Obama's Redistribution of Wealth Debacle

I get routine comments from my children that my blog posts are "just too long."  I know I violate all the nebulous "blog standards" and all the conventional wisdom that posts should be 250 - 500 words.  So here's some relief. . .  This won't take long.

Test question for today:  What's the best way to create more jobs?

This administration has a signature legislative achievement -- the healthcare reform bill, dubbed "Obamacare." The intent was to subsidize health insurance for low- and middle-income groups by taxing high-income earners.  Big problem -- it might level material wealth but it sure dampens economic growth.  Where's the incentive to work harder?  Instead, the message sent was don't work so hard, you'll just pay more taxes.

It also kills incentive among the low- and moderate-income earners.  They can maintain the same standard of living with even less effort.  This is all strangely familiar to me.  I witnessed it in the late sixties as a missionary in England.

Do high tax rates really harm the economy? The liberal progressives (such a strange term -- they're really throwing us backward into the dark ages it seems to me) will tell you "No."  However, the countries of the European Union since the end of the World War II have tried this experiment before.  Their attempts to "carve equal slices from the economic pie" have included offering their citizens generous social benefits such as government-provided health care and mandated lengthy vacations.  France is rioting today because the government, faced with entitlements they can no longer afford, dared to raise the minimum qualification for their retirement stipend age to 62 from 60 just to keep more worker bees in the hive.  The result?  Per capita purchasing power in the EU is two-thirds of what it is in the U.S.  The slices of the economic pie may be more equal, but they are doled out from a much smaller pie.

This accompanying projection shows what happens if we don't put a swift and effective end to government entitlement programs.  They are increasingly disastrous and the increasing payments from the government to citizens are unsustainable, just as they are today in France and elsewhere in Europe.

So what does President Obama do to fend off criticism that his policies are doing harm?  He just keeps talking and talking and talking.  In his mystical never-never land, he would have us believe expanding health care coverage is going to somehow lower costs.  He gives handouts to state and local governments and calls that "stimulus spending."  Climate change legislation became a “green jobs” bill, and the list goes on and on.  If my calculations are correct (and they are), voters on November 2nd will reject him the only way they can this year -- in a tsunami wave of anger about to be unleashed on both houses of Congress.

It could have all been avoided.  Obama could have done what he said he would do -- find unanimity on policies where more could have agreed instead of being so divisive.

A glaring omission was failing to stop the massive federal subsidies to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  If he had really been interested in attacking the economic collapse root causes, that would have been an obvious place to start where bi-partisan support could have been achieved.  Instead, the disastrous Dodd-Frank regulatory reform bill did neither -- it didn't regulate and it didn't reform either agency.  The ridiculously reckless low credit standards continue, and so do the taxpayer-funded subsidies.

During the boom, realtors, homebuilders, developers, mortgage lenders, securities traders, and others reaped enormous profits, then they sold short knowing the paper was bogus, and dumped their losses on taxpayers during the bust.  Private fraudulent gains resulted for which no one yet has been prosecuted.  Oh, we all took great delight in watching token figureheads like Lehman Brothers and its CEO, Richard Fuld, take it on the chin, but all that translated into was socialized losses absorbed by American citizens.  Eliminating all federal support for Fannie and Freddie would have immediately redirected equity where it could have helped most like building newer, more-efficient manufacturing facilities, creating jobs and stimulating economic growth.  As it is we're in a quadmire with foreclosures that still cannot be properly valued because of the federal government's attempts to "fix" it.

Maybe, just maybe, someone among "the smartest economists on earth" in the Obama administration could have taken a closer look at the idiocy we call the IRC, the Internal Revenue Code.  Currently, because of the permissible carve-outs, only 40 percent of personal income is taxed, pushing rates to more than twice what they need to be.  If you're going to tax the rich to provide for the poor, wouldn't it have been logical to close the holes in the sieve first to capture the income?  As it is now, everyone who can afford a smart CPA is free to game the system to lower their tax rate while others with similar income pay more.  That's inequity in its highest expression.  Companies who can afford the expensive lobbyists tend to do better than those who can't.  It's corrupt.  And the gaming continues.  If the adminstration were really interested in anything more than an audacious grab for gold, it would have considered true reform.

Close loopholes, broaden the tax base.  Simple right?  Obama and his advisors could have slashed rates, enhanced equity, and provided a huge stimulus to the economy.  Even if Congress had just written a personal check out to every American for $40,000, no strings attached, we'd be better off.  Instead, we got just the opposite -- even more loopholes and a promise to raise tax rates on the "wealthiest Americans."

