After the architects of Dodd-Frank finished fashioning a heavier yoke for Wall Street, more than two dozen left their comfy government jobs and found profitable employment in the private sector, The Hill newspaper reports.
After all, what firm under the burden of 19,000 newly written pages of regulatory gobbledygook (and that's only 40 percent of Dodd-Frank's regulations) wouldn't jump at the opportunity to hire, usually at a premium, someone who knows the ins and outs of the law's many mandates? As one headhunter told The Hill, “these people are walking gold.”
For example, Mary Schapiro left her perch at the Securities and Exchange Commission for the Promontory Financial Group, a financial consulting firm, The Hill reports.
But the sensitive, if not defensive, designers of Dodd-Frank vehemently reject the notion that they're helping clients or employers skirt the law. Still, their government “experience” is no hindrance to their future earning potential.
And for what but a mishmash of new regulations that neither address nor remedy the 2008 fiscal implosion.
“Congress evidently ignored the fact that Dodd-Frank further empowers the very regulators that failed to prevent the financial crisis,” writes Heritage Foundation fellow Diane Katz.
Clearly Dodd-Frank's enhanced “security” applies primarily to those former government servants who engineered this train wreck.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com 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.