It covers more than genetic markers. It also prohibits the use of family history by employers (with 15+ employees) and health insurers.
Good law, though, of course, the insurance industry hates it.
Category: Legislation
On the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Obviously, I have opinions on the behavior of the Church, and particularly the US Conference of Bishops, but to get true clarity, you need the viewpoint of someone raised in the faith. Case in point is thhis post by Lance Mannion:
Taking orders from the priests is exactly what JFK had to promise he wouldn’t do when he ran for President.
Several Democrats, including Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pennsylvania, said they are in touch with their Catholic bishops back home. Altmire said he must have the approval of his bishop in Pittsburgh before he can vote yes.
That’s from CNN by way of Ed Brayton by way of Mike the Mad Biologist. And Altmire was talking about a health care reform bill that hadn’t been amended by Stupak-Pitts yet. He was planning to ask his bishop for permission to vote to expand health care to the poor and protect the sick from losing it.
Mr. Mannion was a devout Catholic in his youth, and lays some serious whup ass on the Church. I highly recommend that you read it.
It is remarkable the change. In 1928, Al Smith was the target of claims that a picture of him opening the Holland Tunnel was actually a “tunnel to the Pope,” and today, it appears that the Conference of Bishops is demanding a tunnel to the pope.
I would also point you to the debate on the BBC about whether or not the Catholic Church was a force for good in the world, between Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop John Olorunfemi Onaiyekan on the pro side, and Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry (of Fry and Laurie, Blackadder, etc) on the other.
Hitchens is, as always, an obnoxious drunk, who delights in offending the religious, and so was not interesting, but Laurie, I think, has genuine affection for faith in general, but not the church.
There is a difference between criticizing a religion for it’s beliefs and observances, and criticizing any organization for its policies.
The Catholic Church is a hierarchical absolute monarchy, and as such, their policies, whether it be the Pope lying about the use of condoms to prevent aids, or the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops lobbying against healthcare, though not, it should be noted not saying a word on the death penalty, which is also deemed a sin, need to be viewed in the exact same context as the United States setting up Gulags and torturing people.
A condemnation of torture, and wars of choice, is no more a condemnation of Americans than a condemnation of the Church in its actions regarding AIDS, or healthcare for the poor, or the complicity of its officers of state in concealing child abuse.
The BBC vid is after break. It’s broken into 5 parts, and cycles though, and Fry is on at about 2:20 in the 3rd segment.
1937 All Over Again
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and we’ll be lucky to live through it. Barack Obama and His Stupid Minions™ are looking at budget cuts to reduce the deficit.
Dude, we are in a liquidity trap, take your foot off the accelerator now, and we are all toast.
You are talking about doing what Roosevelt did in 1937, and it will get very ugly if you do.
Don’t make me call out Freddie Dalton Thompson on you….Oops…too late.
The real lesson of the last stimulus package is to ignore the “moderates”, who will make a cut just to make a cut, and include tax cuts, which offer the smallest bang for the buck.
Our Parrots in Congress
Click for full size
He was an overpriced rookie flameout with the brain of a turnip* then, and he’s an overpriced rookie flameout with the brain of a turnip* now.
So, big pharma is trying to get a bill through Congress for draconian exclusivity periods for so called “biologics” drugs. It’s 12 years, but with minor changes, snipping a hydroxyl, or adding a time released variant, they could drug companies could extend their government granted monopolies virtually infinitely. (also here, both from Jane Hamshire)
Well, in response to Jane’s push against these provisions, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) turned on their lobbyists, and wrote statements that 42 Congressmen read into the record, almost verbatim.
The kicker is that there were two versions of their talking points, a Republican version and a Democratic version, so depending on party, they were using different cheat sheets….Except, of course for Heath Shuler (DINO-Loser Land), who somehow or other managed to use the Republican version of the talking points.
As a Washington Redskin’s fan, this wanker has been bedeviling me since 1994…..Please, make it stop!!!
Monty Python’s dead parrot sketch after the break.
*My apologies to anyone who fancies turnips.†
†Like this guy.
The Boycott is Getting Results
Following repeated actions by Barack Obama and his administration to do absolutely nothing about gay rights, including a particularly illuminating exchange between DNC Treasurer and Andrew Tobias, which I noted here.
