Tag: dodd frank
New House Financial Services Chair Took $8 Million From Banks

New House Financial Services Chair Took $8 Million From Banks

Republican Rep. Patrick McHenry of North Carolina has been selected to chair the House Financial Services Committee in the newly sworn-in 118th Congress. Rather than focus on oversight of Wall Street banks and other financial institutions, the 10th-term lawmaker plans to use the position to investigate the federal agencies that regulate them.

The committee's jurisdiction includes banks and banking; insurance; international finance; money and credit; housing; urban development; and securities and exchanges.

The North Carolina Republican's campaign website boasts that he "is fighting regulatory constraints that have killed competition, closed community banks, and hurt families in western North Carolina."

In a November interview with Roll Call, McHenry said his first goal should he become chair of the panel would be "appropriate" and "vigorous oversight" of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, the two agencies tasked with regulating markets.

McHenry has taken more than $8,000,000 in campaign contributions from the financial sector over the course of his career in Congress.

McHenry was one of 221 Republican representatives who voted on Monday to eliminate 71 billion in funding for the Internal Revenue Service that was appropriated in 2022 to provide additional agents, improved “investigative technology,” and additional legal support to crack down on wealthy tax cheats.

A McHenry spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment for this story.

The commercial industries the Financial Services Committee oversees have provided millions of dollars in campaign donations to McHenry, according to OpenSecrets. They make up five of his top six career industry contributors: securities and investments (at least $2,626,941), insurance ($1,956,679), commercial banks ($1,621,198), real estate ($1,268,490), and finance and credit card companies ($780,399).

In 2007, McHenry voted against the Mortgage Reform and Anti-Predatory Lending Act, a bipartisan bill that would have improved consumer protection for borrowers, just before the underregulated mortgage system collapsed and fueled the Great Recession.

In 2010, he voted against the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, which aimed to crack down on the sort of reckless financial sector behavior that had caused the 2008 economic meltdown.

A year after it passed, he told CNBC, "Dodd-Frank has acted as a wet blanket on our economy and could pose a significant threat to American competitiveness."

Since then he has advocated for rolling back the consumer protections in the law.

He voted for the 2018 Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection law, which aimed to reduce regulation of lenders. Consumer groups blasted the legislation in a letter to representatives for its "destructive policies that roll back or eliminate essential protections put in place by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection (Dodd-Frank) Act after unchecked reckless lending nearly destroyed the US economy."

The 26 organizations said, "Contrary to its stated purpose, the bill would re-expose consumers, investors, and the public to a host of risky and abusive financial practices, including many of the practices that contributed to the last recession and foreclosure crisis."

A year later, McHenry helped organize an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to strike down the entire Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the independent agency created under Dodd-Frank to make sure banks, lenders, and financial institutions treat customers fairly. The Supreme Court rejected the brief's argument in its 2020 Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ruling, allowing the bureau to continue operating.

In 2020, McHenry said in a press statement:

It's time to permanently repeal Dodd-Frank’s costly and unnecessary mandatory disclosures, which hurt American businesses. The history of the resource extraction provisions proves the problem with trying to do social policy through public company disclosure requirements. While this rulemaking fulfills a statutory mandate and is an improvement over the two previous iterations, more must be done to ease this unnecessary burden.

He also authored a 2017 bill to protect "rent-a-bank" loans, offered by high-rate lending companies together with small banks to circumvent state caps on interest rates.

In March 2022, McHenry opposed an effort by the Securities and Exchange Commission to require the businesses it regulates to disclose climate-related risks and greenhouse gas emissions as part of their periodic reports.

"The Biden Administration is pushing its climate agenda through financial regulators because they don't have the votes to pass it in Congress," he argued in a press statement. "The SEC's proposal to require disclosure of information related to climate change that is not material for most companies is tone-deaf and misguided."

Accountable.US, a nonprofit that investigates the influence of corporations and special interests in politics, criticized McHenry in December as being "under the influence" of the industries he will oversee as chair of the House Financial Services Committee.

"Patrick McHenry made a career out of obstructing federal crackdowns of predatory lenders and financial scammers that sap billions of dollars from the pockets of average Americans every year," Liz Zelnick, director of the group's economic security and corporate power program, told the American Independent Foundation in an email. "McHenry never met a consumer protection effort he liked and has been rewarded accordingly with millions of dollars from greedy industries he now oversees."

Reprinted with permission from American Independent.