I was accused last week by my good friend Marv of being too optimistic and idealistic about what might come out of the election results next Tuesday.  In his words, "You need to hear what my father once told me -- 'I'm a lot happier now that I've given up hope.'"

The problems in the economy might indeed prove to be too big to fix, but I'm still happier thinking we can make another new start.  Renewal is inspiring. 

It gives me hope, and we all need that right now.

Dodd-Frank: "The Economic Recovery Prevention Bill"

That handsome trio in the middle of the picture are my three least favorite people in Washington.

The one in the picture in the background is my very favorite person in Washington, and he's been dead way too long.

I dare you -- in fact, I double-dog dare you -- find ANYONE with an independent voice in America who thinks this piece of garbage is worth the 2,300 pages it's written on.  The Deseret News opined today. 

No surprise, they hated it too.

Dodd-Frank Financial "Reform"

On a 60-39 Senate vote, Dodd-Frank passed yesterday.

I am still searching in vain for one independent voice out there who finds this latest regulatory boondoggle to be positive.  Then suddenly, this morning I found one -- mind you with tongue firmly planted in cheek.  The Heritage Foundation thinks with one stroke of his pen that President Obama without intending to do it has created more jobs than ever before in the eighteen months of his presidency.

The bill does not bode well for entrepreneurs and small businesses, the backbone of the American economy, however:

"Entrepreneurs take a double hit in the Dodd-Frank bill. First, by forcing banks to raise more capital it will now be more difficult for them to make new loans for small businesses. But more important is the regulatory threat for new products. Across the world mobile device and telecommunications firms are beginning to compete against credit card companies and banks to reshape how consumers buy products and manage their finances. Will the Dodd-Frank Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even allow these services to come to market? Will cell phone firms have to be regulated exactly like financial firms? Nobody knows the answer to these questions. Here is what we do know: it will be the banks and telco firms with the best lawyers and lobbyists – not the best entrepreneurs – that come out on top in this battle."

The Heritage analysis continues:

"Then there is what the Dodd-Frank does not do: it does nothing to stop future government bailouts. Instead, it makes the TARP bailout system permanent. The bill’s “orderly liquidation” process empowers regulators to seize any firm they deem a threat to our financial system and liquidate them. These powers are subject to insufficient judicial review and do nothing to ensure that the firms’ creditors won’t receive 100% of their irresponsibly lent money back in future taxpayer funded bailouts. And speaking of taxpayer-funded bailouts, the bill does nothing to address Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose activities were instrumental to the financial crisis."

Most telling is the "job creation" reality associated with this monstronsity:

". . . the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill set in motion 243 new formal rule-makings by 11 different federal agencies. Each of the 243 rule-makings will employ hundreds of banking lobbyists as they try to shape what the final actual laws will look like. And when the rules are finally written, thousands of lawyers will bill millions of hours as the richest incumbent financial firms that caused the last crisis figure out how to game the new system. Yesterday, the Washington law firm Jones Day snapped up the Securities and Exchange Commission head enforcement division lawyer, and J.P. Morgan Chase, one of the biggest U.S. banks by assets, assigned more than 100 teams to examine the legislation. University of Massachusetts political science professor Thomas Ferguson tells The Christian Science Monitor:

"By delegating so much to the regulators, Congress is inviting everyone interested in the outcome to make more campaign contributions, as they intervene in the regulatory process to influence the regulators. Nothing is settled. It’s a gold mine for members of Congress."

So once again, we have a bill entitled "Reform" that is anything but . . .  I wonder if anyone "out there" even cares or realizes how potentially devastating this action will yet prove to be.  I hope and pray I'm dead wrong.

More analysis of Dodd-Frank

The negative reactions to Dodd-Frank continue to surface, this analysis from Gary Becker and Richard Posner.  These are smart guys, in whom I have much more confidence than the members of Congress.  I continue searching for some independent voice out there who has a positive view of this pending legislation, but beyond the Senators and Congressmen who are touting it I find few who recommend it.

