If you have been listening to the news at all the past week or so, you have undoubtedly heard about the Finance Reform Bill that is going through the House and Senate right now. While this is not close to being completed, there are many in this country who view it as a much needed piece of legislation after the near crash of our financial system. Conversely, there are just as many who feel that the bill in its current state is worthless and should be scrapped to begin anew.
Let’s first agree on a couple of points.
- This current economic disaster was really bad on all sorts of levels.
- The taxpayers of this country (you and I) paid way too much money for other people’s poor choices.
- Not much has really changed. That is to say, the financial system works the same today as it did 18 months ago.
The big phrase craze of the day on Capitol Hill for the coining of this bill has been “Too Big Too Fail”, or “TBTF” as it’s being used across the op-ed columns of America. In essence all this fancy little acronym means is that no bank should ever hold so much power that it literally is too big to fail without causing massive consequences to the entire economy. The whole concept of TBTF is a very simplistic principal that I do not think either political party is going to argue about, but how to reform the system to get there sure will be.
Let me take a moment for full and true disclosure. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I personally think our political system has become a mockery of itself ten times over. That being said, I do not believe in corporate welfare of any kind. Pretty rough coming from a business owner I know, but let’s be real about this. How many small businesses folded, jobs were lost, savings depleted or destroyed due to this crisis? A whole heck of a lot, so I don’t have a ton of sympathy for those who made the poor choices that got us here.
That sounds like I’m for reform right? Well I am, but to a point. I believe it should be a law that we will not bail out banks in the future for making poor loans and high risk deals. Just as I would say the same for any small business owner who practices shady ethics and gets burned. You reap what you sow.
What I do have a problem with is this concept of limiting the size a bank can grow to. There has been a lot of conversation circulating that would force the “megabanks” to break up into smaller, bite size versions, that way they could indeed fail if they had to. My problem with this is I do not see how that actually fixes anything.
Let’s keep a simple fact in mind for a second if we can. It wasn’t the size of the banks and insurance companies that caused this mess, but the actions of a group of individuals. In other words, the size was never a problem until greedy unethical people ran them as such. If we don’t deter the behavior, the results will never change. Simply reducing the size of financial institutions without correcting the accountability issue is pretty useless. It might make us feel better, but any bank that goes under is still going to hurt a lot of people.
My greatest fear with all of this though is the scope of the precedent that this bill would create. What are we considering too big? Once it has been decided for the financial sector, what’s to stop it from moving in to other areas as well? Will companies like Wal-Mart and Target suddenly be considered too big and forced to downsize and split up? How about Ford, Chevy, GE and Boeing? How dangerous is it to start putting ceilings on how far a business can grow? Isn’t this the whole point of going into business in the first place?
Look, I am not condoning the actions of those who have caused this conversation. I believe that these people are garbage. I feel for people who have lost so much because of them too. We have to be smart about what we do here. A wrong step too far in either direction will do nothing but cause yet another bubble, with a whole new array of bad policies all over again. That’s my take.
What do you think?
Until Next Time….
Posted by Phil Ricci on April
Posted by Phil Ricci on April 26, 2010 - 12:39pm
Let me take a moment for full and true disclosure. I am not a Democrat or a Republican. I personally think our political system has become a mockery of itself ten times over
Why not make a full disclosure and also admit that you asked for and received the Democrat nomination (and were registered as a Democrat in order to get it) when you ran as recent as the last November election. Did you not sit in Democrat committee meetings?
Did you feel that that our political system was a 'mockery' when you asked for that nomination?
How much of it was a 'mockery' when you had people who were willing to put boots on the ground and donate money to help you in that election campaign?
When did you have the change of heart to drop out of the party and make the decision that political parties were a mockery?
I read the rest of your item with interest and had no plan to comment until I got the the 'full disclosure' stuff.
As santimonious as you want to sound about not belonging to a poltical party, the truth is that is a very recent change of heart.
Bea, Phil becoming a
Bea, Phil becoming a Democrat, was my mistake and I begged him to come to those meetings. It was also pretty clear from those meetings that Phil never really represented one view point that was inline with the Democratic Party’s platform. Lets also face the fact that your political party has very little to do with local politics. Phil is a good guy who cares about our community and our local government needs more people just like him.
As for the “boots on the ground”, those where my boots that helped Phil and I’m really not so sure that there was much money spent on Phil’s campaign, remember he was never really considered a Democrat by the committee.
You still seem really angry about the last election. Its over and I’m pretty sure Phil isn’t running again as a Democrat or anything else.
Charlie, If Phil choses to
Charlie,
If Phil choses to run again, I wish him well. I'm not angry about the last election, it is over.