Well, it appears that some people concluded that enough was enough, and John Aravosis launched a donor boycott of the DNC. (There is a particularly damning list of the bill of particulars at the link)
So, after months of everyone, including Barney Frank, saying that nothing could be done right now about Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT), because the plate was too full, we now treated to the spectacle of that same Barney Frank saying that DADT will be repealed in next year’s defense authorization bill. (see also here)
Amazing that.
I think that if people are interested in gay civil rights, it needs to be understood that while Barack Obama and his administration may not be homophobic, they are hostile to the expenditure of any political capital on this matter.
Simply put, while they may not hate gays, they find the LGBT community inconvenient.
This means that the only way that anything is going to get done is if the LGBT community makes doing nothing even more inconvenient.
More Ass Covering by the Fed
So, under political pressure from the Ron Paul audit bill and the Chris Dodd bill, which strips regulatory authority from the Federal Reserve, the Federal Reserve Board has announced final rules prohibiting the charging of “overdraft protection” for ATM and debit cards unless the consumer specifically opts in.
There is a reason that I emphasize political pressure: It is because it is clear that the Fed is under pressure, and it is clear that the only reason that it is finally taking consumer friendly steps is because they they feel this pressure.
The effect of insulating a bank regulator from public pressure is to have them favor the banks.
Full press release after break:
Press Release
Federal Reserve Press ReleaseRelease Date: November 12, 2009
For immediate releaseThe Federal Reserve Board on Thursday announced final rules that prohibit financial institutions from charging consumers fees for paying overdrafts on automated teller machine (ATM) and one-time debit card transactions, unless a consumer consents, or opts in, to the overdraft service for those types of transactions.
Before opting in, the consumer must be provided a notice that explains the financial institution’s overdraft services, including the fees associated with the service, and the consumer’s choices. The final rules, along with a model opt-in notice, are issued under Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.
“The final overdraft rules represent an important step forward in consumer protection,” said Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke. “Both new and existing account holders will be able to make informed decisions about whether to sign up for an overdraft service.”
The Board’s consumer testing shows that most consumers prefer not to be enrolled in overdraft services for ATM and one-time debit card transactions unless they affirmatively consent, or opt in. At the same time, testing shows that most consumers want overdraft services to cover important bills, such as checks they use to pay rent, utilities, and telephone bills.
To ensure that consumers have a meaningful choice, the final rules prohibit financial institutions from discriminating against consumers who do not opt in. The final rules require institutions to provide consumers who do not opt in with the same account terms, conditions, and features (including pricing) that they provide to consumers who do opt in. For consumers who do not opt in, the institution would be prohibited from charging overdraft fees for any overdrafts it pays on ATM and one-time debit card transactions.
“Overdraft fees can be costly,” said Governor Elizabeth A. Duke, the chair of the Board’s Committee on Consumer and Community Affairs. “Our rule will help consumers better understand the terms and conditions of overdraft services and will give them an opportunity to avoid fees when these services do not meet their needs.”
The Federal Register notice is attached. The final rules are effective July 1, 2010.
I Was Expecting This
ACORN has filed suit in Federal Court against the Defund ACORN Act, claiming that it is an unconstitutional bill of attainder.
Well, duh, it is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, as it says clearly in the bill:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ‘Defund ACORN Act’.
I figure that any judge with two braincells strike this struck down in about 15 minutes.
Of course, both Bushes and Reagan appointed a lot of folks who lacked the requisite two brain cells, so we will see how it goes.
Financial Reform: Consumer Financial Protection Agency and Resolution Authority
I’ve been holding off talking about this, news has been coming out in dribs and drabs, but now that Dodd has released his version, I think that things will move forward more quickly, so here is what we has happened so far.
First, in both the House (Rep. Barney Frank) and Senate (Sen. Chris Dodd), we have changes to allow for resolution authority for the banking mega-giants (I prefer Sen. Bernie Sanders’ alternative of breaking them up into small and manageable pieces to both bills, but that’s just me), and for a consumer financial protection agency. (CFPA)
First, the CFPA, and it should be noted that the House bill has moved further along the legislative process, and as such, it has incorporated more bad ideas as amendments, such as sunsetting the Home Valuation Code of Conduct (HVCC), which was proposed by Rep. Gary Miller (R-Realtor).
The objection to the HVCC is not that it is inaccurate, but that it is accurate, and so it makes more difficult to move homes, because it shows that a lot of people overpaid, and are now under water.
Freddie Mac has issued a report saying that HVCC has substantially improved loan quality, which, since the taxpayers back up Freddie, and Fannie, and the FHA, means that Miller won one for his realtor friends at the expense of the taxpayers.
