House Republicans shifted into overdrive to pass the Financial CHOICE Act, the leading option to replace Dodd-Frank, through the Financial Services Committee.
And now that the amended Financial CHOICE Act has worked its way through the committee, Republican representatives aren’t letting up on the gas to ensure that it makes its way to the Senate.
In fact, with the opposition continuing to fight against its passage, Republicans are waging an intense public relations battle.
Rep. French Hill, R-Ark., recently wrote a blog for The Wall Street Journal in response to a previous guest commentary in the journal from Alan Blinder, a professor of economics and public affairs at Princeton University.
In Blinder’s blog, he writes about the crowded congressional calendar, pointing out that it's unlikely Congress will be able to agree on anything, which includes the Financial CHOICE Act.
From the blog:
The big “choice” the bill makes is to allow Wall Street to return to the Wild West atmosphere that existed before the financial crisis. It would exempt big banks from many regulations if they hold 10% capital; it imagines that a bankruptcy court could handle a gigantic financial failure like Lehman Brothers; it would cripple the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau; and it would push the Federal Reserve to follow a mechanical rule for monetary policy. And more.
Hill adamantly disagreed. He explained that the goals of House Republicans are, and have long been, to create an environment in which American businesses can thrive, create new jobs and expand opportunities for citizens. And to him, the Dodd-Frank Act has placed undue burdens on consumers, entrepreneurs, small businesses and community banks.
From his response to Blinder’s blog:
Prof. Blinder incorrectly states that the act will free Wall Street banks to return to the “Wild West” days of pre-2008 collapse. But the act reduces moral hazard by requiring high levels of tier-one leverage capital, while giving community banks the regulatory flexibility they need to return to their historical role requires bankruptcy for complex financial institutions and increases penalties for bad actors at banks. It asserts Article I authority by placing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau on a budget and reorienting it to focus on law enforcement, not law making. The act would encourage economic growth while ending Dodd-Frank’s institutionalization of the current state of affairs: too big to fail and too small to succeed.
Meanwhile, Keith Rothfus, R-Penn., along with a handful of other Representatives, have published blog posts on the Republican Financial Services website to drum up support for the act.
Rothfus’ blog, which echoes similar sentiments from other Republicans representatives, reemphasized the belief that the Financial CHOICE Act “fixes the rulemaking process by increasing transparency, enhancing the voice of Congress and ensuring that the rules that govern our economy are subject to cost-benefit analysis.”
As it stands, the official vote date for the full House is not yet set.