Read on Twitter
1/ A thread on financial regulation....and the OCC
A lot of the disappointing discussions regarding @Michael_S_Barr for @usocc are really just a proxy fight over what could and should have happened versus what did happen in 2008-2010.
A lot of the disappointing discussions regarding @Michael_S_Barr for @usocc are really just a proxy fight over what could and should have happened versus what did happen in 2008-2010.
2/ It starts with the mortgage foreclosures and robo-signing messes. Many who cared about housing thought the Admin's programs (eg HAMP) were inadequate and just not working. Barr was one of the key people with whom hill staff and advocates interacted on those issues.
3/ So whether the policies (and obvious failures) were his responsibility or not, many of us remember meetings in which he was the person in front of us saying "no" to changes that might have kept more people in homes.
4/ Then we get to finreg. During the Dodd-Frank Act, Michael was a very, very key player. He negotiated a ton of the bill. Again, he was a a person with whom the hill interacted, and so he was often the "yes" or "no"--and he worked in both up and down ways for progressives.
5/ For example, when Chairman Volcker wanted to push to stop banks' proprietary trading, he first got statutory language from the Treasury Department. That language would have only applied to the insured depository, and not affiliates. It wouldn't do what Volcker or we wanted.
6/ @SenJeffMerkley and @SenCarlLevin had their staffers (incl. me) draft what Chairman Volcker wanted. That became the PROP Trading Act (later the Merkley-Levin Amdt). Barr opposed to that language, and urged the Senators to NOT push for its inclusion in the Senate bill.
7/ But the Senate is a strange place, and the amendment took on a life of its own, as many began to worry that despite the length and complexity of the overall bill, it wouldn't do enough to fix the broken financial system.
8/ So, with a little help from the Senate Parliamentarian, and with a strong push from our bosses, @SenJackReed and others, *revised* language was added to the conference report (just as the strong "Lincoln Amendment" language was softened).
9/ I said *revised* language. We had more than 60 votes in the Senate, from our whips, including Ranking Member Shelby, as well as Senators Scott Brown and Corker. Barr and Treasury were still concerned it would (to use his phrase) "blow up the f***ing banks." Nobody wanted that.
10/ Everyone agreed to late night negotiations (remember the last night of the conference committee?). Again, Barr was the point person. That doesn't mean he was wrong, but it means that he was advocating for what the banks wanted against a progressive amdt.
11/ There were other issues, too, in which the Treasury Department (often with Barr as the point person), pushed back and spiked progressive amendments--some of which I thought were good ideas, and some likely weren't. One was the Brown-Kaufman Amendment.
12/ All of these were reasonable decisions. And a lot of them seemed to be focused on making sure the bill would NOT upend or materially *harm* the banks. It was reasonable to worry about creating a new recession. On the other hand, many wanted structural reforms.
13/ But this wasn't all *against* progressives. Barr was also the point person for defending the creation and structure of the CFPB. That was one helluva lift. Industry and many (not just GOP) were concerned that it would somehow become an "unaccountable" super regulator.
14/ The same sharp elbows that Barr had used on progressives were very helpful when he was ensuring that the CFPB got created. Barr was also involved in many other things over the years, including the important CDFI program.
15/ As much as @Michael_S_Barr has frustrated me over the years with things I think he and the Obama Admin should have done differently, he has done a lot of great things for the country.
I am not surprised that the President is now considering him to be a key bank regulator.
I am not surprised that the President is now considering him to be a key bank regulator.
16/ Barr is being considered to run the OCC, which oversees the national banks. It determines what banks can do (including mixing banking and commerce), and sets other rules to protect against banks' failures.
17/ If Barr is nominated, as I expect, then he should have to answer tough questions about his views on those issues. He should be pressed on what he and others got wrong. But he should also be praised for what he (and they) got right. He should be asked about what he would do.
18/ I think Barr is facially one of the most qualified people for the job. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but Barr's record is unquestionably the most public, prolific, and controversial. I just hope we have an honest discussion about what it is and isn't.
19/ P.S. I am not surprised to see so many former admin officials and academics coming to defend Barr. He was and is an incredibly effective ally for many. He just wasn't mine on the issues I was working on.
But my questions aren't about what he did, but rather what will he do?
But my questions aren't about what he did, but rather what will he do?
