Dodd will give the Fed a $50 billion slush fund; Business Insider's curious firing

Perhaps Red State is not the place to post financial stuff, but it goes hand-in-hand with politics and must be understood. My last post on Chris Dodd’s proposed “financial reform” monstrosity got no recommendations and no comments.

Business Insider (run by Henry Blodget) has fired writer John Carney. The street opinion here is that BI is going weak, with fluff stories about Tiger Woods and Jesse James and silly USA Today-like top tens (top ten best cities, top ten worst countries, top ten best employers and the like).

Carney offered good stuff like this:

Barney Frank Has No Clue What He’s Talking About When It Comes To Fannie Mae And Freddie Mac
John Carney | Mar. 5, 2010, 4:12 PM

And this:

The FHA Is Being Run Like A Ponzi Scheme That Will Surely Implode
John Carney | Mar. 19, 2010, 3:34 PM

And this:

JP Morgan Paid $1.9 Billion For Washington Mutual And Now It Wants A $1.4 Billion Tax Refund
John Carney | Mar. 24, 2010, 10:10 AM

Granted, not every story was insightful. Henry Blodget can run crap articles on Tiger Woods for far less.

Maybe not Business Insider, maybe not Red State, but somewhere, someone should be exposing all this stuff clearly and taxpayers should be very, very angry.

You don’t have to read this “financial reform” to know it’s bad news. Just operate on the general principles that it’s coming from corrupt, lame duck Chris Dodd, and nothing of this magnitude should be rammed through on a highly partisan vote before the November midterm election.

From Friday’s New York Times:

Shelby Criticizes Reform Bill, Saying It Won’t End ‘Too Big to Fail’ Problem
Published: March 25, 2010
WASHINGTON — The Democratic bill to overhaul the nation’s financial system would not end the “too big to fail” phenomenon or adequately protect taxpayers from having to bail out large companies, a leading Republican senator said on Thursday.

The senator, Richard C. Shelby, is the top Republican on the Banking Committee, and his objections, laid out in a letter to the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, suggested the line of criticism that his party will pursue when the Senate takes up the bill, possibly as early as next month.
The Dodd proposal contains a provision that would require large financial companies to contribute to a $50 billion fund that could be used to help dismantle a systemically important company.

Mr. Shelby called it a slush fund and said, “The mere existence of this fund will make it all too easy to choose a bailout over bankruptcy.” (The Obama administration has indicated that it does not support such a fund.)

The Obama administration has indicated that it does not support a $50 billion slush fund? Did anyone tell you that, Sewell Chan? If someone did tell you that, why not attach a name to your story?

The fact is, Dodd is not going to write legislation that the Obama administration opposes. If a slush fund is in the legislation, then Obama is for it. The NY TImes paints the Obama administration as a good guy when it’s not.

A comment on a POLITICO story is worthwhile here:

Richard Shelby: Timothy Geithner distorting my view
Looking for Sanity
Party: NA
Reply #1
Mar. 25, 2010 – 9:47 PM EST
I guess Geithner and the Dems are trying to create another Fannie Mae this time for banks.

Geithner and Bernanke could not regulate banks before, American should now give them a slush fund to help prop up their already expansive authority.

Hell NO!