This has nothing to do with whether he wants to run again.
Perhaps he was never considered a Democrat, by the committee, because he "Posted by Charlie Mallow on April 27, 2010 - 8:46am
It was also pretty clear from those meetings that Phil never really represented one view point that was inline with the Democratic Party’s platform."
There is a point where one has to be true to one's values. Was he so easily led that he allowed himself to stray from the values he holds in high esteem?
That is what rubs me, Charlie. Not that he left the party. He talks a good game, but I can't help wonder who will be the next person to sway him away from his beliefs?
Why is joining a political
Why is joining a political party getting swayed from one's beliefs? The fact is, to get elected, you, sadly, must belong to one of the major political party. If you want to get elected to a local office so you can make a difference, you need to join one of the major parties. In those circumstances, it's not getting swayed from one's beliefs, but an affirmation of one's beliefs.
Bea, I have been nothing but
Bea, I have been nothing but thankful for those actions and have never come on here or anywhere else and said the contrary.
My running with a party does make me a member of that party. Simple as that. Sorry if you disagree, but like Charlie said, I was saked to run with the Democrats. I felt that I could make a difference so I said yes.
There you now have full disclosure. Here's some more:
I think the way that these two parties are more interested in beating each other than in benefiting people is a mockery. I have never made it about the local levels, that was you. My article was focused on the national scene, unless you're telling me that City of Batavia Committees are now writing the Financial Reform Bill?
As for the change of heart comment, I have never had a change of heart. I have always been what I am. The need for me to be a Registered Democrat was a requirement that was placed on me by your Committee. I appreciate Charlie trying to take responsibilty, but that is mine to own. I made the choice to do it so that I could run. After the race was over, I went back to what I was before, an Independent Libertarian. My sitting in meetings were only during the elections and I never had a vote. When it was time for me to take a seat, I declined.
Yes Bea, I think that our system has become a mockery. Do you disagree? Can you tell me that the way things work now are rational and in the best interest for the most people? This is about power and control. When one side has the other cries foul and attacks and vice versa.
I will always be against the way things are done now, but that does mean that I do not respect those who try regardless of party. That's the whole problem really; party. Why is it so important to be in one?
Anyway, Like I have said and will say again, I have always been thankful for everyone the helped me. Charlie is right about one thing, I will not be running again with any party. I am going to focus my energies elsewhere.
Bea, our system is setup in a
Bea, our system is setup in a way that you have to belong to one of the two parties to get elected. Sure, everyone says they vote for the "person" but, in reality unless they have personally met the "person" it is very hard to sway anyone away from a straight party line vote.
I also don’t blame the party for not fully supporting Phil financially. Like I said, it was pretty clear to everyone in those meetings that Phil really wasn’t sold on the party platform. Phil never really was a real Democrat; he became one on paper to get on the ballot. The committee wasn’t going to support him unless he changed his party affiliation on paper.
I also think the local Democrats supporting Phil was a positive. It clearly showed that local Democrats really would support the best person in the room. The local Democrats supported someone who didn’t tow the party line. That’s a good thing in my book.
Charlie, I'm gonna stay out
Charlie,
I'm gonna stay out of this as far as party membership is concerned, but I'd like to clarify something here. Phil received the same amount of money from the City and County Democratic Committees as any other City Council Candidate.
Chris, I had no insight into
Chris, I had no insight into the funding but, I’ll retract the statement and take you at your word.
Chris, I have no basis to
Chris,
I have no basis to think anything else. Charlie walked with me everywhere and he saw how much money I pulled out of my own pocket to make my fliers and the like.
You are a very ethical person, Chris and were very involved so I have no doubts at all! :-)
I wasn't involved with the
I wasn't involved with the funding other than voting 'yes' to give x-dollars to our candidates as recommended by the treasurer. I would assume that the alloted dollars were spent on your campaign.
I understand that there was some disagreement about a certain grant given to one of the candidates, but grants aren't committee money so there's really no debate to be had there.
I hear where you're coming from as far as putting in your own cash. I spent a sizable chunk of my own paycheck as well as a hefty portion of private donor's money to fund my campaign on top of what the committees gave me. That's politics I guess. Maybe we should all work together to lobby for public funding of campaigns...
Sounds Good, Chris!
Sounds Good, Chris!
I chuckled :) Technically, I
I chuckled :)
Technically, I suppose it would mean that we end up paying to vote, but we do that now indirectly. If we take corporate money and private interests out of campaigns we might actually end up with politicians who aren't wholly owned subsidiaries of Company X or Lobby Firm Y. Who knows what we could get accomplished if that were to happen.