns out, the gunman was powered by the very same racist hatred promoted and preached by Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s spiritual advisor.)
The always vigilant Dan Riehl brings us up to date on the actions of Senator Charles Grassley, who seems to be the lone guardian of the public, as the coverup explodes. The three fired IGs are:
Gerald Walpin, who blew the whistle on the Mayor of Sacramento, whose organization paid back hundreds of thousands of dollars for misuse of federal community organizing funds, but faced no penalty.
Note that Obama has slated billions for community organizing, and fired the IG in charge of investigating misuse.
Neil Barofsky, tasked with watching over the financial stimulus spending. Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten of the Chicago Tribune write:
...now Neil Barofsky is embroiled in a dispute with the Obama administration that delayed one recent inquiry and sparked questions about his ability to freely investigate.
The disagreement stems from a claim by the Treasury Department that Barofsky is not entirely independent of the agency he is assigned to examine a claim that has prompted a stern letter from a Republican senator warning that agency officials are encroaching on the integrity of an office created to protect taxpayers.
Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, sent the letter Wednesday to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner demanding information about a "dispute over certain Treasury documents" that he said were being "withheld" from Barofsky's office on a "specious claim of attorney-client privilege."
Judith Gwynne:
Separately this week, the International Trade Commission told its acting inspector general, who is not subject to White House authority, that her contract would not be renewed.
Grassley had become concerned about her independence because of a report earlier in the year that an agency employee forcibly took documents from the acting inspector general.
"It is difficult to understand why the ITC would not have taken action to ensure that the ITC inspector general had the information necessary to do the job," Grassley wrote on Tuesday.
Less than three hours after the letter was e-mailed to the agency, the acting IG, Judith Gwynne, was told that her contract, which expires in early July, would not be renewed.
We have a president and Democrat-controlled Congress which are spending trillions of dollars as fast as they can, and simultaneously inspectors general charged with keeping the process honest are fired.
Why isn't this the top story?
The question answers itself.
2.
THE ABJECT FAILURE OF OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY
Jack Kelly
When it comes to foreign policy, President Barack Hussein Obama is a one-trick pony, and the trick isn't working.
The leaders of Canada, France and Germany have condemned, in strong and forthright language, the fraud in Iran's presidential election, and the regime's bloody repression of the people protesting it. Of the West's leaders, only the leader of America has equivocated.
Mr. Obama's equivocation is a tacit endorsement of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, LtCol. Ralph Peters, a retired Army intelligence officer, said Thursday (6/18):
"Our president's refusal to take a forthright moral stand on the side of the Iranian freedom marchers is read in Tehran as a blank check for the current regime."
Kianoosh Sanjari, an Iranian student activist, agrees. "The people of Iran will not forgive Barack Obama for siding with the evil regime," Mr. Sanjari said Wednesday (6/17) in an interview with the blogger Gateway Pundit.
(NOTE: Give Obama a break! After all, he is a product of the Chicago Democrat Machine. His benefactors steal election as a normal way of doing business and Obama was selected, elected, and merchandised by that group. Obama doesnt see that much wrong about the vote fraud in Iran.)
Mr. Obama said he does not wish to be perceived as "meddling" in Iran's internal affairs. He had no qualms about meddling in Israel's internal affairs when he demanded a halt to building in settlements as a precondition to peace talks with the Palestinians.
In any event, the president's even-handed approach between the oppressors in Iran and their victims has not produced the result he said he desired. The state run media has accused the U.S. of "intolerable" interference in Iranian affairs. This was inevitable, because the regime must blame the unrest on something other than its own unpopularity.
The differing treatment of the mullahs in Iran and the democratically elected government of Israel is mirrored elsewhere, noticed J.G. Thayer at Contentions, the blog of Commentary magazine.
"Regarding North Korea and China , Obama seems almost eager to offer a hand in friendship to those who have wasted no time in offering insults, offenses and threats against the U.S.," Mr. Thayer said.
"On the other hand, Obama seems almost eager to alienate Great Britain," Mr. Thayer said, and has pushed for protectionist measures that "royally irritated Canada."
