By Simon Johnson
The Brown-Kaufman SAFE Banking Amendment proposed a hard size cap on our largest banks, limiting their assets to a very small fraction of the size of our economy. The premise was simple – and could fit on a bumper sticker (or in a campaign flyer for November) – “too big to fail” is too big to exist.
But this proposal to modify the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill failed in the Senate in early May, by a vote of 33-61, with 27 Democrats voting against the idea. Since that time, Democratic supporters have been asking their representatives the obvious question: Why did you vote against Brown-Kaufman?
Interestingly, no senators yet have replied – at least on the record – that the power of the megabanks was too great to be overcome. Instead, there are three main arguments going the rounds.
First, some argue that the Brown-Kaufman would by itself not have completely solved all the problems that can cause our financial system to meltdown. As one senator put it in a recent letter, “
would not solve the problem of systemic risk and systemically important institutions in a comprehensive manner.”
in full: http://baselinescenario.com/2010/08/19/afl-cio-stronger-financial-reform-would-have-saved-jobs/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BaselineScenario+%28The+Baseline+Scenario%29