Thomas Hoenig, Big Bank Critic, Nominated To FDIC Board Of Directors

President Barack Obama on Thursday nominated a prominent critic of large banks for a key banking industry regulatory post.

The White House said Obama tapped former Kansas City Federal Reserve Bank President Thomas Hoenig to be vice chairman of the board of directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, a regulator that insures individual bank accounts up to $250,000.

Hoenig has been a critic of large banks, arguing they still pose a threat to the financial system and that the 2010 Dodd-Frank financial oversight law did not do enough to address the issue.

"We must make sure that large financial organizations are not in position to hold the U.S. economy hostage," Hoenig told a meeting of the Women in Housing and Finance in February. "We must break up the largest banks."

Hoenig served as head of the Kansas City Fed from 1991 until October 1, 2011.

If confirmed by the Senate, he would replace Martin Gruenberg as vice chairman of the FDIC board. Gruenberg has been nominated to be chairman. Former Chair Sheila Bair stepped down in July.

Another current FDIC board member, Thomas Curry, has been nominated to be head of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.

The full Senate has yet to vote on either the Gruenberg or Curry nomination.

(Reporting by JoAnne Allen; Editing by Peter Cooney)

Copyright 2011 Thomson Reuters. Click for Restrictions.

Comments

[Susan Cain]

10:23 AM on 10/24/2011

For anyone to think that an individual even the President has the capacity to make change would be somewhat naive. Think JFK. You rock the boat they will get rid of you, not only that, if your team is working for the other side then anything of the changes you want made are not going to get the backing needed.
From the very beginning I was not all that excited about Obama getting elected but not for some of the reasons already posted, but more because I saw this as an opportunity for those who screwed the public to find blame with one person who would unsuccessful in trying to make those changes only to ensure the relection of those who worked so hard to screw us. Good strategy, will a black man ever get elected back into the White House, only when it serves a purpose. Cynical I know but not much has changed in the US.

[Susan Cain]

10:23 AM on 10/24/2011

I was thinking about this whole entire mess and one thought came to mind. When you make the decision to nominate yourself to the White House you usually have a team that you have established over time. This team stays with you all the way through and even be given positions once you get elected. Now in the case of Obama he was someone who came out of left sort of. He was a bit of a lone duck, did not have a whole hell of a lot of experience but he was someone who could rally the troops. Given the state of the political arena, this would play well to those who are looking for someone to "hang it on". Now, I am not looking for excuses for the current President but let's get real, the game of politics is a pretty dirty game. Now Obama comes in but he has not developed the connections some of the more experienced members has so his team i picked for him. They like all the teams before represent the vested interests that have already established themselves in Washington so their interests are protected.

[nopilikia]

05:22 AM on 10/24/2011

No worries.....will cave soon......like on Warren. Banksters and their banksters buddies in congress will see to it. America needs Warren and others like her to look out for middle class American's and the working poor in the Senate and House.

[Mr Hankey]

11:12 AM on 10/24/2011

As I understand, the GOP would have never confirmed Elizabeth Warren....and if she would have been appointed outside of confirmation, the GOP has made it clear that the agency would be made toothless... that will and probably has happened already.

I agree with you that Elizabeth Warren represents hope for the middle class. I hope whatever positions she gets in government in the future will allow her to speak her mind and function without obstruction.

[danceswithdata]

07:50 PM on 10/23/2011

At least this time the President nominated someone who represents the vast majority of the US populace. Hoenig cannot say enough in the way of criticism of the Big Banksters and the need to re-introduce regulatory measures to break them up. That should never have been allowed, but then we all know that Reagan, the King of De-Reg, will ultimately be proven by history to be one of the worst US presidents ever.

[LynnW49]

05:01 PM on 10/23/2011

"President Barack Obama on Thursday nominated a prominent critic of large banks for a key banking industry regulatory post."

Well, here is the one case where this publication would not be remiss is using "shocker" in the headline.

[Lindytindy]

04:35 PM on 10/23/2011

It doesn't mean a thing. He's just playing to the base which he has done such a good job of alienating. Now it's election time and the genius suddenly realizes uh oh I do need them. The right wing Republicans aren't going to vote for me after all!

[danceswithdata]

07:51 PM on 10/23/2011

How original, Lindy. Got anything else pithy to share?

[MB1East]

01:01 PM on 10/23/2011

But does the FDIC have any power to change the regulations on banks? If not, then his nomination to this position is meaningless.

[carolina919]

09:00 PM on 10/23/2011

It isn't meaningless. There is such a thing as "critical mass". Better this choice than another big bank booster. We've got enough GOP "plants" inside the federal government.

[nofriendofrepublicans]

11:14 PM on 10/22/2011

Ambassador to BF Egypt?

[Hijeetz Mipanz]

06:54 PM on 10/22/2011

Of course he nominated an anti banking person to oversea banking. It's who he is, anti business anti American.

[wonderYrednow]

07:38 PM on 10/22/2011

2 D 2 0 T !

[68Namvet]

08:53 PM on 10/22/2011

Last time I checked, banking was a business, and the head of a a large Federal reserve bank is quite obviously pro business and pro banking.

And this makes him "anti American" how?

[68Namvet]

01:25 PM on 10/22/2011

Um - let me see if I got this right. The former head of the largest private, for profit, banking group, the Federal Reserve Bank, is against big banks? What's next? Are we going to put a tax dodger in charge of the IRS? Oh wait, we already did that.

Never mind.