The emerging Obama doctrine, Mr. Thayer concluded, is "treat your enemies like friends, and your friends like enemies."
The response so far to the Obama doctrine hasn't been encouraging. The Norks talk openly of nuclear war. The Palestinians reject the idea of co-existence with Israel. And the regime in Iran is cracking heads.
The kindest explanation for Mr. Obama's behavior is that he expects Mr. Ahmadinejad and the mullahs to prevail, and he doesn't want to queer negotiations with the regime.
Robert Kagan of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace thinks Mr. Obama would prefer it if Mr. Ahmadinejad triumphs quickly.
"What Obama needs is a rapid return to peace and quiet in Iran, not continued ferment," Mr. Kagan wrote in the Washington Post Wednesday. "His goal must be to deflate the opposition, not to encourage it. And that, by and large, is what he has been doing."
A "senior US official" quoted by the Wall Street Journal Monday (6/15) appeared to confirm Mr. Kagan's suspicions. "Had there been a transition to a new government, a new president wouldn't have emerged until August," the official said. "In some respects, this (the stolen election) might allow Iran to engage the international community quicker."
Mr. Obama has great faith in "dialogue" generally, and in his powers of persuasion in particular. But he is delusional if he thinks he can talk Mr. Ahmadinejad into abandoning Iran's nuc lear weapons program. What shards of legitimacy the regime retains depend on having the U.S. and Israel as enemies. Regime change is the only way, short of military attack, to end Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for international terror.
The massive protests throughout Iran indicate regime change is possible. But it's unlikely if the protesters don't receive at least moral support from the president of the United States.
"It is a bewildering abdication of soft power which refuses to peacefully extol America's democratic ideals," wrote Joseph Laconte of the Weekly Standard. Mr. Obama espouses "a crude and bizarre kind of realism that keeps mute while the democratic aspirations of millions are trampled by despotic rule."
Jack Kelly is a former Marine and Green Beret and a former deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force in the Reagan administration. He is national security writer for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
3.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/after_obama_fails.html
After Obama Fails
George Joyce
A failed presidency for Barack Obama could turn into liberalism's worst nightmare. Barely six months into his term, the 44th president has succeeded in generating the most widespread and serious discussion of secession since the Civil War. Despite what Newsweek's Evan Thomas may claim, Obama is not the "God" who will bring us together but the autocratic sponsor of an overbearing, oppressive leviathan from which a growing number of Americans are seeking refuge.
That refuge, according to author Paul Starobin, will come in the form of several regional republics that reflect the diverse character of Americans no longer bound in any meaningful way by our unrecognizable Federal government. In a riveting exploration of America 's coming breakup, Starobin writes in a recent Wall Street Journal article:
"Picture an America that is run not, as now, by a top-heavy Washington autocracy but, in freewheeling style, by an assemblage of largely autonomous regional republics reflecting the eclectic economic and cultural character of the society."
(NOTE: The Tenth Amendment is designed to protect the rights of the states. However, over the years, that provision has been blurred -- as has happened with many Constitutional provisions –- and no longer taken seriously. That may at may be changing. Too many extreme development at the national level, and too many outrageous ideas wandering into our lives from the wacko states such as those on the West Coast and New England. Normal America in “fly over land, wont take the madness sitting down. Look for more and more resistance. It might be the only positive impact Obama authors.)
Starobin chronicles in fascinating detail the historical basis for America 's future balkanization. He provides a snapshot of today's most viable and vocal secessionist organizations. Starobin goes on to argue that the overbearing and stifling "Obama planners and their ilk" will probably be doomed to fail in a land replete with the Jeffersonian impulse of radical self-determination. Obama's extreme power grab, in other words, will cause a correspondingly extreme backlash:
"All of this adds up to a federal power grab that might make even FDR's New Dealers blush. But that's just the point: Not surprisingly, a lot of folks in the land of Jefferson are taking a stand against an approach that stands to make an indebted citizenry yet more dependent on an already immense federal power. The backlash, already under way, is a prime stimulus for a neo-secessionist movement, the most extreme manifestation of a broader push for some form of devolution."
