I haven't commented on the Dodd bill to consolidate financial overview largely because it's hard enough to try to understand the health reform bill at over 1900 pages, let alone a financial reform bill of over 1300 pages from a man who has been so thoroughly corrupted by the very folks he was supposed to be monitoring.
But this is intriguing.
Thomas Frank is basically the resident liberal at the Wall Street Journal, their man of the Left.
He asks one fundamental question: What if those in control don't believe in oversight?
However, Mr. Frank goes on to say, basically, that the danger is that someone committed to deregulation will be put in charge, meaning that that greatly beloved dogma of the left, that deregulation is the root of all evil in finances, would not become policy.
I have a slightly different take on that: the real danger is not that a deregulator comes in who wants to get rid of oversight, but vastyl worse. This would be someone who is nominally interested in regulating the industry but is instead dedicated to making sure that oversight doesn't work, so that his friends can game the system and make their personal fortunes while destroying healthy banks and investments.
You see, that is basically what happened in the Sub-Prime crisis. Those who were directly in charge of oversight - of circling the wagons to make sure that risks didn't spiral out of control - failed in their jobs, knowing full well they were gambling with the system. But they thought because they had been able to game the system so well for the benefit of themselves and their friends - Rahm Emmanuel made his fortune this way, amongst other Democrats of note - that they ignored the warning signs and ended up imploding the system.
Hence: the reason to reject the Dodd proposal comes best from a man of the left.
What indeed do you do when those in control don't believe in oversight?