Slacker Ron Estes wants to let the banks swindle us

By SJ Otto

It's hard to say if slacker US Representative Ron Estes wrote his own article that was carried in the The Wichita Eagle or if he had some one else write it for him. Estes avoids any real work. But his article appeared and it was the usual pack of lies that Republicans print and put forward as if they were truth.  He said in his Sunday article:

"It’s clear to most Kansans how Obamacare has harmed their families (doubled their premiums and taken away medical choices)."

He has never met with his constituents to see if that is true. He is a cowardly man and is not likely to do that. But I already know how many of my friends are in trouble over his vote to repeal Obamacare (The Affordable Care Act or ACA). I don't know anyone who is having a problem with "taken away medical choices)." I'm sure some wealthier folks may have problems with higher premiums. But many of my friends have the problem of loosing their health care altogether. The premiums, if they can get them, are so high they have to go without health care. Not having any kind of health is the worst problem of all and the Republicans have brought poor working people to this place once again. That means that poor working people will now die earlier than they planned on, because if they get sick, they can't do anything until they are about to die. After that it is too late for any kind of preventative care.

I'm sure by now that Estes only plans to represent the wealthier people in his district. He could care less about the common citizen. I'm sure he figures they are better off dead.

Most of Estes' article is about:

"Dodd-Frank, which was signed into law by President Obama in 2010, added thousands of rules and regulations for financial institutions to follow."  

Most of us aren't affected by this because it affects wealthy bankers. Estes worries about their financial situation, which was encumbered by our past President Barack Obama. Many of us do remember how the banks were swindling the common citizen which is why Obama passed that act. Many common citizens lost money when banks foreclosed on housed and loans they should not have made. The Dodd-Frank Act simply requires that banks have assets to back up their loans. As from USA Today:

Explaining the Dodd-Frank Act

In an effort to prevent crises like these in the future, the policymakers behind the Dodd-Frank Act underwrote a series of critical reforms. The act increases the amount that capital banks must hold in reserve, giving the banks an added cushion to absorb loan losses in future downturns. It similarly requires banks to keep a larger portion of their assets invested in things that can be easily liquidated in the event of a bank run – namely, cash and government securities as opposed to term loans.

The act also subjects the nation's biggest banks to a series of heightened regulatory requirements not faced by regional and community banks. Under Dodd-Frank, every bank with more than $50 billion worth of assets on its balance sheet must submit to annual stress tests administered by the Federal Reserve, which then determines if they would survive a hypothetically severe crisis akin to the one in 2008. As a part of the stress tests, these banks must also seek regulatory approval to increase their dividends or authorize new share repurchase programs.

Even among the biggest banks, moreover, the Dodd-Frank Act makes distinctions. The biggest among them are classified as global systemically important banks, or G-SIBs, which must hold an additional tranche of capital, known as the G-SIB surcharge. This is particularly burdensome for JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and Citigroup which have to keep as much as 3% their shareholders' equity laying fallow in cash or low-yielding but highly liquid securities. These banks must also submit resolution plans to regulators each year, detailing how they could be resolved without causing harm to the financial markets in the event they go bankrupt.

Remember folks, when these banks failed, the US taxpayer bailed them out. That is what Estes wants to return to. Large bank loans fail, then taxpayers bail them out as they did before 2010.

The original purpose of the bill was:

"The Act is categorized into sixteen titles and, by one law firm's count, it requires that regulators create 243 rules, conduct 67 studies, and issue 22 periodic reports.

The stated aim of the legislation is:

To promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end "too big to fail", to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes."

So what Estes really wants is to allow the banks to rip off the consumers. The businesses, as banks, are more important than consumers. That is the Estes way.