By focusing most of his attention on how big unwieldy entities devolve into creative little ones, Starobin's analysis misses however the more direct personal role Barack Obama himself has played in fracturing America.
Back in March of last year for example New York Times columnist Roger Cohen told his audience he could "understand the rage" of Obama's former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Without missing a beat Cohen then concluded in his essay that the "clamoring now in the United States for a presidency that uplifts rather than demeans is a reflection of the intellectual desert of the Bush years."
Has Barack Obama's been an "uplifting" presidency? Mr. Obama knew full well that his Supreme Court nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, dismissed the test results of white firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, entitled to promotion but denied because they were of the wrong race. Surely her decision is demeaning to both white males and to those who study diligently for exams. Did the black firefighters feel uplifted or demeaned when Sotomayor ruled in their favor? Was the New Haven firehouse more unified or more divided after Sotomayor's ruling? Was Obama's Sotomayor choice uplifting or demeaning?
Indeed, from the Sotomayor pick and anti-business rhetoric to the endless lecturing about America 's sins, Mr. Obama is starting to sound a lot like his former pastor. To be sure Obama is not as grating and shrill as Mr. Wright but closer to something more like Jeremiah-lite. In other words, Mr. Obama's strategy seems to be to convince Americans to drink his socialist tonic out of sheer guilt. I'm not sure what is so inspiring about all of this.
Maybe this is why Starobin claims to be witnessing a lot of neo-secessionist activity. Wouldn't a new American devolution however be a liberal's worst nightmare? Beyond the psychosis most liberals would have to endure at the thought of losing any kind of control, the prospect of vibrant, happy, and successful conservative republics in places like Texas, South Carolina or Utah would be an inescapable spotlight forever exposing the failure of liberal ideology in a Republic of California.
But this brings up another problem. When the framers of the American Constitution favored a multi-state solution to the problem of centralized tyranny they argued that an additional benefit would be that each state could become a unique laboratory displaying the policy successes and failures to its neighbors. If the Republic of Texas chooses a classics curriculum for its youngsters, celebrates the family and tradition in its media, encourages personal responsibility in lieu of a nanny state, rewards citizens on the basis of merit, is tough on criminals, sends its politicians home after brief excursions to the capitol, is business friendly and generally leaves its citizens alone, how are those controlling the politically liberal Republics like California going to react?
What most liberals fail to understand is that their leisurely dabbling in progressive politics and moral equivalency is made possible by the existence of accumulated conservative moral capital. Remove the conservative anchor and progressive societies become dangerously seasick. I guess the lesson here is that liberals need conservatives more than conservatives need liberals (although society needs them on occasion). There is much in progressive ideology that simply seeks to undermine -- a strange method of establishing an identity.
While reading "A Little History of the World" to my kids the other day I came across an interesting observation by the author, E.H. Gombrich:
"Because the Egyptians were so wise and so powerful their empire lasted for a very long time. Longer than any empire the world has ever known: nearly three thousand years. And they took just as much care of their corpses, when they preserved them from rotting away, in preserving all their ancient traditions over the centuries. Their priests made quite sure that no son did anything his father had not done before him. To them, everything old was sacred."
When Obama fails it will be because he's convinced enough Americans to tire, as he has, of what used to be known as "America." Imagine what would have happened in Egypt had their priests adopted "liberation theology" rather than the standard of their fathers. A mere footnote in the pages of history.
4.
Congressman Spencer Bachus (R-Al) On The Administration’s Regulatory Reform Plan
WASHINGTON – Congressman Spencer Bachus, the top Financial Services Committee Republican, made the following statement regarding the Administration’s radical regulatory reform plan:
“Last week, House Republicans offered a comprehensive plan for regulatory reform that protects taxpayers, consumers, and investors by making Wall Street responsible for its actions.
“Unfortunately, the Administration’s plan continues the cycle of bailouts for “too big to fail” financial institutions, furthers the government’s role in picking winners and losers, complicates rather than streamlines the current regulatory structure, and keeps taxpayers on the hook for losses caused by imprudent risk-taking on Wall Street.
