Those wacky house Republicans are at it again

[a777pilot]

Conservatives are cutting out the regulation and red tape for their rich buddies.

Is anyone really surprised here?

You don't understand the system do you?

The Wall Street boys and the big corporations love the regulations and red tape of the Democrats. That is one reason they, the big boys, give so much campaign money to the Democrats. What might you ask do all these regulations and red tape do for the very rich in the business world? Eliminates completion. That more than pays for the cost of these regulations and red tape.

Do try to think for a change. It might help.

 

[Macamus Prime]

You don't understand the system do you?

The Wall Street boys and the big corporations love the regulations and red tape of the Democrats. That is one reason they, the big boys, give so much campaign money to the Democrats. What might you ask do all these regulations and red tape do for the very rich in the business world? Eliminates completion. That more than pays for the cost of these regulations and red tape.

Do try to think for a change. It might help.

Nope! Red tape and regulation creates more jobs. Jobs the wealthy have to pay for; we can't have that.

Also, they can now come up with more crazy investment schemes.

 

[Genx87]

Nope! Red tape and regulation creates more jobs. Jobs the wealthy have to pay for; we can't have that.

Also, they can now come up with more crazy investment schemes.

Excessive regulation is a barrier of entry for new business. Who benefits from that? The entrenched business. That is why you will see big business at the forefront of something that would appear to hurt them. It helps them to maintain their market as the barrier of entry for competition is too high a cost.

 

[HomerJS]

Biggest con job pulled off by the GOP.

Convincing blue collar middle to lower class Republicans consistantly voting for things that favor the rich is in their best interest.

 

[PokerGuy]

Do you guys even bother to read before jumping to (wrong) conclusions? No funding was cut. They requested $1.4bn, they're getting $1.2bn, which is still a funding increase over the prior year. For reference, they received $906 million in 2009. That means they asked for a 45% increase in funding from 2009 and instead got "only" a 25% increase in funding.

I know you dimlibs think more spending is always good, but where's the limit? $1.5 bn? $2 bn? $5bn? Should more spending just get allocated unquestioned just because they ask for it? Without any oversight or actual accountability for results?

 

[woolfe9999]

Do you guys even bother to read before jumping to (wrong) conclusions? No funding was cut. They requested $1.4bn, they're getting $1.2bn, which is still a funding increase over the prior year. For reference, they received $906 million in 2009. That means they asked for a 45% increase in funding from 2009 and instead got "only" a 25% increase in funding.

I know you dimlibs think more spending is always good, but where's the limit? $1.5 bn? $2 bn? $5bn? Should more spending just get allocated unquestioned just because they ask for it? Without any oversight or actual accountability for results?

Uh, what part of "they are not funded by tax payer money" do you not understand? Since the SEC is funded by fines and penalties assessed against law breakers, I fail to understand why any sort of limit is appropriate. If the SEC is ineffective at what they do, its budget, by definition, will decline, and if it's effective at what it does, it will increase. There is no need to put an arbitrary ceiling on it because it isn't funded by tax revenue.

 

[Fern]

Uh, what part of "they are not funded by tax payer money" do you not understand?
-snip-

Uh, I don't see where he mentioned anything about "taxpayer money".

And according to PeshakJang, many of the Dodd Frank requirements are paid out of a separate fund (not part of this appropriation/budget issue the OP brings up) paid for by fines and settlements.

Overall, the facts don't seem clear and I'm not sure there is any problem as claimed.

Fern

 

[PokerGuy]

Uh, what part of "they are not funded by tax payer money" do you not understand?

Please show me where I said anything about taxpayer money.

Since the SEC is funded by fines and penalties assessed against law breakers, I fail to understand why any sort of limit is appropriate.

Yeah, no limit needed. If they want a trillion, that's perfectly fine! Would you also be so generous with that concept if your local police department would give each officer $50 for every ticket they write? The truth is the funding has to come from someone, and they should have to demonstrate what funding they need and where they spend their funding. If they need to fine more than what they actually need in terms of funding, then fine, let them do that, but increased fines should not lead to increased funding/spending.

