Chamber: Dodd bill takes "three steps backward"

[TomCADem]

Source: The Hill

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is striking back hard against financial overhaul legislation unveiled on Monday by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.).

"This bill takes three steps backwards with the hope of making future progress," said David Hirschmann, president of the Chamber's Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness.

Hirschmann expressed continued concern with efforts to set up a new consumer financial protection office. The Chamber has long campaigned against a standalone Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA), as originally proposed by President Barack Obama and passed by the House in December.

Dodd replaced the standalone agency with a consumer protection bureau at the Federal Reserve that would have broad rule-writing powers and enforcement provisions for banks and non-banks with assets in excess of $10 billion.


Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/banking-financial-institutions/86901-chamber-dodd-bill-takes-qthree-steps-backwardq

---

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is on a roll. Post-Citizens United, I guess corporate America is going to gift wrap Congress and give it to the GOP in 2010.

[mucifer]

1. If the chamber hates it that's a good sign.

[librechik]

14. +100!

[LonePirate]

2. So anything the Chamber opposes is good for the average American?

It sure seems that way to me. Dodd's bill may not be perfect; but there must be something good in it if the USCOC is opposing it.

[TomCADem]

3. The Amazing Thing Is Dodd's Bill Does Not Have The Standalone Consumer Protection Agency...

That the Chamber opposed, yet the Chamber is still against it, because it has a separate body that can issue consumer protection regulations that can be overturned with a 2/3 vote of the Fed.

[No Elephants]

10. While he Chamber may be cynical, it is outrageous that the agency is under the Fed..

[depakid]

4. My question on all of this is- why go before the Chamber of Commerce at all?

Why legitimize them (even while progressive groups and several major corporations are working to discredit them as the Wall Street propaganda outfit that they are?

And why on earth would one speak at one of their functions them and take a gratuitous swipe at one of the Democratic party's most important constituencies?

Tough one to reconcile.

[mac56]

5. Who cares about the USCOC?

Who gives a rat's ass about their opinion? It's like seeking the approval of the Flat Earth Society.

[groundloop]

7. Unfortunately, many people believe the C.O.C. is a legitimate organization with legitimate goals

They need to be exposed for what they are.

[quaker bill]

6. Given recent market performance

Three steps backward may just barely be enough, half a dozen steps backward might be better.

[activa8tr]

9. Agree 100%

Back to Glass Stiegle!!

Let's face it, even Clinton screwed up on that one.

[Doctor_J]

8. Bad for CoC = good for the people

:thumbsup:

[No Elephants]

11. Can you explain why putting a "consumer" agency under the Fed is good for "the people?"

And which people? The ones at Goldman Sachs?

[jmowreader]

12. The US Chamber of Commerce and the National Federation of Independent Business are basically alike..

The only business legislation either of those two groups want to see is deregulation and tax cuts. If this was 1906 rather than 2010 they'd be lobbying against the Pure Food and Drug Act.

Side note: In looking up the date of the Pure Food and Drug Act I found what may be the very best name ever given to a court case: "United States v. Forty Barrels and Twenty Kegs of Coca-Cola." (241 US 265 (1916)). It was a case revolving around product adulteration (adding caffeine) and misbranding (because there was very little coca and very little cola in the product).

[Supersedeas]

13. oh what bankers and lobbyist can do with the influence of your money