I am going to a real pain in the ass with this post. I promise to keep bumping this post up until I get an intelligent answer fronm one of you Obama ass kissers The fact is, if you want to blame deregulation for the mess we're in as BHO likes to do Transcript of second McCain, Obama debate - CNN.com And I believe this is a final verdict on the failed economic policies of the last eight years, strongly promoted by President Bush and supported by Sen. McCain, that essentially said that we should strip away regulations, consumer protections, let the market run wild, and prosperity would rain down on all of us. So BHO blames deregulation but then he gushes over Clinton saying: Heaping praise on President Bush's predecessor, Obama said of Clinton: "In case all of you forgot, this is what it's like to have a great president." But here's the rub. The financial services industry was not deregulated under GW. Meltdowns and Myths: Did Deregulation Cause the Financial Crisis? More typically, of course, the word deregulation has been used as shorthand to describe the repeal or easing of particular rules. To the extent there was a heyday of such deregulation, it was in the 1970s and 1980s. It was at this time that economists--and consumer activists--began to question many longstanding restrictions on financial services. The most important such restrictions were rules banning banks from operating in more than one state. Such rules were largely eliminated by 1994 through state and federal action. Few observers lament their passing today, and because regional and nationwide banks are far better able to balance risk, this "deregulation" has helped mitigate, rather than contribute to, the instability of the system. Who was pres. in 1994? Gramm-Leach-Bliley and Beyond The next major "deregulation" of financial services was the repeal of the Depression-era prohibition on banks engaging in the securities business. The ban was formally ended by the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which followed a series of decisions by regulators easing its impact. While not without controversy, the net effect of Gramm-Leach-Bliley has likely been to alleviate rather than further the current financial crisis. In fact, President Bill Clinton--who signed the reform bill into law--defended the legislation in a recent interview, saying, "I don't see that signing that bill had anything to do with the current crisis. Indeed, one of the things that has helped stabilize the current situation as much as it has is the purchase of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America, which was much smoother than it would have been if I hadn't signed that bill." So let's get this straight. Clinton deregulates banks. Deregulation is blamed for all of our current problems. But Clinton says HIS deregulation actually made dealing with the current situation easier. And obviously BHO agrees. But riddle me this if the deregulation that Clinton signed helped out economy then how can the deregulation that never happened under GW hurt our economy? Regulatory Agency Trends But what of the regulatory agencies? Did they pursue a deregulatory agenda during the Bush Administration? Again, the answer seems to be no. In terms of rulemaking--the promulgation of specific rules by regulatory agencies--the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is by far the most active among agencies in the financial realm. Based on data from the Government Accountability Office, the SEC completed 23 proceedings since the beginning of the Bush Administration that resulted in a substantive and major change (defined as an economic effect of $100 million or more) in regulatory burdens. Of those, only eight--about a third--lessened burdens. Perhaps surprisingly, the Bush record in this regard is actually less deregulatory than that of the Clinton Administration, which during its second term lessened burdens in nine out of 20 such rulemaking proceedings. A False Narrative In the wake of the financial crisis gripping the nation, it is tempting to blame "deregulation" for triggering the problem. After all, if the meltdown were caused by the ill-advised elimination of necessary rules, the answer would be easy: Restore those rules. But that storyline is simply not true. Not only was there was little deregulation of financial services during the Bush years, but most of the regulatory reforms achieved in earlier years mitigated, rather than contributed to, the crisis. This, of course, does not mean that no regulatory changes should be considered. In the wake of the current crisis, debate over the scope and method of regulation in financial markets is inevitable and, in fact, necessary. But this cannot be a debate over returning to a regulatory Nirvana that never existed. Any new regulatory system would be just that--complete with all the uncertainty and prospects for unintended consequences that define such a system. Policymakers must not pretend otherwise. And here is more: American Thinker: Obama runs against Clinton prosperity by attacking deregulation on regulation in general, my CEI colleague Wayne Crews notes in his study "10,000 Commandments" that the Bush administration has set records for the tens of thousands of pages it put in the Federal Register. So to the extent that Obama says he will reverse financial deregulation, what he would largely be overturning are the financial modernizations Clinton signed that Clinton administration officials agree led to the 90s prosperity. Does BHO want to end the deregulatory changes enacted under his and your hero Bill Clinton??? Again I ask how does Clintons major deregulation ease the burdens of the current economy and GW's lack of deregulation cause the current problems?