If the SEC is ineffective at what they do, its budget, by definition, will decline, and if it's effective at what it does, it will increase. There is no need to put an arbitrary ceiling on it because it isn't funded by tax revenue.

Again, you're perfectly OK with that concept in your local PD as well then? They get paid a fee for each ticket they write, and twice the fee if they arrest someone. I'm sure that will result in very efficient policing.

Also, the OP is about the outrage over how the evil republicans are at it again, cutting funding. Funding has not been cut. Period.

 

[PeshakJang]

Uh, what part of "they are not funded by tax payer money" do you not understand? Since the SEC is funded by fines and penalties assessed against law breakers, I fail to understand why any sort of limit is appropriate. If the SEC is ineffective at what they do, its budget, by definition, will decline, and if it's effective at what it does, it will increase. There is no need to put an arbitrary ceiling on it because it isn't funded by tax revenue.

You obviously didn't read anything I posted.

The SEC is NOT funded by fines or penalties. The SEC receives absolutely none of that money.

The SEC is funded almost entirely by transaction and registration fees levies against the securities markets and their participants. Hence, the SEC receives more money when there is a higher volume of activity.

Fines, penalties, and settlements are paid directly to the treasury (what is left after damages are disbursed to victims, in the case of settlements). The SEC is prohibited from touching this money.

Dodd-Frank amends SEA 1934 to direct more money directly to the treasure, by allowing the SEC to set the transaction fees (and adjust mid-year) to collect enough through these fees alone to (hopefully) meet its budget for the year. Registration fees now go straight to the treasury.

So Dodd-Frank, with respect to this, raises fees on market participants (all market participants) in order to feed more money into the treasury.

But as I said earlier, the SEC has been acknowledged in at least each of the last 2 years, by independent auditors, as being an entity that is dangerously inept at managing its own money. How the fuck are they going to tell us they need more, if they don't know how much they have?

 

[werepossum]

You obviously didn't read anything I posted.

The SEC is NOT funded by fines or penalties. The SEC receives absolutely none of that money.

The SEC is funded almost entirely by transaction and registration fees levies against the securities markets and their participants. Hence, the SEC receives more money when there is a higher volume of activity.

Fines, penalties, and settlements are paid directly to the treasury (what is left after damages are disbursed to victims, in the case of settlements). The SEC is prohibited from touching this money.

Dodd-Frank amends SEA 1934 to direct more money directly to the treasure, by allowing the SEC to set the transaction fees (and adjust mid-year) to collect enough through these fees alone to (hopefully) meet its budget for the year. Registration fees now go straight to the treasury.

So Dodd-Frank, with respect to this, raises fees on market participants (all market participants) in order to feed more money into the treasury.

But as I said earlier, the SEC has been acknowledged in at least each of the last 2 years, by independent auditors, as being an entity that is dangerously inept at managing its own money. How the fuck are they going to tell us they need more, if they don't know how much they have?

Two very good posts, thanks. Still, the provision limiting fines and penalties to the budgeted amount needs to be cut. Fines and penalties need to be set according to the number and severity of the transgressions; there is no reason to expect that these would vary in accordance with a budgeting number.

Do you guys even bother to read before jumping to (wrong) conclusions? No funding was cut. They requested $1.4bn, they're getting $1.2bn, which is still a funding increase over the prior year. For reference, they received $906 million in 2009. That means they asked for a 45% increase in funding from 2009 and instead got "only" a 25% increase in funding.

I know you dimlibs think more spending is always good, but where's the limit? $1.5 bn? $2 bn? $5bn? Should more spending just get allocated unquestioned just because they ask for it? Without any oversight or actual accountability for results?

