Maybe some of the inside the beltway types are a bit too cautious about providing firm criticism though it's a start with a few pretty strong punches. It remains unthinkable how someone who ran on the theme of change could even propose such mild reform. This is one of the most brutal recessions in decades and it's not even close to being over. We know who triggered this recession yet political leadership both in Congress and the White House remain terrified to restore confidence in a system that must be successful for everyone and not only the chosen few.
Reforming Wall Street so that retirement plans are productive and safe along with building an economic system that profits the broad majority of Americans instead of the prized corner offices is what we need. A light scolding and sheepish request to do better is not the way. If this is the best we're going to get, why even bother? At least with Bush you knew you were getting screwed and his intentions were clear. Now, we're given some happy talk as though we're receiving reform but in reality, it's nothing more than a wasted opportunity. Steven Pearlstein raises a number of excellent points today.
I don't mean to minimize the political difficulty that would arise from confronting these issues. But given that we have just gone through the worst financial crisis in 75 years, one would hope that the government's response would be something more than an exercise in political triangulation.
It should have been grounded, first and foremost, in a thorough and independent analysis of how the crisis was allowed to develop and what regulators did and didn't do to prevent it, drawn from interviews under oath and internal records and made available to the public. That should have been followed by a detailed set of recommendations from a panel of seasoned regulators and independent experts on how the regulatory system should be reformed to prevent similar crises in the future.
If Congress decided to deviate from those recommendations, of course, nobody would be surprised. But at least it would have given the public a marker for reform that was free of industry influence. It would have also provided political cover for the president and members of Congress, a politically acceptable default position that they could have used to turn aside the entreaties of local bankers and campaign contributors when they came knocking.
Instead, the Obama team, hoping to ride the wave of public outrage before it crested, determined to fashion a reform proposal even before a thorough analysis could be completed. And by deciding to contort and trim their proposal to accommodate the objections from powerful interest groups and key members of Congress, members of the Obama team have now made it politically acceptable for everyone to treat this as just another special-interest free-for-all of the sort that helped cause the crisis in the first place.
Main & gay blog