Additionally, we have another amendment that would remove the ability of the CFPA to regularly audit the products of about 98% of the banks in the United States. They could still write the regs, but they could not regularly check to see if they were actually followed at the smaller banks, or enforce them.
As Felix Salmon says, it’s a bloody mess:
So the CFPA can write rules for small banks, and can investigate complaints at small banks, but can’t examine small banks, or enforce its own regulations at small banks? It all seems like a horrible mess to me.
He suggests that perhaps an online clearing house of complaints, basically “crowd sourcing” them to send to the CFPA would be a way of dealing with this.
Additionally, we have an amendment from Rep. Melissa Bean (DINO-Finance industry) that would allow the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to preempt state consumer protection regulations, though, it must be noted they have to promise that it’s because, they “have found that the state law ‘significantly’ interfered with federal regulatory policies.”
It should be noted that this is the same office of the OCC that fought Eliot Spitzer tooth and nail when he saw evidence of banks were engaging in predatory lending against minorities. (Thankfully, while Spitzer lost this suit at the appellate court level, his successor, Andrew Cuomo, continued to pursue the litigation, and won at the Supreme Court).
Note that these are all problems because the House bill is further along, and as such, has been put through the sausage machine, and as Bismark noted, it resembles the making of sausage.
Dodd’s bill is “clean” at this point, which means that it covers all banks, and that it does not allow agencies to preempt stricter state laws, so I think that it clearly better here.
Next we have the issues of systemic risk and resolution authority, and while the Dodd and Frank bills are different, Dodd calling for after-the-fact payments in the event of a resolution/bankruptcy, and Frank calling for a before-the-fact insurance fund like the FDIC.
What has happened here, I think, is that the initial proposal, put forward by Timothy “Eddie Haskell” Geithner was that the big banks be required to pay after the fact, and as more comments came in, most notably FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair’s blistering criticisms of the idea (also here and here) in favor of an FDIC style system.
President Obama, when Congressmen are calling your Secretary of the Treasury a bitch, it’s time to reconsider his employment.
Geithner does not like an FDIC style system, thinking that it, “would encourage risky behavior by ‘creating an expectation of explicit insurance.'”
The word for this is “bullsh&^“. As Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) noted in when Geithner testified before Congress:
Let’s create the fund, just like the FDIC, so when we need to resolve [a financial institution], it stands. Your argument is, ‘oh, but Luis, moral hazard’…I don’t see banks racing to the precipice of destruction and bankruptcy because the FDIC exists. Nor do I go to an insurance company and take out a life insurance policy on myself, and the next day decide, wow, maybe I’ll just start smoking. Maybe I’ll start drinking, maybe I’ll start driving my car in a crazy manner. Maybe I really don’t care whether I live or die. I’ve got life insurance, what the hell if I die, everything is taken care of. No, that’s not the way it works.
The reason the Timothy Geithner thinks that there is a “moral hazard” problem with a prepaid insurance because, “That great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity,”* Goldman Sachs, told him to say this. Geithner is a poster boy for regulatory capture.
There is also another problem, one which has led Barney Frank to take Bair’s side in all this:
“If you wait until after the fact, you would then have to go to the taxpayer first and get the assessment to repay it and some people are afraid that would never happen,” said Frank, a Democratic representative from Massachusetts.
Which is what happened this time. If, after Lehman had gone down, we had demanded that the rest of the industry pay the costs of liquidation of the firms, it would have driven into bankruptcy too, so when there is a need, the money will never be collected. Goldman Sachs, of course, knows this, which is why they want a phony reimbursement plan.
Frank/Bair are right here, and Dodd/Geithner are wrong, but I think that we will end up with the FDIC type plan when everything settles out, because it is so clearly the best solution.†
A big surprise, to me at least, is the fact that Geithner, and by extension Obama, is actually calling for some restrictions of the power of the Federal Reserve, specifically he wants the legislation to strip the Federal Reserve of the power to make AIG type bailouts of insolvent firms:
Geithner, in testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Financial Services Committee, said the Fed should keep its ability to act as an emergency lender of last resort, but only to solvent firms in times of severe stress in financial markets — with Treasury consent.
“Any firm that puts itself in a position where it cannot survive without special assistance from the government must face the consequences of failure,” Geithner said. “The proposed resolution authority would not authorize the government to provide open-bank assistance to any failing firm.”