Like most titles of legislation Washington produces, this title is once again misleading. The so-called “Financial Services Reform” bill is anything but reform. The AP, reports that “Sens. Olympia Snowe and Scott Brown pushed sweeping financial legislation to the edge of final passage Monday, both announcing they intend to support the regulatory overhaul despite initial misgivings.” Gary Becker and Richard Posner write on The Becker-Posner Blog the following 5 faults with this legislation:

1.  “The bill adds regulations and rules about many activities that had little or nothing to do with the crisis.” - This bill is over 2,000 pages in length like Obamacare and is a complete mess of new regulations and the establishment of multiple (not just one) new administrative agencies. Extraneous measures were added to this bill not even related to the systemic causes of the 2008 financial crisis, and that is an outrage. Becker-Posner write that “the bill gives the Fed authority to limit interchange or ’swipe’ fees that merchants pay for each debit-card transaction.” This is nothing more than voodoo politics -- save the masses from a minor fee that touches their lives every day, then allow them to pass it along in some other fee down the road.  It is not beyond the realm of possibility this bill could also trigger more financial crises than it cures.

2.  “The Dodd-Frank bill gives several government agencies considerable additional discretion to try to forestall another crisis, even though they already had the authority to take many actions.” Does anyone you know think that giving the federal government more expansive power is a good idea?  Now is the time to LIMIT government, not expand it.  Who wants to give Treasury and the Fed vast new powers to address a crisis when they already have authority to address whatever they need to with existing powers?  Honestly, Congress is either brain dead or they think we're just stupid lemmings.

3.  “Insufficient capital relative to bank assets was an important cause of the financial.” The bill has a complicated means to require more capital, yet Becker-Posner argue that a simple requirement would have been a better means to require more capital reserves in banks.

4.  “One of the most serious omissions is that the bill essentially says nothing about Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae.” This bill does nothing to reform or abolish Freddie and Fannie. The Foundry argued that, “supporters of Sen. Chris Dodd’s financial regulation bill say it will end financial bailouts. In fact, the Senate — anxious to reassure Americans on that fact — even added an amendment last week with a stated purpose ‘[t]o prohibit taxpayers from ever having to bail out the financial sector.’ But someone forgot to tell the folks across town at Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Freddie last week announced it had lost $8 billion in the first quarter of the year, and would be asking for another $10.6 in taxpayer help. And today, its twin Fannie announced a $11.5 billion loss, and asked for a further $8.4 billion in aid from taxpayers. That’s in addition to the nearly $145 billion in aid to Fannie and Freddie have already received.” And Dodd and Frank continue to tell the bald-faced lie this bill is “reform” when nothing is being done to abolish an organization that has wasted over hundreds of billions of your tax dollars? They were the chairmen of the respective committees that caused the crisis, and now they would have you believe they are the problem solvers through regulation?  This bill is not reform. Any legislation that purports to conduct reform and does nothing about Fannie and Freddie is not reform. Don’t be fooled by this legislation, because the elites in Washington will do anything to protect friends who have worked at Fannie and Freddie.

5.  “Many proposals in the bill will have highly uncertain impacts on the economy.” Becker-Posner point to new mortgage regulations, hedge fund regulations and consumer “protections” as three examples of new red tape that may slow and already slow economy. Yet again, the elites in Washington think they know better than the experts on Wall Street and have chosen to empower bureaucrats.

This bill is terrible policy, omits real reform and it may harm the economy. Despite fears and warnings, however, once again this legislation is one Senate vote away from a Presidential signing ceremony.

Senator Scott Brown's (R-MA) supporters need to rethink whether he's a real conservative if he ends up voting for this trash.

"Like pouring molasses on an ant hill"

This letter to the editor on July 7th at USA Today caught my eye:

The financial overhaul bill being considered by Congress is laughable. Like pouring molasses on an ant hill, this bill is certain to slow the nation's economic recovery ("7 things that helped break the economy ... and how Congress aims to fix them," Cover story, Money, June 28).

With government regulations handcuffing the banks and making them set aside more capital to cover potential losses, consumers will see an increase in the cost of capital. How is the housing market going to recover if we deter lending?

Government regulation got us into this mess by forcing irresponsible loans on the banks then bailing them out with taxpayer dollars when they failed. Do we really expect government regulation to be the saving grace this time around?

Lastly, the bill inexplicably ignores Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. These institutions will continue to bleed taxpayer money with their blank checks from the government.

Hopefully, the damage to our nation will be limited until we can elect some economically competent and market-oriented representatives in November, if they exist.

Mark King; Atlanta

Thanks, Mark King -- couldn't have said it better myself. . .