“The taxpayer should not be forced to pay the bill for failed non-bank financial institutions. Giving Treasury and the President the authority to decide when to commit taxpayer funds to rescue failing financial firms could place politics over sound regulation and fuel market uncertainty. This is the last thing the market needs.
“The Republican plan would direct all failed non-banks to enhanced bankruptcy proceedings. Bankruptcy is a fair and transparent process where the rules are clear and well-established, and which does not require taxpayer funding to bail out the creditors of failed institutions.
“Another troubling aspect of the Administration’s plan is its massive expansion of the Federal Reserve’s authority. Rather than centralizing enormous power in an independent and largely unaccountable regulatory agency, the Republican plan would refocus the Fed on its core mission of conducting the nation’s monetary policy, and eliminate entirely its authority to conduct AIG-style bailouts of individual companies at taxpayer expense.
“The Republican plan creates a financial regulatory structure that is streamlined, simplified, and better for consumers than the current Balkanized system. The Administration plan does little to reduce the redundancies and inefficiencies in the system, and instead complicates it further by adding new regulatory bodies with potentially overlapping and conflicting mandates.
“And finally, at a time when Americans are being asked to pony up hundreds of billions of dollars to shore up the Government Sponsored Enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the Administration plan creates a new class of GSEs that may face more stringent regulation but will be viewed by the market as operating under an implicit government guarantee, compounding moral hazard and eroding market discipline.
“The Republican plan sends a clear message to Wall Street: no more bailouts. Our new regulatory system must get the government out of picking winners and losers and restore market discipline. We cannot continue to burden future generations of Americans with the costs of mistakes made by a few institutions.
“Modernizing our financial services regulatory system is of critical importance to all Americans. We stand ready to work with the Administration and our Democratic colleagues to build a regulatory structure that restores confidence in the financial services sector, stabilizes our economy, and prevents a recurrence of the market turmoil of the past year.”
(NOTE: As Congressman Bachus and others are pointing out – Washington can provide solutions to all our problems – in fact, its efforts usually make things even worse. So it is likely to be with the regulatory efforts outlined by Obama recently. Bachus and the Republicans have a better plan, an option based on common sense. Common sense? In Washington? What a novel idea!)
5.
No More Bailouts
The House GOP's Alternative to Geithnerism.
SCOTT GARRETT, JEB HENSARLING and TOM PRICE
The turmoil of the past year has caused us to reconsider what we believe to be the reality of the marketplace. Titans of industry, once considered impervious, proved that they weren't as resistant to crisis as was once thought. While the effects of this crisis are still evident in our communities, we've seemed to survive the most turbulent period. Now is the challenge of figuring out how to pick up the pieces to prevent a similar occurrence from happening again – all the while making sure that as we reassemble those pieces, what emerges preserves the free market system.
The Republican leaders of the Financial Services Committee have developed a reform package aimed at preserving free market principles while providing significant reform to our antiquated banking regulations. Our plan includes enhancements to our bankruptcy code, the creation of a Market Stability and Capital Adequacy Board, reforms to the Federal Reserve's authority and a path to privatization for the Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSE) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Our solution also addresses needed reforms to regulatory agencies through regulatory consolidation of depository institutions, including moving supervisory authority from the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to this new agency.
Unlike the proposal from the Obama Administration, the core of our plan is a promise to the American taxpayer: no more bailouts. The actions of the past year have merely incentivized additional excessive risk-taking by providing the promise of a government backstop. This backstop – whether in the form of capital injections, loan guarantees, or the purchase of toxic assets – exposes taxpayers to untold risk while benefitting firms, creditors and counterparties that have made questionable decisions. We must put an end to the bailout mentality that has gripped our government and changed the face of our financial sector.
We need to reverse the trend of government interference in the marketplace. Our plan creates a legal reform to allow for the resolution of insolvent non-bank institutions, regardless of size. The United States has a long history using the constitutionally defined bankruptcy court system to resolve failed or illiquid institutions. This new section of the law allows for the failure of large firms without undue greater harm to the broader economy. This will expedite the process and consolidate expertise for resolving large financial institution failures, without institutionalizing too-big-to-fail companies, concentrating too much power in a federal entity, or exposing taxpayer funds - all of which are possible under the bailout authority proposed by our Democrat colleagues.