‘Populist’ Trump Punks His Credulous Fans (Again)

‘Populist’ Trump Punks His Credulous Fans (Again)

There was never any reason to think that Donald Trump’s stump-speech assaults on Wall Street banks and hedge funds were even momentarily sincere — but millions of working and middle-class voters loved his ‘populist’ rhetoric.  

 Emerging from that gold-plated jet, Trump would roar about cracking down on the financial vultures who had fattened while everyone else suffered, as his fans cheered.

 He wouldn’t let those paper-shuffling crooks escape their share of taxes any more. He was paying for the campaign from his own massive fortune, so he would owe allegiance to nobody but the American people. He excoriated Hillary Clinton, who had accepted tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees from Goldman Sachs, warning that the Democrat would dance to Wall Street’s tune.  He even aired a television commercial, late in the campaign, that vowed to free the country from the “globalist” designs of Goldman chair Lloyd Blankfein and investor George Soros.

 Voters enchanted by Trump’s promises may not have known that he owed his wealth and the continued existence of his business — despite multiple bankruptcies — to bankers at places like Goldman Sachs, UBS, and Deutsche Bank (and still owed them hundreds of millions of dollars). They probably didn’t know how quickly he abandoned his bogus promise to fund his own campaign, turning to Steven Mnuchin, a Goldman Sachs veteran and predatory mortgage lender, to raise millions.  

 And they surely didn’t know that Mnuchin openly boasted he would become Treasury Secretary, the very reward that Trump awarded him — or that various other Wall Street figures, from Commerce nominee Wilbur Ross to National Economic Council chief Gary Cohn, would dominate Trump’s appointments.

 Now they do know — or they should, if they’ve been paying attention. But do they realize yet how badly Trump punked them?

 On Friday, he delivered a multi-billion dollar gift to Wall Street by eviscerating the Dodd-Frank financial regulations passed in the wake of the 2008 crash. One of his two executive orders instructed the Department of Labor to delay and ultimately destroy the fiduciary rule that required financial firms to offer advice only in their clients’ best interest — rather than self-serving schemes for self-enrichment. With that single stroke he encouraged the banks to fleece working Americans of their retirement savings, with an implicit promise that the government will do nothing to stop or punish them.

 According to a report released last year by the Obama administration, the fiduciary rule would save Americans from $18 billion in financial cheating annually. Goldman Sachs estimated that the rule would cost financial firms as much as $25 billion per year. Either way, undoing the rule is an enormous favor to Wall Street — and a gigantic gouge of consumers. 

 At the same time, Trump’s other order directed his appointees to undo the regulations that protect Americans from another Wall Street meltdown — which could again cost millions of Americans their jobs, homes, and health care. Campaign promises to revive the Glass-Steagall Act, a Depression-era law that separated banking from investing, have been forgotten, along with the ‘populist’ pledge to require that bankers pay income taxes like everyone else.

 Indeed, the effective control of Trump’s agenda by banking interests became obvious even before he signed the orders to tear down Dodd-Frank. Within days after taking office, he signed an order that undid a planned decrease in federal mortgage insurance fees, forcing higher costs on hundreds of thousands of American families – -but enriching the private mortgage industry and investors in mortgage securities. Which is another way of saying that he did another favor for the big banks.

 As president, Trump has also effectively abandoned any ‘populist’ attitudes toward the national debt and the federal budget. During the campaign, he advanced the radical idea that debt didn’t matter because the government “can print money,” and hinted that he was prepared to spend billions of dollars on infrastructure investments that would employ millions of workers. But in office, his appointees turn out to be old-fashioned Wall Street deficit hawks who want to slash discretionary spending, which will be ruinous to the economy. And his infrastructure “plan” so far appears to be nothing more than another set of tax breaks for the wealthy. That scheme would mean billions in bond underwriting profits for Wall Street.

In Trump’s economy, there will be winners and — as he would say, mockingly — losers. The winners are the fat and happy bankers he once pretended to attack. The losers are the poor suckers who believed him.

IMAGE: After signing, President Donald Trump holds up an executive order rolling back regulations from the 2010 Dodd-Frank law on Wall Street reform at the White House, February 3, 2017.  REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque

Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Were Actually Brilliant

Clinton’s Wall Street Speeches Were Actually Brilliant

I’ve dismissed talk of Hillary Clinton’s “secrecy problem” as mere babble in an election year. I thought, for example, that Clinton had no obligation to disclose her mild pneumonia, a temporary ailment she was over in a few days.

