Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

White House Signals It Won't Fight to Keep Rule on Derivatives

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 09:53 PM
Original message
White House Signals It Won't Fight to Keep Rule on Derivatives


White House Signals It Won't Fight to Keep Rule on Derivatives
By DAMIAN PALETTA
May 26, 2010

WASHINGTON—A senior Treasury Department official on Wednesday said a controversial provision that could force banks to spin off their derivatives portfolio was not part of the "core" changes White House officials wanted in the financial overhaul, offering the second signal in two days that the provision could be stripped out.

But Treasury Department assistant secretary Michael Barr went out of his way not to disparage the amendment or say it should be killed. Rather, he said the provision's wording left it open to various interpretations that could have varying impacts on the financial system.

"It's a little bit hard to tell with certainty today how the provision would operate," Mr. Barr said of the provision, written by Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.). "If it would result in a banking organization not being able to engage in swap transactions, the provision could have very significant consequences. If it has a narrower set of interpretations, those consequences would be smaller, and the language in the provision is somewhat unclear on that point."

On Tuesday, House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D., Mass.) said the provision "goes too far," and suggested it wasn't necessary for new financial rules.

Mr. Barr was asked repeatedly about the derivatives provision, and he mostly sidestepped every opportunity to define the White House's view on the matter.

"There are other provisions like the Lincoln provision that are not part of that core set of questions, and I think those are going to get worked through in conference," Mr. Barr said.

- Worked through in conference? I think that's Washington talk meaning dumped. BBI -

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704717004575268790976078952.html?mod=WSJ_WSJ_US_News_5
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 09:58 PM
Response to Original message
1. Financial reform - deja vu of the healthcare fiasco. They got away with lying
Edited on Fri May-28-10 09:59 PM by Donnachaidh
and breaking promises once -- they can and ARE doing it yet again.

Change we can believe in? Really -- WHERE?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DJ13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 09:59 PM
Response to Original message
2. LOL
They were fighting to kill it all along.

Their spin sometimes sounds like the Bush WH.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DURHAM D Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
3. change you can sneer at...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-28-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
4. May 26 WSJ or
Edited on Fri May-28-10 10:13 PM by ProSense
May 28 Talking Points Memo:

<...>

But the White House itself worked hand-in-glove with the authors of the latter provision--known as the Volcker rule--and drew strict lines limiting its reach. The result is that even the principal proponents of Volcker on the Hill worry that it may be too riddled with loopholes to work effectively.

Conferees are working with a version of Volcker authored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI) and Jeff Merkley (D-OR), which was prevented by Republicans from receiving a vote on the floor. But that's just part of the story. Originally, Levin and Merkley had drafted a much tougher version of the Volcker rule--one that would have left big firms little wiggle room to gamble with their profits. With the White House's input, though, that amendment was modified, and, as written now, would exempt certain kinds of trades from the ban. For instance, if a firm contends that it's speculating activities are meant to hedge against its own risks, those trades could be exempted. That's not bad in principle, but the fear is that these firms will get away with defining a huge amount of speculative trading as risk-mitigating hedges. The Treasury Department has a more extensive view than do the authors of the bill of what constitutes a risk-mitigating hedge. And that, one Volcker rule supporter told me, is a loophole you can potentially drive all of Wall Street through.

Despite the controversy over the Volcker rule, administration officials say they are trying to stop lobbyists from weakening the bill. "The lobbying community is not done with its work, and they are very, very focused on the conference process, and we will be fighting any attempt to weaken the bills, will be taking every effort to strengthen the bills to make them good sound policy going forward," Michael Barr, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Financial Institutions, told reporters on Wednesday. And indeed they do play the part of bulwark against the final K St. push to influence legislators.

Still, the White House's influence on this issue is emblematic of its influence throughout the entire process. And the proof is in the pudding. Both the House and Senate have passed remarkably similar bills, both of which hew closely to a proposal the Obama administration put forth last year. That strong hand infuriated Republicans, and helped to keep the Senate's legislation from drifting in a Wall Street-friendly direction. But for those who want Congress to adopt a tougher set of financial reforms, it means they're squaring off against the White House.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
girl gone mad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 04:48 AM
Response to Reply #4
8. Yeah, they were trying sooooo hard to stop the lobbyists.
The poor little White House just couldn't stop those mean old lobbyists. They really wanted to crack down on the financial predators, but they just couldn't stop themselves from doing everything possible to water down the bill.

Not to say I told you that the reform bill was going to be weak sauce and all your press releases were meaningless nonsense, but I told you that the reform was weak sauce and your press releases were meaningless nonsense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JHB Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 07:03 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. Wonderful that they say that....
...but keep making those phone calls and sending e-mails to remind them to keep what they do in line with what they say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 07:18 AM
Response to Reply #4
13. "administration officials say they are trying to stop lobbyists from weakening the bill."
What a pathetic admission. They are "trying" to stop LOBBYISTS from weakening the bill.

Nice to come right out and admit who holds the power. And here I thought I had a White House and elected representatives looking out for my interests. As went health care, so goes financial "reform".

I can hardly wait to be protected from being stripped of future Social Security and Medicare benefits by these same valiant warriors.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 12:38 AM
Response to Original message
5. It makes me ill.
I was never a worshipper, but I would have been so HAPPY if Obama had been all his supporters were imagining. I never imagined he'd be so...........puny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 12:43 AM
Response to Original message
6. k
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheKentuckian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
7. The whole thing is going to be as close to nothing as possible without hitting it
Just a bat to hit Republicans with and to boost their primary chances

Change you can't even suspend disbelief for.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Autumn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 06:57 AM
Response to Original message
9. Not a lot they will fight for,
is there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #9
17. Not if it means standing up to corporate power for the good of the people. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
11. Highly predictable and it was predicted
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QC Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
12. The first six words make up a sort of reusable headline
applicable to pretty much every issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Better Believe It Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 10:14 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. It's really starting to look like that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 10:44 AM
Response to Reply #12
18. +1 nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
senseandsensibility Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 10:39 AM
Response to Original message
15. Been there done that
Healthcare redux. And is anyone surprised? Frustrated, angry,sure. But surprised?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
branders seine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
16. this administration has yet to actually reform anything.
what a complete failure and disappointment they are.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 10:44 AM
Response to Original message
19. Yawn. Even the "Good Cop" in Good Cop/Bad Cop ain't so good.
Who could have foreseen this?

Everyone watching who isn't a slave to Corporate M$M Infoganda.

Oh yeah, Obama is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO liberal, he's a socialist. :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
laughingliberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 10:48 AM
Response to Original message
20. It would already be gone if Lincoln had not been forced into a runoff.
Dodd had a plan to rework it (weaken it) but withdrew it after Lincoln failed to secure her nomination. So, now it will be obliterated in conference and she won't be blamed for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Phoebe Loosinhouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-29-10 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
21. kick
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun May 05th 2024, 06:35 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC