ShareThis Page

Revising Dodd-Frank: Some necessary neutering

| Monday, June 19, 2017, 11:00 p.m.

While all eyes focused on the GOP effort to repeal and replace ObamaCare, another hodgepodge from the same Big Government Knows Best mindset was being wound down in Congress.

By a vote of 233-186, the House has moved to neuter the Obama administration's pit bull of economic dysfunction commonly known as the Dodd-Frank financial regulations. This watchdog intended to prevent another Great Recession has instead soiled the carpet and is incapable of being housebroken.

Following the House vote, the Treasury Department presented its own review of Dodd-Frank, which supports many of the GOP changes.

Rather than prevent another 2008 economic collapse, Dodd-Frank has given big banks (which Dems, themselves, blame for the recession) even more market concentration by tying up smaller, community banks in reams of red tape.

The GOP legislation allows banks to opt out of some regulations if they maintain certain levels of capital, establishes a new bankruptcy process minimizing taxpayer risk in bailing out financial institutions that are “too big to fail” and puts a leash on the litigation-happy Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of unelected bureaucrats.

Rather than serve as an effective watchdog, Dodd-Frank is a mangy mutt whose bark and bite are equally deleterious. Under the guise of “consumer protection,” it extends the ham-handed reach of federal meddlers. At the very least, it must be fixed.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.