Thus, I assumed there was something politically damaging in her discussions with Wall Street bigwigs, for which Goldman Sachs paid $225,000 a shot. Why else would she deem it safer to let our imaginations run wild about their contents than to release the transcripts and let the chips fall where they may?

Now we have the three transcripts. Everyone can read them, and everyone should. What they show is Clinton’s extraordinary understanding of our world — its leaders and their politics, terrorist groups and their vulnerabilities, the interplay of global forces, and the economic well-being of Americans.

Note that Clinton’s political foes are feasting over the exciting fact that the speeches were “leaked.” They’re saying little about what was in them.

One can understand Clinton’s hesitation to release the transcripts during the primaries. Bernie Sanders was making a popular and heated case against the billionaire financiers. Any record of Clinton’s saying nice things to the Wall Street titans would have been twisted out of proportion.

And Clinton did say nice things. She said, “I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown and a lot of respect for the work you do.”

Then came the pivot: “But I do … think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in ’08, you know, were devastating, and they had repercussions throughout the world.”

She did suggest that people in the industry could help improve the regulatory system. Even that could be defended on the grounds that only insiders understood the exotic financial instruments that almost brought the house down. (Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan had said he couldn’t make heads or tails of them.)

Some are troubled by the remark that the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reforms were done for partially political reasons. That should come as no great shock. In later public speeches, Clinton has called for tightening the Dodd-Frank regulations.

No one can find a quid pro quo — a trade of favors — between Clinton and the financial wizards who paid so handsomely for her thoughts. That’s the main thing.

On the contrary, Clinton has long called for ending the “carried interest” tax loophole, which benefits private equity managers. She opposed the Bear Stearns bailout. She’s now calling for a stiff hike in taxes paid by the richest Americans — that is, many of the people in her audience.

Clinton was for letting Puerto Rico restructure its debts, a move opposed by Puerto Rico’s creditors. “We can no longer sit idly by while hedge funds seek to maximize their profits at the island’s expense,” she said in May.

Let’s remember that Clinton was a senator from New York. Financial services rank No. 1 in the state for total payroll. They provide over 160,000 jobs.

Helping hometown employers is why Sanders of Vermont defended the F-35 stealth fighter boondoggle. It’s why Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts agitated for ending the tax on medical devices that helps pay for Obamacare. It’s why anti-government conservatives in the farm belt back government subsidies to farmers.

Clinton has cashed her checks for the Goldman speeches. Donald Trump, meanwhile, continues to maintain extensive business ties with Vladimir Putin’s Russia, according to his son.

Why Clinton insisted on keeping her brilliant Wall Street talks secret will remain an enduring mystery of this campaign. Heck, why didn’t she post them on her website? Beats me.

Follow Froma Harrop on Twitter @FromaHarrop. She can be reached at fharrop@gmail.com. To find out more about Froma Harrop and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators webpage at www.creators.com.

Photo: U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton speaks at Transylvania University in Lexington, Kentucky, U.S., May 16, 2016. REUTERS/Aaron P. Bernstein

#EndorseThis: Elizabeth Warren Says ‘Small, Insecure Money Grubber’ Trump Will Never Be President

#EndorseThis: Elizabeth Warren Says ‘Small, Insecure Money Grubber’ Trump Will Never Be President

I remember watching, from the crowded bleachers in an auditorium in Lowell, Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren’s first debate for public office. Even then, she was the up-and-coming star in the Democratic Party, as fiery in her denunciations of Wall Street greed as she was well-versed in labyrinthian corporate bankruptcy law.

In 2008, Warren was appointed chair of the congressional oversight panel monitoring the bailout of capsized Wall Street firms, and in 2010 she began a long, hard fight for the Consumer Financial Protection bureau — a battle she won, though one she continues to wage though her successful bid for the Senate, notably won without super PAC help.

Given her history as a fierce fighter for the crucial minutiae in financial regulations, it’s no surprise that Warren has emerged as one of Donald Trump’s fiercest critics. Her Twitter wars with Twitter’s biggest bully make for good blog fodder, but her pointed attacks against Trump in speeches show how important Warren will be in fighting back against Trump’s pro-corporate, anti-regulatory con of a platform.

Elizabeth Warren knows a con when she sees one. And last night, she told the assembled crowd at the Center for Popular Democracy’s annual gala just why Trump could never lead the largest economy in the world.