I guess that no one can be wrong all the time, not even Timmeh.
So, Dodd’s bill is out now, and, at least in its current “virgin” state, it’s much bigger overhaul of the regulatory framework, it:
- Strips regulatory authority from the FDIC, OCC, and Federal Reserve.
- Removes much of the authority for the Fed to make emergency loans to banks, and requires fuller disclosure of these loans.
- Removes the authority that private banks have to choose directors, and places the authority in the Federal Reserve board, and makes the chairman of the board for the regional Fed banks a Presidential appointment with formal Senate confirmation.
- Here, I would go further, and enact a 1-term for the Fed Chairman, because, much like the FBI, the level of power accrued by the chairman can create situations where is both unaccountable, which is necessary for managing monetary policy, and where the financial markets demand his reappointment.
- Creates a CFPA.
Note here that in stripping regulatory authority from the Fed, and leaving the monetary policy there, Dodd is not moving to an untried model: The UK does this, with the Bank of England controlling monetary policy, and the Financial Services Authority doing regulation of the financial markets, and it a little (very little) bit better than our current layout.
Simply put, we cannot afford another Randroid nut-job like, Alan “Bubbles” Greenspan to be in the position he held, where he controlled all of monetary policy, and was simultaneously the most powerful person in the United States (world) in terms of financial regulation, for 18½ years….It Damn near destroyed us.
I like Dodd’s bill more than Frank’s, and I think that the concerns of people that I generally agree with, like Felix Salmon, about the curtailing of the powers of the Fed, are misplaced.
Cutting the Federal Reserve down to size is a feature, not a bug, and one of the best features, at that.
The Wonk Room’s nickel tour comparison, as well as foot notes, are after the break:
| Provision | Senate Bill | House Bills |
| Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) | Includes a CFPA with rule-writing authority, with no federal preemption of state law. All financial institutions are subject to examination by the CFPA. | Includes a CFPA with rule-writing authority, and bank regulators can preempt state law on a case-by-case basis. Financial institutions with less than $10 billion in assets are not subject to CFPA examinations. |
| Consolidated Regulators | Consolidates all existing federal bank regulators into one super-regulator, the Financial Institutions Regulatory Authority (FIRA). Removes bank supervisory powers from the Federal Reserve and the FDIC. | Merges the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS) and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), leaves other regulators in place. |
| Resolution Authority | Includes resolution authority, funded by an after-the-fact assessment on institutions with more than $10 billion in assets. Institutions must draw up a “living will,” to be used in the event they must be unwound. | Includes resolution authority, pre-funded by an assessment on institutions with more than $10 billion assets. Institutions must draw up a “living will,” to be used in the event they must be unwound. |
| Systemic Risk | Creates a new Agency for Financial Stability, composed of the federal bank regulators and two independent councilors appointed by the President. The council will make decisions regarding systemically risky firms. | A systemic risk council, composed of the federal bank regulators, will make decisions, to be carried out by the Federal Reserve. The Fed would be empowered to conduct “on site” examinations of any systemically risky firm. |
| Breaking up risky firms. | Gives federal regulators the authority to break up systemically risky firms on a case-by-case basis. | Gives federal regulators the authority to break up systemically risky firms on a case-by-case basis. |
*Alas, I cannot claim credit for this bon mot, it was coined by the great Matt Taibbi, in his article on the massive criminal conspiracy investment firm, The Great American Bubble Machine.
†Why yes, I am sounding like I have the political acumen of Little Orphan Annie, why do you ask?
I Never Thought that I would Post An Entire Bill to My Blog
Because, these days, they all seem to be over 100 pages long.
But , when Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) offered his Too Big To Fail – Too Big To Exist bill, a bill that has a body only 27 lines long, (PDF link) I thought that it deserved a read (after the break).
No big surprise though, the New York Times, all the news that’s fit to line Tweety’s (the Warner Brothers version, not the MSNBC Version) cage, subtly casts him as your crazy old uncle, “The bill has no co-sponsors…..Mr. Sanders, who has described himself as a socialist,” while Bloomberg actually covers it seriously, and notes that there are a lot of people in Congress who actually support this idea.
This may not be as long of a long shot as it seems, since, as Barry Ritholtz notes, while the big banks love this, the regional and smaller banks would like this a lot, since they are getting eaten alive by the bigs ability to borrow money at an interest rate that is very near 0%, because of the support offered by the Treasury, Fed, FDIC, etc.
