Stories here and here. Weiss is the nominated Undersecretary of the Treasury for Domestic Finance. He is also an investment banker, i.e., part of the financial industry he is supposed to regulate. It’s about time somebody said “Enough!” to that revolving door. And it’s also about time somebody to Obama’s left stood up to him.
To play devil’s advocate:
The only people who understand the inordinately complex financial industry are those who spent years working within it.
The idea that Al Franken or Elizabeth Warren knows more about the ins-and-outs of Wall Street is laughable.
That being said, we need someone from within the industry who is willing to do the right thing and engage in the types of regulation we truly need. Much of the regulatory infrastructure needed to prevent the derivatives meltdown was already in place; we just didn’t use it properly.
Why, specifically, do you oppose this nomination? Investment banker = unqualified?
You’re going to need to do a lot better than that. I suspect not 1 in 100 of us has ever heard of this guy.
I can see imposing rules on Treasury appointees, i.e. once they complete the confirmation process, they’re barred from holding any job in the financial sector, including lobbying on its behalf, for ten years after leaving office.
No. Investment banker = conflicted.
I’m gonna have to agree with Stringbean on this one. The best candidate for the job is one who is knowledgeable and willing to enforce the regulation. An investment banker is probably the best person to understand what needs to be done.
Unless a better articulation for opposing his nomination comes along this feels like a knee-jerk reaction.
Perhaps. Does this mean that doctors should not be on medical boards? Should poets and beekeepers regulate the oil industry?
A lot of people will say, “Of course not! Experts can do it!” Well, who are the experts? Those who worked in the oil industry. And no, don’t give me academics and scientists. They may be able to describe the molecular composition of petroleum in great detail, but know absolutely zilch about drilling for oil or how to make drilling for oil safe. Plus there aren’t enough of them to staff the regulatory apparatus that exists now, much less continue to grow the regulatory state. The best and brightest would have nothing to do, they’d be too busy regulating the economy.
Same goes for banking. There’s nothing wrong with pointing out the conflict of interest. But you also have to recognize what the alternative means. And then finally, come to the conclusion that maybe this is why either way, regulation is often ineffective. The choices are usually between the people who know what’s going on and like it, vs. those who don’t like what’s going on but don’t have the experience to know what to do about it. Regulation only works effectively when the obvious issues that even laymen can understand are regulated: try not to have flammable shit everywhere unless there is no alternative. Put safety devices on machines so they don’t eat factory workers. Don’t let banks do things that bilk customers, like manipulate transactions to maximize overdraft fees. But when you get into the weeds on things like credit default swaps, then you start getting into territory where regulation will probably fail.
Joseph Kennedy was the first person to head the SEC. This guy was a master of stock manipulation and cleaned up just before the Crash of '29. Joe wanted the post of Sec of Treasury, but FDR wanted him for aforementioned post because, in explaining why he would hire a crook, FDR replied, “Takes one to catch one.”
In spite of Wall Street’s objections, he was ultimately considered highly regarded by all parties for enforcing the law and more importantly, assuring investors that at least with to the big scams, Uncle Sam was ready to punish evil doers. With respect to the rest of the world, the fact that our markets have this kind of government scrutiny means we’re considered a safer place to invest than much of the rest of the world.
It really boils down to the fact, is Weiss a tool for the finance industry? Or somebody, who given a chance will help clean it up?
Time will tell.
It seems like the main objection to this fellow is what job he has held in most of his career, rather than something he has done or said.
Should this same rule of discounting people based on their profession, before we even know what they have to say, be applied to other individuals? For example, Warren Buffett is a billionaire. He is the 0.0001%. Should we exclude him from participating in any policy making roles based on his wealth, and therefore totally ignore his actual positions on things like tax rates for the wealthy? After all, he has a conflict of interest on tax policy for people like himself, therefore we shouldn’t even listen to what he has to say for himself.
Franken’s argument boils down to this one statement, afaict:
Why should an under secretary for domestic finance (gods, this isn’t even a major position…I could KIND of see if we were talking about the actual treasury secretary, someone of actual importance at least politically) put the middle class first?? 
This is a major yawn, meant to rile up and buck up the troops for the coming season of politics in the run up to the next presidency. It’s a way to score points with the clueless faithful and distance themselves from Obama while really being meaningless in the grander scheme of things.
Ah the “middle class” mantra of Democrats. It is hilarious. It seems like Democrats decided that “the poor” either don’t vote enough or are in Democrats’ pocket anyway, so it is not worth it to even pretend that they care for them. Every Democrat politician, every speech, like a hammer, it is “middle class”, “middle class”, “middle class”. To hell with the “poor”.
Or do they hope that once the “middle class” is taken care of, it will trickle down to the poor?
I have to agree with this. I worked in the biz for 7+ years. It’s ludicrous that someone without real experience in the industry could possibly understand what to regulate.
Now, you have to find someone that is trusted to act in the best interest of the government or citizens of the US, and not in the best interests of Wall Street…
Trying to figure out where this guy would even fit into the Department of the Treasury org chart…I’m guessing under the office of domestic finance as a department head perhaps? A real mover and shaker.
This is the same argument I hear every time things like the regulation of GMOs come up, and the politicians involved have some tenuous link to Monsanto (hell, some people are still harping about when Clarence Thomas worked for Monsanto, and that was in the 70s!) or some other major agrobusiness outlet. Well no shit. These major companies are going to be scouting for the best talent in the field. The people who know the most about it. What, should the government hire people that aren’t involved at all? Are the academics who work with GMOs at university somehow more impartial when it comes to regulating them?
The argument is kinda dumb. This whole “revolving door” thing needs tighter controls, but too many people look at someone holding a job in the past with potential for conflicts with their current position and immediately scream about it, regardless of whether there’s actually any merit to it (see also: Clarence Thomas).
I have to wonder if this is just some liberal Democrats trying to stake out some ground here away from the President in ways similar to how conservative Dems were. With very few conservative Democrats left, liberals might as well seek to differentiate themselves, otherwise all Democrats look the same.
I find it funny that government employment is considered “serving the people”. Nobody voluntarily contracts the government to perform this service, therefore there is no demonstrated value to his service. In this individual’s private sector capacity individuals had to voluntarily exchange with him, therefore a situation arose in which others valued his services more highly than they valued its cost. The value of his services is demonstrated in this way.
I think most of us know people who work for the government and for most of them it’s just a job, not a calling to public service. There’s a reason that citizens tend to hold cops, firefighters, and the military in higher esteem than bureaucrats. Not only do they put their lives on the line for us, they act like they are serving(most of the time). The lady at the DMV never acts like she’s serving the public, she acts like shes’ there cuz it’s better than Wal-mart.
The thing about pro-regulations ideologies is that they need their bureaucratic class to have a selfless, pro-public, sacrificing personality in order for their schemes to work. Therefore they get offended when such obvious conflicts of interests present themselves, there is no plausible deniability for them. If it was a career bureaucrat appointed, they’d be just as corrupt but they could deny it.
Not only that, but the public workforce has become so large that it’s actually preventing liberals from spending money on what they really want to spend money on. Especially in blue states. THeir budgets are getting increasingly eaten up by salaries and pensions.
The answer to this problem of course is to tax the private sector more.
That’s just nonsense. Meter maids, tax auditors, contracting officers, park rangers and all sorts of public sector workers don’t have to be supermen of altruism to do their job effectively and correctly. They just need to follow procedures.