In praise of the administration

[AllentownJake]

"The debate came to a head last week. Bean's group said it would propose an amendment to retain the current law. Liberals warned that if the amendment drew enough Republican support to pass, they would oppose the broader legislation to create the new agency. House leaders and the White House pressured Bean and the moderates to fall in line. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/18/AR2009101802156_2.html

This is on making large banks to be forced to be subject to state regulations. This in effect will be the start of the end of too big to fail. State governments tend to be hostile to banks that don't have significant operations in their states and suck money out of their state. That and community banks tend to lobby their own state legislatures and executive branches pretty hard. What you will see are state level regulations put on the big banks to force them to behave better. It isn't a national approach but it bypasses our congress.

[Ozymanithrax]

1. This appears to be a "States Rights" issue.

I am sure that Republicans, recognizing that this moves control down to a state level, which is one of their signature issues, will praise Obama and Democrats.

Not...

[Captain Hilts]

3. Like slavery, abortion and the franchise for former felons. Ugh!

[Ozymanithrax]

7. It is being treated that as a States Rights issue, according to the post.

Republicans have constantly called to move so many of these issues to a state level. And, in this case, it is being treated that way.

It seems to undercut a Republican issue and call or states rights. Clinton was a master of taking Republican issues and making them his own.

Of course, Republicans in power did not act on the ideal of states rights. They prefer to call or states rights while abusing federal power.

This is similar to the Obama administrations decision to allow the sale of pot to those who are prescribed. To the Bush administration, the Federal Government refused to recognize state laws legalizing the sale of Marijuana to those who had a doctors prescription. Obama's answer is to allow individual states to do this rather than use coercive Federal power.

Clearly, the Obama administration is a friend of states rights, in these areas. It is equally clear that Republicans will not laud his decision to take their issue away from them.

[AllentownJake]

4. Ironically

The big banks used the supreme court, using the commerce clause as a justification to remove them having to obey state regulations. This is how the banks got around usury laws in most states.

[Captain Hilts]

2. Yes, I wish the Admin. well in this fight. It's a Good Fight. nt

[NYC_SKP]

5. When I was in college, banks could only be chartered in one state...

...and have only one branch in any other state, IIRC.

Bank of America was only in California, CitiBank was only in NY.

1978-1984

I don't know WTF became of that rule.

[AllentownJake]

6. Two things

The federal government loosened those regulations and the supreme court struck down state regulations on banks that operated in more than one state.

[Captain Hilts]

8. Yes. That rule expaned in the early '80s, still, it was weird to deal w/ nationwide banks in Canada

in 1986 and after.