[FromLori]

And look they have a Rhino who says he is there to serve them...

“Alabama Republican Spencer Bachus, the incoming chairman of the House banking committee, suggested Congress and federal regulators should play a subservient role with banks.

“In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks,” Bachus told The Birmingham News in an interview. “

http://blog.al.com/sweethome/2010/12/spencer_bachus_finally_gets_hi.html

[Notary Sojac]

How more subservient could they be? Are the Congressmen going to wash cars and babysit for Goldman Sachs’ partners?

[ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas]

IMHO the Dem "Financial Regulation" bill leaves the crony megabank capitalist operation intact, but is tough on smaller banks. I think it's understandable that Bachus would object to regulation for the sake of regulation. The article you posted continues:

He later clarified his comment to say that regulators should set the parameters in which banks operate but not micromanage them.

Assuming Bachus is sincere, what he said above does not sound too bad. Of course, even if he does seem sincere, we have to watch him closely to make sure he doesn't continue in the tradition of Barney Frank.

He irritated some of his GOP colleagues during the crisis negotiations over the $700 billion economic rescue package back in 2008, and they replaced him as their lead bargainer in the talks. He eventually supported the Troubled Assets Relief Program, but quickly became a critic of how President George W. Bush's administration was implementing it.

Not a great amount of detail there, but at least he didn't swallow the TARP premise without some independent thinking.

Are you in Alabama? It would be good to call his office and ask questions like, "What will you do to ensure that the big Wall Street firms don't get another TARP if their bets go bad?" And "What are you going to do about Fannie and Freddie?"