[vigoddess]

12:29 PM on 10/22/2011

Mr. Hoenig, hopefully will get an investigation started with the Department of
Justice on the Mortgage failure for millions of people, which started the takeover
of the 1% wealthy movement. Mr. Obama stated that it's a moral issue though
legally right, however, it was also so vast, so organized and unlikely to be
a coincidence, with so many, as a Chairman of the FDIC you will be in a position to find
out.

[Jane Porto]

12:48 PM on 10/22/2011

How Mr Obama can even make a statement like that is beyond me, not illegal? am i mistaken or did not a TBFB just admit to fraud and was fined 250 million dollars. Since when is fraud not illegal.

[hellinahandcart]

08:42 PM on 10/23/2011

I agree. I was stunned when I heard him say it.

[Hijeetz Mipanz]

06:55 PM on 10/22/2011

The mortgage mess was started by Democrats that insisted everyone should have a home even if they could not afford it.

[vigoddess]

07:41 PM on 10/22/2011

B.S. Word on the street is that the banks sold the contracts to
outside interests and a lot of them foreign. Example. China bought
a factory with a foreclosure in Ohio and Ed Schultz showed the
land - and from personal experience, my daughter is an attorney,
and her husband has a doctorate and had their home foreclosed
when the mortgage people wanted $7,000 a month so they
asked heavy duty prices, and my daughter is in a class action
suit. So stop the Dem blame stuff, because it's an issue with
the banks and Wall Street who do not belong in politics but
you are being hyped by extremely wealthy lobbyists and the
media. Stay with the issues - not the politics and maybe you
will learn the truth because all politicians stink.

[68Namvet]

08:16 PM on 10/22/2011

No, not really, Lest we not forget, home ownership and encouraging lending to those unable to qualify was part of the bush (the lessor) "ownership society" initiative. Bush (the lessor) campaigned on, and when reelected, enacted and pushed new policies encouraging home ownership, like the "zero-down-payment initiative," which was much as it sounds—a government-sponsored program that allowed people to get mortgages without a down payment. More exotic mortgages followed, including ones with no monthly payments for the first two years. Other mortgages required no documentation other than the say-so of the borrower.

These programs were the brainchild of bush (the lessor), the republican House and the republican Senate, not democrats.

[AspenFreePress]

12:21 PM on 10/22/2011

Are the big banks Too Big to Fail, or Too Big to Exist?

[vigoddess]

12:32 PM on 10/22/2011

The best answer to that is find a small bank that won't charge fees for everything they
do, to keep your money saved, backed by FDIC insurance, or Credit Union banks,
and get off the big guns, because they have also gone into politics apparently with
Wall Street, and banks belong saving people's money, not fining them for services.

[LifeWitness]

03:23 AM on 10/23/2011

We should really be saying "Too Big To Loose". Because no matter what the situation- they win.

[bobnabq]

11:55 AM on 10/22/2011

"If confirmed by the Senate..."
What are the chances the GOP will let a bank critic be confirmed?

[vigoddess]

12:36 PM on 10/22/2011

Next step if they do not confirm Mr. Hoenig, is to get the Department of
Justice into every private account of the Congress and the Senate,
and include the wives in their outside interests. That would be the
only reason they fear Hoenig's appointment, which says a great deal.
Only a matter of time before it comes out anyway en masse.
I was right about the protest movement coming out, and global as
well back in June.
All based on history.

[norkas]

10:45 AM on 10/22/2011

Business today is allowed to give UNLIMITED CONTRIBUTIONS to political campaigns because of last springs decisions by the Supreme Court.

I suggest this is an issue for every America regardless of the political party they belong to.

This decision just pitted one big business against the other to bribe ALL Politicians for the wish list they need to have completed.

This is what everyone should be going nuts about. The fact that not one Politician has stood up and said this is wrong and we will have a 100% Fascist Corporate America .

Politicians just hit the Lottery and you should come together and all be mad and fight like hell to get this sick demented law changed. Then rid all of us of the many corrupt politicians we have on all sides .

Call your representatives and E mail them furthermore quit dividing yourselves this issue is for everyone and the fact the politicians did not speak up against the supreme court decision to all business to give unlimited contributions to political campaign proves they are corrupt and do not care about the importance and meaning of our vote.

[vigoddess]

12:41 PM on 10/22/2011

This is the main issue of the Occupy Wallstreet movement. Apparently, the
Supreme Court is part of the Nothing but Money Gang, to get this law passed
just before Obama took office. All these coincidences add up, and a kid
in the 6th grade can figure it out better than us. Get the money out of politics
is anothere movement started by Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC. This is the
main cause of government corruption. No money - they have to work like
everybody else for their jobs.

[Jane Porto]

12:50 PM on 10/22/2011

here, here. Never thought i would see the day when our supreme court could be bought.

[marymeade2]

01:00 PM on 10/22/2011

A new law wasn't passed by the Supreme Court when they ruled on the Citizens United Case. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, overruled two precedents: Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 1990 decision that upheld restrictions on corporate spending to support or oppose political candidates, and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a 2003 decision that upheld the part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted campaign spending by corporations and unions.

[TheMediaRanger]

03:40 PM on 10/22/2011

That's true. I guess SCOTUS needs a third precedent to overturn before it's considered "activist."

[billw8017]

01:34 PM on 10/23/2011

No doubt, this is what chief justice Roberts meant when he said the role of a justice is to be an honest referee.

[tacevad]

10:19 AM on 10/22/2011

this thread sure brought out the anti-Obama and anti-union trolls didn't it?

[anothermoderate]

01:08 PM on 10/22/2011

Maybe they're just getting worried about job losses - theirs.