This is an excellent point, and indicative of what has gotten us into this situation. An agency can request a 45% budget increase, be granted a 25% budget increase, and be guaranteed that one political party will carry its water and protest the "draconian budget cuts" it has suffered. Oh, the miracles of baseline budgeting!

In the case of the SEC, it's hard to see why they deserve ANY funding, given their past performance. Might be better to close it down and start from scratch.

 

[PeshakJang]

Two very good posts, thanks. Still, the provision limiting fines and penalties to the budgeted amount needs to be cut. Fines and penalties need to be set according to the number and severity of the transgressions; there is no reason to expect that these would vary in accordance with a budgeting number.

There is no such provision at all. The only cap established is for exchange transaction fees, and it's less of a cap and more of a target... I would imagine because a fixed rate ($15 per MM as previously) varies directly with market volume... whereas now they can adjust the fees semiannually to (hopefully) be 10% +/- their budget.

Fines and penalties have absolutely no limit on them, and Dodd-Frank doesn't change anything.

 

[werepossum]

There is no such provision at all. The only cap established is for exchange transaction fees, and it's less of a cap and more of a target... I would imagine because a fixed rate ($15 per MM as previously) varies directly with market volume... whereas now they can adjust the fees semiannually to (hopefully) be 10% +/- their budget.

Fines and penalties have absolutely no limit on them, and Dodd-Frank doesn't change anything.

Ah, thanks for the correction. That makes perfect sense. (And I wouldn't have believed that anything authored by Frank and Dodd would make perfect sense!)

 

[Jhhnn]

How the fuck are they going to tell us they need more, if they don't know how much they have?

Their mandate has been expanded by legislation already passed into law. If they couldn't keep up with Wall St scammers before, what makes us think they can now accomplish more with the same resources? Wishful thinking, or a desire for the consumer protection initiative to fail?

 

[PeshakJang]

Their mandate has been expanded by legislation already passed into law. If they couldn't keep up with Wall St scammers before, what makes us think they can now accomplish more with the same resources? Wishful thinking, or a desire for the consumer protection initiative to fail?

1) their responsibilities have not been expanded as much as you make it out to be... Many of Dodd-franks provisions create separately funded agencies and commissions of their own to carry out many functions. Other functions have separate funding provisions already established.

2) You still have not addressed the fact that the SEC has extremely little accountability of it's own finances. You can try to apply the liberal philosophy of throwing money into a hole and complaining that it wasn't enough, but you're not going to be surprised when nothing changes.

 

[PokerGuy]

1) their responsibilities have not been expanded as much as you make it out to be... Many of Dodd-franks provisions create separately funded agencies and commissions of their own to carry out many functions. Other functions have separate funding provisions already established.

2) You still have not addressed the fact that the SEC has extremely little accountability of it's own finances. You can try to apply the liberal philosophy of throwing money into a hole and complaining that it wasn't enough, but you're not going to be surprised when nothing changes.

... and, he conveniently ignored the fact that they received a 25% increase in funding from 2009, so they're getting a bunch more money already -- even though they've shown that they don't know how to manage it or account for it or deliver good results. Sounds pretty much like the dimlib and NEA plan for public education.

 

[Jhhnn]

You don't understand the system do you?

The Wall Street boys and the big corporations love the regulations and red tape of the Democrats. That is one reason they, the big boys, give so much campaign money to the Democrats. What might you ask do all these regulations and red tape do for the very rich in the business world? Eliminates completion. That more than pays for the cost of these regulations and red tape.

Do try to think for a change. It might help.

Hogwash. Bush Admin regulators acted as cheerleaders & facilitators for the biggest looting spree in the history of finance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/22/AR2008112202213.html

http://economicsofcontempt.blogspot.com/2008/03/cutting-through-red-tape-with-chainsaw.html

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/09/regulatory-exem.html

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/26/weekinreview/27leon_graph2.html

Not that any of that can possibly penetrate the hermetically sealed bunker of your mind...