Today, the United States House of Representatives voted to end the fund Wall Street – rather than Taxpayers – would have to pay into that would serve as the bailout mechanism in a future financial crisis. In other words they voted to repeal the already meager Dodd-Frank regulations and go back to precisely the circumstances that existed when Congress claimed it had to give $700 billion to Wall Street because the banks were “Too Big To Fail.”

Official Photo of Spencer Bachus - Wikimedia Commons
From the Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee’s own Press Release:
As Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Bachus was responsible for identifying $35 billion of savings included in the package, going above and beyond the committee’s deficit reduction target by more than $5 billion. Bachus’ recommendation to eliminate a federal bailout fund for large financial institutions was accepted.
Remember this is the same Congressman who said Congress’ job is to “serve the banks.” From Think Progress:
Bachus, in an interview Wednesday night, said he brings a “main street” perspective to the committee, as opposed to Wall Street. “In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks,” he said.
And oh how he has.
Now the taxpayers are back on the hook if/when the banks have another financial crisis – which given that Bachus and friends are deregulating even more is quite likely.
When you are asked how could America be in such decline and have such a negative view of the future – answer: because we learn nothing from our mistakes.
Enjoy the next bailout which Spencer Bachus is working night and day to make sure YOU, not the people responsible, pay for.



16 Comments

I am not familiar with this and request elucidation. Is this thing dead on arrival in the Senate or not?
Good question. Also, what are the odds of a veto if the Senate fails to do its job (again)?
Veto? By Obama? Mr Corporatist himself?
Slim to none.
Obama has no stated position yet. But the game Bachus is playing is beyond dishonest claiming this prevents bailouts when in fact it guarantees them – but it will be taxpayers not Wall Street who has to pay.
This is essentially a repeal of Dodd-Frank so one would think Obama would oppose it.
Obama was never in favor of any legislation that would seriously curtail Wall Street excesses, and Dodd-Frank is so pathetic that it doesn’t matter.
I am just wondering whether the D’s in the Senate will oppose the House legislation simply because it was passed by the R’s in a spate of kabuki theater, or whether they will let it slide on through because it is what their corporate campaign bankrollers want them to do.
Or is this whole thing kabuki theater? I really don’t know, which is why I am asking.
There isn’t even any attempt to cover themselves with fig leaves. congress is simply out front with giving the biggies everything no matter what the public at large thinks. How bacchus reaches the conclusion that main street wants to continue propping up the banks in their egregiously fraudulent activities which continue to add to the woes of the 99% is simply self-delusion based on who is giving him his money and his orders.
Spicoli to Bachus: “You dick!”
> Obama has no stated position yet.
I think he said he was personally evolving on the issue, and that states should have the right to determine it for themselves.
This diary doesn’t make any sense at all.
First there is the assertion “voted to end the fund Wall Street – rather than Taxpayers – would have to pay into that would serve as the bailout mechanism in a future financial crisis.” (And BTW, please provide a link to the bill that is being referenced).
Then Bachus is quoted -and it’s bolded- as indicating “Bachus’ recommendation to eliminate a federal bailout fund for large financial institutions was accepted.” which would mean that he eliminated a fund that would have been FOR bailing out large financial institutions.
And,again, all this House machinations are against the agreed upon budget from last year and both the Repubs in the Senate and Obama have indicated that what the House is doing is not going anywhere.
Touche.
Right. Bachus is the one confusing you, he is saying “eliminate a federal bailout FUND for large financial institutions was accepted.”
But here is the scam.
The “Fund” was part of the Dodd-Frank act and requires the Banks to pay into it from their money. This Fund is what will be used should there be another meltdown – as in Wall Street will have to pay for a future bailout.
Bachus voted to eliminate the Fund which IN REALITY means when another meltdown happens there is no fund. Which means Congress will have to do TARP again.
TARP, unlike this fund, is from taxpayer money Not Wall Street money.
Bachus voted to eliminate the regulation making Wall Street pay which means another taxpayer funded bailout is assured,
Thanks but is this part of the “Paul Ryan” budget the House passed or ???
I use govtrack to follow bills and it has proven valuable in seeing just where legislation stands.
Yes, it was part of a Budget Reconciliation Package. Vote was 218-199.
Video of Bachus supporting it on the floor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6U4hEvj–o&list=UU6lvOGDuhTAsg9UsU9KvqMw&index=1&feature=plcp
And his press release
http://www.bachus.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1280
Thanks; it’s going nowhere.
Here is the Vote. 218 elected representatives voted for this.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2012/roll247.xml
I don’t have an answer for all your questions, but it sure looks like you’ve covered all the possible bases (none of which are looking good for us).