H/t The Baseline Scenario for extracting the text in an HTML friendly manner
A BILL
To address the concept of ‘‘Too Big To Fail’’ with respect
to certain financial entities.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Too Big to Fail, Too
5 Big to Exist Act’’.
6 SEC. 2. REPORT TO CONGRESS ON INSTITUTIONS THAT
7 ARE TOO BIG TO FAIL.
8 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, not later
9 than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the
10 Secretary of the Treasury shall submit to Congress a list
2
1 of all commercial banks, investment banks, hedge funds,
2 and insurance companies that the Secretary believes are
3 too big to fail (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Too Big
4 to Fail List’’).
5 SEC. 3. BREAKING-UP TOO BIG TO FAIL INSTITUTIONS.
6 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, begin-
7 ning 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the
8 Secretary of the Treasury shall break up entities included
9 on the Too Big To Fail List, so that their failure would
10 no longer cause a catastrophic effect on the United States
11 or global economy without a taxpayer bailout.
12 SEC. 4. DEFINITION.
13 For purposes of this Act, the term ‘‘Too Big to Fail’’
14 means any entity that has grown so large that its failure
15 would have a catastrophic effect on the stability of either
16 the financial system or the United States economy without
17 substantial Government assistance.
Finally, Some Backbone from the Progressive Caucus
They have sent a letter to Pelosi with 41 signatures saying that they will not vote for any healthcare bill with the Stupak Amendment, or anything that, “restricts a woman’s right to choose any further than current law.”
They get it. They realize that the Stupak amendment effectively bans insurance that covers insurance from the public exchanges, which would have the effect of banning coverage for abortion nationwide over a relatively short period of time.
Good for them, and we need to primary Bart Stupak…..Hell, if I have a job in 2010, I’m considering contributing to his Republican challenger.
The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
H-232 Capitol
Washington, DC 20515Dear Madam Speaker:
As members of Congress we believe that women should have access to a full range of reproductive health care. Health care reform must not be misused as an opportunity to restrict women’s access to reproductive health services.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment to H.R. 3962, The Affordable Healthcare for America Act, represents an unprecedented and unacceptable restriction on women’s ability to access the full range of reproductive health servicesto which they are lawfully entitled. We will not vote for a conference report that contains language that restricts women’s right to choose any further than current law.
Sincerely,
I was Right
When I predicted that Representative Anh “Joseph” Quang Cao would be the ‘Phant who voted for the healthcare bill.
A New Neologism
Stupak (n) – The sepsis commonly experienced after unsafe back alley abortions
Coined by Atrios.
House Passes H. R. 3962
The House healthcare bill, the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” passes. The vote was 220-215.
A Good Bill, With Bad Riders
Congress just passed, and Obama just signed, an extension to unemployment benefits.
Unfortunately, it also included an extension, and an expansion, of the new home buyer tax credit, as well as another tax break for big business.
Republicans demand that anything include a tax cut, Senator Harry “No Balls” Reid, folds like overcooked broccoli.
An Idea So Good It Will Never Pass
George Miller (D CA-7) has introduced a law requiring employers to pay workers for up to 5 days if they send them home because they are sick:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. employers who tell workers to stay home when they are sick will have to give them paid time off for up to five days under new federal legislation proposed on Tuesday.
The emergency law would cover pandemic H1N1 flu or any other infectious disease, said California Representative George Miller, a Democrat who chairs the House Education and Labor Committee and who introduced the bill.
“Sick workers advised to stay home by their employers shouldn’t have to choose between their livelihood, and their co-workers’ or customers’ health,” Miller said.
<George Herbert Walker Bush>Not Gonna Happen.</George Herbert Walker Bush>
It makes sense from a business perspective, a public health perspective, and a moral perspective, but there is no way that the Congress is going to pass this because….Because they are a bunch of wankers.
Well, This is Useful
The House of Representatives has voted to move up the effective date of credit card reforms that was passed in may.
The vote was 331-92 to move the deadline from February and August of 2010 to December 1 of this year.
The bill was to be phased in by 3 stages, the first in August of this year.
Now it goes to the Senate, where it will never be heard from again.
Healthcare Update
Click for full size
AARP Executive VP Nancy LeaMond and House Leaders
Well, today both the AMA and the AARP endorsed healthcare reform, which, I think makes the possibility of passage significantly greater.
