What does success mean on FinReg?
We're seeing a lot more stories about how this or that political figure is increasingly optimistic about a financial regulation package making it out of the Senate this year. The latest in the genre sees Paul Volcker saying happy things, and Robert Gibbs saying that the end of May seems like a plausible timetable (color me very, very skeptical on that).
Let's presume they're right and a couple of Republicans will sign onto something called "financial-regulation reform" and pass it out of the Senate. What product are we talking about, exactly? Success on this issue remains pretty ill-defined. With health care, you could say it covered this many people at this much cost. With cap-and-trade, you could say it imposed this limit on carbon emissions by that date.
With FinReg, the closest anyone has come is whether it has an independent consumer protection agency, which though a good thing, is not really the core of the project. I'd say the center of this has to be defined capital requirements, but those aren't in the Dodd bill. And since everyone agrees that there are regulatory packages we can pass that won't solve the problem, it seems we have to get real clear on what success is before we start talking about whether it's likely.
Posted by: leoklein | March 31, 2010 1:56 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: nadezhda04 | March 31, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: srw3 | March 31, 2010 4:54 PM | Report abuse
Posted by: bridgietherease | March 31, 2010 8:12 PM | Report abuse
The comments to this entry are closed.