Of course, it doesn't help when one of them actually IS directly from Wall Street!
Chachas is well-suited among the candidates to offer insights on Wall Street — he made millions there as an investment banker before deciding to return to Ely, his childhood home, and run for Senate as a Republican.
In a detailed white paper, Chachas argues that our system for “monitoring and managing risk across highly interconnected financial markets” failed. In general, he argues for more transparency and market-based incentives for a more prudent financial services sector.
"Market-based"? Really, Mr. Chachas? Weren't those "market-based" deregulation plans pushed in the last thirty years enough? If anything, the "market-based" laissez faire model of inadequate regulation is what caused this mess in the first place. The system failed because it was never properly equipped to handle the massive financial conglomerates that exist today.
But hey, I'll at least give John Chachas brownie points for actually treating the subject seriously. The rest of them just spouted off nonsense. Here's our favorite "Chicken" Suzy Lowdown:
Lowden, who said she would have voted with Republicans to block debate on the bill, said in a previous Sun interview that the meltdown was caused by too much, not too little regulation.
She stood by that laissez faire philosophy in written answers to Sun questions. Asked whether she favored reform, she replied, “Yes, but not the major reform being proposed by the Democrats. The No. 1 priority should be to protect the taxpayer,” though she didn’t elaborate.
Lowden opposes creation of a fund to help failed financial firms meet their commitments while the government uses an orderly process for liquidating it. Financial reformers have turned to this mechanism because the standard way failed firms are unwound, through the bankruptcy courts, is considered too slow, leading to panics while the onerous process gets bogged down in court. [...]
Lowden concluded by quoting the Republican favorite, President Ronald Reagan: “Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem.”
Ah, Ms. Suzy! Once again, she offers nothing meaningful to the table. As I just said above, it was the very laissez faire attitude towards financial regulation in the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s that got us into this mess in the first place. And what does Suzy Lowdown propose? More of the same.
But hey, what should we expect from the same person who has offered the most laughably stupid "ideas" on health care that we've ever heard? And someone who's been awfully "truthy" about "government bailouts", decrying them while simultaneously benefitting from them?
Before you ask Angle how Wall Street should be reformed, you need to ask her if it needs to be reformed.
“No,” she said in a written response. “Getting back to tried and true supply-side economics affectionately known as Reaganomics will give small business and international confidence in our economy.”
On this, Angle is quite literally alone, not just among Republicans running for Senate, but also among economists and finance experts — left, right and center. Although there’s disagreement about how to do it, policymakers in both parties agree Wall Street must be governed by rules that will enhance transparency and safety.
Angle, a former assemblywoman with an endorsement from a national Tea Party group, said she opposes regulating the derivative markets, creating a fund for winding down failed banks and establishing a consumer finance protection agency. Angle instead ticked off a list of talking points from her stump speech — calling for an audit of the Federal Reserve, abolishing the IRS code and eliminating Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.
Asked what she would do to reform the financial system, Angle said she would want to use unspent stimulus money to pay down the federal deficit.
Oh yes, Sharron Angle! As usual, she just says complete and utter nonsense! She "is quite literally alone" because she's crazy. Again, "supply-side economics" failed. Stronger regulatory oversight actually is needed to restore our financial sector to proper working order.
Now Lil' Tark Shark actually showed some promise by expressing support for some needed reforms, even he eventually joined the chorus of insanity as well.
Like most Republicans, Tarkanian opposes a $50 billion bank-financed fund to help failed companies meet financial commitments while the government winds the institutions down. “This provision institutionalizes bailouts, creating what truly is a bottomless bailout,” he said. “We must get away from the bailout mentality that has taken over Congress since the first Wall Street bailout.”
You mean the first Wall Street bailout that Bush and the Republicans shepherded in 2008? After allowing the SEC to decay to the point where it was toothless and meaningless in regulating Wall Street? And he's against finding the kind of solution that would simply break up insolvent banks instead of propping them up with taxpayer-funded bailouts. (The provision in this legislation is actually paid for with bank fees, not taxes on consumers.)
We know there's a major problem on Wall Street. And we know the powers that be on Wall Street are liking the Republicans' delay tactics. So do we really need to send another GOoPer to Washington to just obstruct? Or do we need someone who actually knows how to get something done?