Analysis of Dodd-Frank Financial Overhaul Bill

This is a repost of an excellent analysis of Dodd-Frank from Liberty Central.  There was a sheepish admission that did not instill much confidence in me or anybody else, coming as it did from one of the principal architects at 5:00 a.m. after an all-night session to hammer out final details. "It's a great moment. I'm proud to have been here," said a teary-eyed Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who as chairman of the Senate Banking Committee led the effort in the Senate. "No one will know until this is actually in place how it works."

I was stunned when I read those words.  No, I was shocked that this kind of stuff could actually be happening right under our noses.

This is an all-too-familiar pattern that has been repeated again and again over the course of the last year and a half.  There is only one way to characterize the work product of this Congress:  Middle-of-the-night-behind-closed-doors legislation passed by the Democrat majority with little or no collaboration solicited nor support garnered from any opposing voices while America sleeps. 

The question is often asked these days why the Constitution -- that dusty old piece of parchment -- should still be relevant in today's modern world.  Like Obamacare, this monstrosity of repressive tyrannical oversight (I do not overstate it) does nothing but put unrestrained powers into the hands of unelected bureaucrats through the creation of yet another federal agency governed by presidential appointees.  It's even hard to remember the criticisms of "King George" W. Bush for what were seen as outrageous presidential grabs for power.  There are few or none who seemed alarmed at what is going on in this administration, especially from the MSM.  Rarely do we hear a peep from them anymore.  We must increasingly turn to other sources for insight. 

I'm not certain anybody really cares about this over-reaching bank regulation, but I have to admit I am amazed at what I see happening in the sudden and swift erosion of our liberties and freedoms.  And the reaction of the bank lobbyists and investors when they saw this bill is that they were "relieved?"  I find no relief at all in what follows. 

I can't help wondering what Thomas Jefferson would say today, when this is what he said in 1791:  "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it."  (Letter to Archibald Stuart, Philadelphia, 23 December 1791).

***

ASK QUESTIONS: Dodd-Frank Financial Overhaul Bill

By: Sarah Field, 1 Jul 2010

Yesterday, the House passed the 2315-page Dodd-Frank Financial Reform overhaul 237-192 with three Republicans voting for it: Cao (LA), Castle (DE) and Jones (N.C.). Fourteen Democrats voted against it: Boren (OK), Chandler (KY), Childers (MS), Critz (PA), Giffords (AZ), Hill (IN), Kaptur (OH), Kirkpatrick (AZ), Kratovil (MD), Minnick (ID), Mitchell (AZ), Nye (VA), Ross (AR), and Shuler (N.C.).

[Utahns in the 2nd Congressional District, please note that Jim Matheson voted FOR this bill, reason enough for you to reconsider your vote in November -- I support Morgan Philpot in this race, and encourage others to join me].

It will head to the Senate after the 4th of July recess and, even though Senators like Collins (ME), Snowe (ME), Nelson (NE), and Brown (MA) were worried about the $19B “bank tax,” there are many more, even costlier parts of this bill. In fact, on page 357 of the bill, there is an unlimited bank tax. This guide will give you the tools you need to call your Members of Congress or ask them tough questions during town hall meetings when they are home on July 4th recess.

The three most important things to know about this bill is that it (1) Creates a permanent bailout authority, ending TARP, but instead of using that savings for debt reduction as the law required, forces taxpayers to bear the costs of the new legislation, (2) Sets up the federal government to micromanage the markets and overload them with regulations, and (3) Continues to protect Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This bill vests more power in administrative agencies and will raise the costs of living for every American with higher fees on our markets.

Liberty Central read the entire Dodd-Frank Overhaul bill and picked out key questions that delve into other major problems with the bill:

GROWTH OF POWER FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

Did you know…?

…that the bill sets up the Financial Services Oversight Council, appointed by the President, to identify risks to financial stability and can vote on which companies fall under its jurisdiction? (TITLE I)

… that there is an elastic clause where the Council, Board of Governors, and Supervising Agencies can make whatever rules or issue whatever orders are necessary to carry out their duties? (Title VIII) That’s unelected bureaucrats interpreting the law how they see fit.

…that while taxpayer funds can be used to liquidate a company, no taxpayer funds can be used to stop liquidation of a company? (Title II, P. 380.)

…that the FDIC has permission to decide which creditors receive more money than their similarly situated creditors? (Title II)

…that, during the liquidation process, the FDIC can make additional payments to the individuals it chooses to minimize losses to the “orderly liquidation.” This also gives power to the FDIC to pay some creditors more than they deserve.

