Republicans Are Working Hard to Allow Another Financial Crisis

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

Last week House Republicans voted unanimously—with one oddball exception—to repeal big swaths of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act. This was, perhaps, not surprising since only six Republicans voted for Dodd-Frank in the first place. Today, the Trump administration weighed in:

Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin on Monday proposed sweeping changes to the tough Dodd-Frank regulations put in place after the 2008 financial crisis, including a major reduction in the power of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…reducing oversight of large financial institutions, providing even more regulatory relief for smaller banks and loosening new mortgage restrictions designed to prevent a repeat of the subprime meltdown.

….“A sensible rebalancing of regulatory principles is warranted in light of the significant improvement in the strength of the financial system and the economy, as well as the benefit of perspective since the Great Recession,” the report said….The report, which included dozens of recommendations, is the first of three ordered by Trump as he looks to fulfill a campaign promise to dismantle the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.

Put all this together, and it’s pretty obvious that Dodd-Frank is essentially gone if it all passes. It’s even possible that Wall Street would, on net, end up less regulated than it was before the Great Crash.

I don’t expect a serious answer to this, but I have to ask: Do Republicans think any response was warranted to the 2008 financial meltdown? They sure don’t act like it. I mean, Dodd-Frank was hardly a crushing blow to Wall Street. On a variety of measures, financial sector performance is cranking along this year at the very-healthy-but-non-bubble values of 2003:1

And yet, a mere decade after the Great Crash, Republicans want to repeal pretty much everything we did to prevent 2003 performance from turning into 2007 performance and then 2009 performance. Why? After all, in the long run the Great Crash probably hurt Donald Trump’s working-class supporters more than anyone else.

There’s no need to answer this. Unless, of course, you’re a conservative with something serious to say.

1Sources: Employment via Bureau of Labor Statistics; stock performance via Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund via Google Finance; earnings via Yardini Research.


Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

payment methods

We Recommend