FinReg & Racial Profiling

The Dodd-Frank financial reform bill has passed the House by 237 to 192 margin.  It now will go to the Senate where it is expected to pass.  But, the bill is, as usual, full of stuff that doesn’t pertain specifically to financial reform.  California Democrat, Maxine Waters, sponsored a provision titled, “Inclusion of Minorities and Women: Diversity in Agency Workforce.”  The federal government, through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), currently monitors hiring practices.  To say that Waters’ amendment is redundant is an understatement.   More federal employees, more headaches for business, more taxpayer waste!  It is also puzzling why the same politicians who rail against “racial profiling” in immigration would turn immediately to create a bill that would ensure racial, ethnic, and gender specificity in the federal financial agencies.

It goes deeper than just equal opportunity.  The provision would create a network of operatives responsible for making the hiring of and lending to minorities  the highest priority.  Moreover, the czars would be charged with increasing the participation of minority-owned businesses and women-owned businesses in projects and contracts.  Congress has now decided to regulate credit by race and gender.

Furthermore, the Diversity Czar would be responsible for counting the number of minority and female employees at regional banks and investment firms, big and small.  The bill would also mandate that federal regulators hire from certain types of minority groups, women-only colleges and universities, advertise in minority- and women-focused publications, etc.

Is there no bounds to the controls that the government will put on the American business?  And, there are probably other amendments that are even more onerous stuck in the provisions of this sweeping bill.  If Dodd and Frank are the authors, you know there are lots of surprises!  Let’s hope the Senate has the good sense to strip this provision out of the bill….and pass true financial reform.  But, I am not holding my breath!


4 responses to “FinReg & Racial Profiling

  1. My understanding is that she offered what you suggest above as an amendment, but that to this point it has not been made a part of the bill. So that said, why are you concluding that it will be (which is doubtful), and from that jumping to the far reaching conclusion that it will survive a conference committee at all?

    And your statement, “there are probably other amendments that are even more onerous stuck in the provisions of this sweeping bill,” with no support for such a baseless assertion other than, “If Dodd and Frank are the authors, you know there are lots of surprises!” is unfounded nonsense.

    Bob, you can do better. And don’t forget, our government is us…

  2. What’s with Swordfish? Too much mercury? This government has shown itself time after time to have one goal in mind- spend us into oblivion, regulate us into oblivion, and tax us into oblivion.

    And you think the government is US?

  3. Using government and us in the same sentence under the Obama Administration often appears as – government vs. us. Lets use the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act to illustrate this point. I believe this will also support Bob’s racial diversity point.

    Ostensibly the Dodd-Frank bill was initiated to strengthen Wall Street oversight and protect consumers from abuses by lenders. Who can oppose this idea? Its mother and apple pie.

    Unfortuantely complex legislation in Washington is rarely that straightforward. The members of Franks’s committee that are also members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) published a press release last December lamenting the plight of African-Americans under Obama’s economy, a full six months after passage of the Stimulus Bill. This subset of the CBC had already forced Frank to postpone a vote on his bill in committee in November.

    Lets fast forward to today. The proposed language for the Dodd-Frank bill is posted on the House Committee on Financial Services website. Title XII of the proposed act is entitled “Improving Access to Mainstream Financial Institutions.”

    Title XII authorizes Treasury to subsidize certain small loan ($2500 or less) providers in the form of loss reserves and loan charge offs. The program is targeted at low to moderate income borrowers.

    So the Feds are getting into the small loan business and this is going to improve financial stability and rein in abuses by Wall Street. No, it is not. It secured the support of the CBC “obstructionists”.

    By the way, I searched for the position of the CCC (Congressional Caucasian Caucus). I could not find it.

  4. Bob, I guess your baseless allegations that affirmative action provisions are buried in the Financial Reform bill turned out to be not so baseless. At least the Section 342 provisions only apply to 29 federal agencies and “all financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants, and providers of legal services” who do business with them. Oh, by the way, the provisions apply to sub-contractors of these types of firms as well.

    Anyone who has ever prepared, read or seen an EEO report will understand the nightmare of compliance paperwork inherent in the new regulations. Another bureaucrat multiplier effect brought to us by our Dear Leader, Queen Nancy, and Dingy Harry. (No post entry would be complete without ad hominem attacks!)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s