Note that some of the constituencies in the AMA, most notably, the “American Assn. of Neurological Surgeons, the American Society of General Surgeons and the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery,” came out against this, but note that these are people who make their money when preventative care fails.
Notwithstanding Harry “No Balls” Reid’s statement that there may not be a bill this year, the House of Representatives is moving forward full throttle, with a vote scheduled for this Saturday.
Steve Benin also notices that the Republican opposition to the bill might not be as unified as it was for the stimulus package:
Republicans will overwhelmingly reject the Democrats’ healthcare reform measure when it is reaches the House floor, according to a key lawmaker.
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (Calif.), who serves as deputy GOP whip, told The Hill that the number of Republicans supporting the sweeping legislation will be “very, very close to zero.
Mr. Benin, much like I did, “assumed it was a foregone conclusion that every House Republican would vote against reform, just as every House Republican voted against the economic recovery package and against this year’s budget plan,” while this quote implies that there might be 1 or 2, or perhaps even a few more votes for the bill.
I think that this situation can be explained in 4 words, Anh “Joseph” Quang Cao, the Republican who defeated incumbent William “Dollar Bill” Jefferson in an overwhelmingly Republican district, because Jefferson was under indictment for corruption.
He knows that no matter how much support Republicans throw his way, and they won’t throw much, he’s a goner unless he actually considers his district’s needs.
Even in Louisiana, he cannot count on his opposition facing corruption charges for every election.
What a Pathetic Excuse for a Majority Leader
Reid is now saying that he may not be able to get healthcare legislation passed this year.
BTW, an assist on this clusterf%$# goes to Barack Obama, because without his inaction, he would likely have already signed something better than we are likely to get.
Well, I was Wrong on This One
The Republicans did release an alternative healthcare reform plan. (230 page PDF)
I had said that they wouldn’t because it would be so awful that it would drive fence-sitters the other way.
It appears that I was right on the 2nd part though, it looks to be te suck. Main features:
- Removes state jurisdiction from insurance companies. (Freeing the market, don’t you know).
- Whacks malpractice claims with little or no savings. (Lack of savings has been proven in around a dozen states now.)
- Assigns pre-existing conditions to very high risk pools, and does not require insurers to cover them.
- Does not prohibit rescission, the cancellation of insurance when you get sick.
- Allows employers to form groups to buy insurance, but allows insurance companies to exclude companies with workforces that are too sick, or too old.
Alan Grayson ha the summary weeks ago:
If you get sick America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly. That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.
An Idea So Good It Will Never See the Light of Day
As a part of the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Congressmen Alan Grayson, Wm. Lacy Clay, and Brad Miller have proposed the “Financial Autopsy” amendment.
The summary is:
Today we will offer the “Financial Autopsy” amendment. The Grayson/Clay/Miller amendment is essential to attacking the root problem of consumer bankruptcy and foreclosure because it requires the CFPA to do a financial audit of products that have caused the highest rates of bankruptcy and foreclosure annually. Not later than March 31st of each calendar year, the CFPA will list these anti-consumer products, submit their conclusions on why these products “fail” consumers, the companies and employees that underwrote these products, and authorizes the CFPA to take action to restrict these products.
Financial Autopsy Amendment:
- Requires the CFPA conduct a “Financial Autopsy” of each state’s bankruptcies and foreclosures (a scientific sampling), and identify financial products that systematically led to a large number of bankruptcies and foreclosures.
- Requires the CFPA report to Congress annually on the top financial products (the companies and individuals that originated the products) that caused consumer bankruptcies and foreclosures.
- Requires the CFPA take corrective action to eliminate or restrict those deceptive products to prevent future bankruptcies and corrections
- The bottom line is to highlight destructive products based on if they are making people “broke”. Thank you for your consideration, we hope you will join us in supporting this amendment.
This is brilliant. As opposed to coming up with rules that some quant will be paid 6 figures to evade, simply identify bad financial products by seeing which ones make people go bankrupt.
The problem is not specific financial products, it’s the fact that there are looters out there, and they will continue to find ways to loot people.
The solution is to look for the looting, and take away tool sets as they are used to do this.
At the link above, the author, “George Washington” suggests that the reports should be updated monthly, to eliminate the delay in response, and Karl Denninger argues that it needs to prevent minor tweaks to allow for reissuance of the products, and that it should have provisions to allow the victims to claw back their money.
These are all good points, but this is an amazingly good starting point.