…that the Federal Reserve can still make emergency loans if they decide it is necessary for the stability of the economy? (TITLE XI)

…that Title III ‘plays mix and match with the letters of alphabet soup agencies’ by replacing one former bureaucratic regulatory agency (the Office of Thrift Supervision) with another, more powerful bureaucratic regulatory agency (the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) that is not even accountable to the Secretary of the Treasury?

… that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is not given a budget, but instead the bill gives the office the authority to raise its own funding from assessments, fees, and charges from any entity described in section 3(q)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, Title III, Sub. A?

…that this bill contains a power-grabbing new Office for Federal Insurance at Treasury, regulating an area traditionally left to the States? (Title V)

… that the bill prohibits states from collecting a licensing fee (for surplus lines broker) unless the state is participating in a national database? (Title V)

… that this bill establishes what is, in effect, an Investor Czar by creating the office of the Investor Advocate? (Title IX)

…that there will be a government database kept of all persons with custody or use of securities or money? (Title IX, Sec. 1333)

…that the bill establishes another government bureaucracy in the Office of Municipal Securities? (Title XI)

…that the bill sets up a new bureaucracy in the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, which regulates the offering of consumer financial products as an executive agency, with its director appointed by the President? It does not have a specified size, but lists the need for branches in D.C. and elsewhere. (Title X, Sub. A)

…that the federal government now requires mortgage loan originators to register with the government, and grants regulatory authority to a bureaucracy? (TITLE XIV-Sub A.)

…that the Financial Services Oversight Council determines the definition of “financial activities”, is to establish “prudent standards” for banks and has taxing power and can limit the size of financial institutions? (TITLE I)

…that a government bureaucrat can exempt companies from regulations if they decide it’s in the “public interest”? (Title VI)

… that the government will now dictate the terms of credit ratings, and sets up a federal Office of Credit Ratings? (TITLE IX)

…that the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is given sweeping regulatory powers and little accountability; the Secretary of the Treasury is barred from intervening in any matter before the Comptroller unless provided for specifically by law. (Title III Sub A Sec. 324 (b) (1))

…that funding for the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is done by the Board, who is free to collect as much as it wants from any bank or non-bank financial institution with holdings over $50 billion? (Title III Sub A)

…that the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection has the authority to declare an act unfair, may collect information about business conduct and activities of covered persons and service providers, has investigators with subpoena power and make rules on abusive practices? (Title X, Sub. B, Sub. E)

… that the Secretary of Treasury or the Board of Governors can decide if a company needs to be liquidated or liquidate assets? (Title II, Title XI)

…that the bill has emergency authority to liquidate positions in security, and the decision to do so is arbitrary with little room for review? (TITLE VII)

… that the Board requires annual stress tests to determine if a company has adequate capital and can require reports on the financial condition of nonbank financial companies, and to give up any information requested “promptly”? (TITLE I, Sec. C)

…that a company with $50 billion in holdings cannot purchase shares of certain other companies without permission of the government? (TITLE I, Sec. C)

…that the bill allows the government to liquidate companies deemed “failing,” with creditors and shareholders taking the loss, including foreign banks? (Title II)

… that the government can discharge any contract that the company entered into if it considers it to be “burdensome?” (Title II, pg. 266)

…that the bill allows the Board of Governors to regulate what it decides are risky transactions, and who will supervise? (Title VII)

… that it is left up to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission to define “commercial risk” and that the commission shall review every swap? (TITLE VII)

… that that FDIC would be able to reorganize any liquidated company as a “bridge financial institution” with a board of directors that is appointed by the FDIC? (Title II, p. 320 – 358)

… that this legislation would newly micromanage private fund advisors who are responsible for a relatively small amount of money? (Title IV)

…that every registered agent in swap markets is required to have a designated compliance officer, who is required to file an annual report with the government? Did you also know that the government now requires information about security based swaps be made available to the public, and that there is to be a depository of swap information, and that depository may share information with other Federal agencies and some foreign entities? (Title VII)

…that there is now a requirement that shareholder votes be held on executive compensation every 6 years, and that the government controls the makeup of the Board of Director Compensation Committees? (Title IX)

…that the federal government now requires written appraisals of all property, and requires that appraisers be registered and conform to regulations? (TITLE XIV, Sub. F)

…“Swap data repositories” are like stock exchanges for certain financial transactions that are not offered to the public for investment.

