The Washington Post's editors apparently never heard of Paul Volcker, Alan Greenspan, or Sheila Bair. How else can can one explain an editorial on dealing with "too big to fail" banks that never once mentions the solution proposed by them and thousands of others -- break them up. Could the Post's editors really be unaware of the prominent group of current and former financial officials who have argued that the only way to effectively rein in too big to fail institutions is to whittle them down to a size where they are not too big to fail? The Post also repeats without comment the illogical claim that the proposal to tax big banks after the fact to cover the failure of one of their brethren will provide incentives for good behavior. How? If a bank is behaving well, but incompetent regulators (are there any other kind?) allow a rogue bank to behave irresponsibly, then they get stuck with the tab under this proposal. Of course the rogue bank won't care. They will be out of business and won't have to worry about the tax. Where are the incentives here? Don't the Post's editors think at all before they write one of these things?
--Dean Baker
