Kevin Yoder, who had previously been seen as hiding out from the press, took time yesterday to interact with the Kansas City Star.
http://www.kansascity.com/...
Critics say that the relaxed rule — part of a bill signed into law Tuesday night by President Barack Obama — provides a potential backdoor bailout for the nation’s biggest banks, and that Yoder offered the measure as a favor for wealthy bank-related campaign donors.
“Of course it’s not true,” the second-term congressman said Tuesday in a lengthy phone interview. “The avalanche of criticism from the far left just goes to show we have many folks in Congress who don’t want to compromise.”
Yoder took time to defend his move on Dodd-Frank in the recent CROMNIBUS bill, and argued that it was the 'Far Left' who was busy chastising the issue, showing how out of touch the 'far left' is with the American Farmer.
“There are enough regulations in Dodd-Frank to choke a horse,” he said. “In many cases the intentions were good, but some of the provisions — and this is one of them — end up doing more harm than good, and don’t really have a tremendous impact on whether there would be another meltdown.”
Yoder said barring insured banks from using swaps would prompt lenders to be more cautious in issuing loans, hurting the economy.
Republicans have found themselves with vexing talking points - ranging from blaming the poor for the 2008 economic meltdown ('bad borrowers', read: Too Big to Fail), and now saying that the requirement of rules is bad because we can't get enough borrowers in over their head.
Yoder has taken to email, making his argument clear within his constituent newsletter.
http://yoder.congressnewsletter.net/...
Some members of the media have been misconstruing one provision in particular that I supported in the Appropriations Committee earlier in the year. I joined a significant portion of House Democrats and Republicans in making an improvement to Dodd-Frank that helps strengthen markets, helps consumers, and provides no additional risk to taxpayers. The provision amends Section 716 of Dodd-Frank, which would have increased transaction costs by requiring banks to push out almost all derivative business into separate entities. The derivatives associated with this provision are not the same as the riskier Collateral Debt Obligations (CDOs) that many blame for causing the mortgage crisis. CDOs remain subject to the push out even after the adoption of this provision.
Without this change, small regional banks would be in danger of being unable to serve the lending needs of their customers. Ultimately, farmers, manufacturers, and other Main Street businesses would be harmed the most. I opposed the taxpayer bailouts in 2008 and stand strong by the provisions in existing law that prohibit bailouts from ever happening again. This fixes an onerous provision of Dodd-Frank that actually made markets less safe and increased the cost of lending. It does not make any change to provisions preventing bailouts.
Rep. Yoder's talking point, though, fails to match reality.
http://www.kansascity.com/...
n a speech on the Senate floor, Warren addressed the explanation Yoder is trying to push:
“The fact sheet Republican appropriators sent around to their members explaining the provision does not describe it accurately,” she said. “According to this fact sheet, the provision in question would protect farmers and other commodity producers from having to put down collateral to get a loan, expand their business, and hedge their production. Whatever you think about the bill, that description is flatly wrong. In fact, that description applies to yet another Wall Street reform rollback that the Republicans are pushing right now, which is attached to a completely different bill. I do not know if Republican leaders in the House are deliberately trying to confuse their members in voting for a government bailout program, or whether they cannot keep straight on their efforts to gut financial reform.”
So, who’s version do we go with here? Yoder’s? Or Warren’s?
No contest. Warren is the expert. Protecting taxpayers from the greed of the financial sector is her wheelhouse.
Now, for defending American taxpayers against risky banking practices Yoder associates those with that attitude as "The Far Left".
Yoder's framing of the political spectrum, putting conservatives in bed with multi-national banks seems a unique way of looking at the political divide. A thought that I wouldn't mind if it stuck.