… that swap data repositories may be required to provide information — including transaction data identifying individual investors — to US regulators, the DOJ, and foreign financial supervisors, central banks, or ministries? (Title VII, p. 876)

…the Commodity Futures Trading Commission is authorized to develop new duties for swap data repositories based on “any evolving standard of the United States or the international community”? (Title VII, p. 881)

… that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission can set limits on how much any one person or group of related persons can invest in swaps or options? (Title VII, pp. 941-948)

… that publicly traded Boards of Trade will be required to have their board of directors and the other decision-making bodies reflect “a broad and culturally diverse pool of qualified candidates”? (Title VII, p. 940)

… that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission may forbid foreign boards of trade from taking orders from US persons unless they are registered with the Commission and comply with similar regulations as US boards of trade? (Title VII, pp. 951-957)

… that the financial reform bill tries to, in essence, rewrite certain provisions in private contracts? (Title VII, p. 960)

… that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission previously could not make its interpretations the exclusive way to comply with regulations, but now it can make these interpretations mandatory? (Title VII, p. 977)

… that the financial reform bill creates an interagency working group to study the oversight of carbon markets, including carbon spot markets and derivative markets? (Title VII, pp. 1012-1014)

… that the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities Exchange Commission are required to consult and coordinate with foreign regulatory authorities on the establishment of consistent international standards regulating swaps, futures, and options? (Title VII, pp. 1016-1017)

… that, if the Commodity Futures Trading Commission accuses a person of providing false information or manipulating the price of any swap or commodity, the hearing to determine penalties take place in three days or less, and any penalized person has only 15 days to file an appeal? (Title VII, pp. 1019-1026)

PROMOTES SPECIAL INTERESTS

Did you know…?

…that this bill is full of over 16 studies, including whether to end the Conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reverse mortgages, insurance premiums of banks, private education loans and credit scores?

…that the bureau of Consumer Financial Protection will also collect data about small business loans, including whether the loan is to a minority or woman owned business, and maintain a database which includes the revenue and racial, ethnic and gender characteristics of the business? (Title X, Sub. G)

…that the bill is full of measures that continue to divide Americans by race by creating specific programs for racial minorities and women, including an Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity (Title X, Sub. A), Office of Housing Counseling (TITLE XIV, Sub. D), the Office of Minority and Women Inclusion (Title III, Sub. D), and requires recruitment at historically black colleges and other minority serving institutions (TITLE III, Sub. D)?

… that this national insurance office’s charge will be to help ensure that the under-served community, consumers and minorities have access to insurance and that this sounds much like the policies that set up the subprime loan distortions in the mortgage business under CRA? (Title V)

… that this bill imposes a debt limit on nonbank financial institutions, but excludes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and exempts Fannie and Freddie from securities laws, while proscribing new standards for loans (Title IX, TITLE I, Sec. C)

…that all of the government employees from the abolished Office of Thrift Supervision will simply be transferred to other departments? (Title III, Sub. B)

…that the TARP Program is still in place, and allowed to purchase troubled assets if there is deemed a threat to financial stability? (TITLE XIII)

…that the bill contains a pet project that seeks to make sure that materials coming from the Congo and other “conflict” areas are not being used? (TITLE XV)

…that the bill has greater regulation on extraction of oil, natural gas and minerals, and regulates the foreign trade of those materials? (TITLE XV)

…the Bill sets up a Financial Crisis Assessment and Fund, which applies to any company engaged in activities that are financial, or incidental to the financial sector. This fund will be paid for by companies, and will determine the impact on low income and minority communities if the company fails? (TITLE XVI)

SUMMARY

This bill is incompatible with the Founding Fathers’ vision of limited government, because it promotes the growth of government, expands the powers of the administrative bureaucracy, limits economic freedom, and promotes personal interests. Limited Government requires that the powers be shared among three, co-equal branches: the Executive, Legislative and Judicial. With the system of “checks and balances” combined with the vote of the people, there exists a system of oversight over the actions of the federal government. However, today’s federal government also involves administrative agencies, the so-called “fourth branch.” These parts of government are unelected and usually filled with career employees at all but the highest level, yet they have both lawmaking and enforcement powers. Unfortunately, this bill vests even more power in administrative agencies and will raise the costs of living for every American with higher fees on our markets.

Dodd-Frank -- an assessment of what it contains

This is the best summary I've seen about what's actually in this bill.

It comes from Congressman Tom Price (R-GA).