Jim Pethokoukis makes the case for dismantling the biggest banks (one of Huntsman's best ideas in the primary debates):
America doesn’t need 20 banks with combined assets equal to nearly 90 percent of the U.S. economy, or five mega-banks?—?JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs?—?with combined assets equal to almost 60 percent of national output, three times what they were in the 1990s. That amount of complexity and financial concentration?—?which has grown worse since the passage of Dodd-Frank?—?is a current and continuing threat to the health of the U.S. economy.
Now don’t blame market failure or unintended results of deregulation. Banks that big and complex and interconnected are both the unsurprising outcome of Washington’s 30-year expansion of the federal safety net and the cause of its ongoing existence. When you combine a “too big to fail” guarantee from Uncle Sam with the natural human tendency toward irrational exuberance, you have the key elements in place for another unaffordable financial crisis.
Scheiber wonders if Romney will capitalize – and call for an end to too-big-to-fail:
In the end, this strikes me as the kind of risk a rational candidate would take if he were the underdog, but not if he thought he was going to win. So perhaps the simplest explanation is that Romney increasingly likes his chances.
Earlier Dish on the subject here.