Our plan also addresses two of the most prominent wards of the state, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie and Freddie played leading roles in adding fuel to the mortgage finance fire that burned down a great portion of our financial system and economy as a whole. By financing roughly 36 percent of the subprime housing market and recklessly growing their leverage to 100-to-1, they abused their federally granted competitive advantages in the marketplace and have run up a bill with the taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and counting. We are proposing a phase-out of taxpayer subsidies and a sunset of the current GSE conservatorship, telling Fannie and Freddie they must either learn to compete on a level playing filed with other private sector companies or be placed into receivership to save taxpayers from even more liability .
In addition, we must have significant reform of the role of the Federal Reserve in our financial sector. While the Fed is a favorite candidate for a systemic risk regulator role, it has a regulatory record that leaves much to be desired. Its handling of monetary policy in the years leading up to the current crisis is often mentioned as one of the crisis' enabling events. Furthermore, the Fed already has the role of regulator for large bank holding companies, such as Citi and Bank of America, which are two of the largest recipients of federal TARP funds. We must refocus the Fed on monetary policy, and reassign its regulatory and supervisory responsibilities to other agencies. We also limit the Fed's over-abused authority, by narrowly defining the "exigent circumstances" clause it has used to bailout firms. In the future, such moves by the Fed would need to be truly emergency actions, not new lending programs spanning months.
As previously mentioned, the idea of a proposed systemic risk regulator is quite worrisome, regardless of whether it is the Fed or a separate entity. By creating a systemic risk regulator, we would essentially establish a dozen new "too big to fail" companies that, like Fannie and Freddie, would have inherent market advantages because of that distinction. Privatizing profits and socializing risk is a bad business model, and even worse for taxpayers. As an alternative to a systemic risk regulator, we propose a Market Stability and Capital Adequacy Board responsible for observing the strength of the financial system. Such a board will have the potential to identify risks to the system rather than designate selected institutions as protected from failure.
(NOTE: No one denies elements or our financial community needs to reorganizing over sight. The recene crisis proves that point dramatically. But liberals control government today and they have no appreciation for the fact government can strangle what it seeks to regulate. A strangled financial segment is the last thing today’s America needs.)
We also recognize that our financial services sector is in significant need of regulatory restructuring.
Yet, many areas that are already subject to significant regulation are some of those with the most problems. As previously mentioned, Bank of America and Citi were regulated by the Fed as bank holding companies. IndyMac and Washington Mutual were both regulated by the Office of Thrift Supervision. Additionally, OTS had oversight responsibility for the AIG Financial Products unit, where most of its problems originated. The current system needs to be streamlined to reduce regulatory gaps and redundancies with more appropriate regulatory expertise targeted to particular subsidiaries of large financial institutions. We propose consolidating depository institution regulators into one agency that also possesses the supervisory functions of the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. This will allow for consistent supervision over depository institutions, while creating greater transparency within the system.
The ability of the financial services industry to help Americans achieve financial security is paramount. To preserve this, the financial services sector must offer a fair and transparent playing field for borrowers and investors. A competitive financial services industry, populated by well run, properly regulated companies, is the best means of helping Americans achieve their financial goals. Regulatory reform is needed to make sure that financial companies are never again allowed to wager their consumers' money without consequence, nor to rely on the government for a handout when they make reckless decisions.
Under the leadership of Ranking Member Bachus, the Republicans on the Financial Services Committee have crafted a thoughtful and substantive plan for regulatory reform. It's time to reject the "too big to fail" bailout logic that has resulted in unprecedented government intrusion into the marketplace and reinstate the free market principles that are the cornerstone of our nation and a healthy financial sector.
Messrs. Garrett, Hensarling, and Price are Members of the House Financial Services Committee and contributors to the Republican Financial Services Regulatory Reform Proposal.
Comments