Which is what I figured would happen. Here's the low down on it.

The House bill is designed to remove the burden from
taxpayers, proposing instead that shareholders -- as
well as financial institutions with assets exceeding
$10 billion -- ultimately pick up the tab when the
government is forced to bail out a company for the sake
of stabilizing the financial system on the whole.
Still, that taxpayer safeguard does nothing to tackle
the issue of moral hazard. That is, the nation's
largest financial institutions would still be insulated
from certain risks, critics say, leaving them with
distinct business advantages over smaller competitors.

David Min, financial markets expert at the Center for
American Progress, said the resolution authority, by
definition, has to be unlimited in order to maintain
the government's credibility as an effective backstop.
But such a system, he added, will lower the capital
costs for the largest institutions, making it more
difficult for smaller banks to compete.

"The whole scheme of systemic stability really favors
larger institutions and encourages them to become too
big to fail," Min said.

Sherman agrees. "That is a huge gravy train to the top
20 [financial institutions] because it allows them to
borrow money at a lower rate," Sherman said by phone
last week. "Think of what this does to moral hazard."

No stranger to taking on the finance industry, Sherman
was a lonely voice in the push earlier in the year to
apply more stringent executive compensation limits to
bailed out Wall Street firms -- a push that went
precisely nowhere in the face of White House
opposition.

Some economists, notably Paul Volcker, former chairman
of the Federal Reserve and now head of the White House
Economic Recovery Advisory Board, have an alternative
solution to the too-big-to-fail problem. They want to
put back the firewalls between commercial and
investment banking -- firewalls dismantled in 1999 with
the repeal of the Glass-Steagle Act. But that proposal
has gained little traction on Capitol Hill, where the
finance industry remains a hugely influential player
despite its role igniting the recent recession. Min
said the Obama administration took a look through its
"political lens" and decided the tackle finance reforms
without reinstalling Glass-Steagle.

Frank's panel will hold a hearing on the House
legislation Thursday, with Treasury Secretary Tim
Geithner testifying.

Expect some fireworks. At a Financial Services hearing
last month, Sherman pressed Geithner to apply some
limits to his request for new bailout powers. "Would
great harm be done to this statute," Sherman asked, "if
we limited the executive branch's authority to a mere
$1 trillion?"

An annoyed Geithner eluded the question before reaching
the conclusion that Sherman was "fundamentally
mischaracterizing" the provision. The Treasury
Department did not respond to requests for comment.

Sherman said he intends to offer a series of amendments
addressing the issue during the Financial Services
panel's markup of the bill, which has yet to be
scheduled. Included will be a provision to cap the
president's bailout authority at $1 trillion, and
another to strip out the resolution authority language
entirely. A potential third proposal -- to create an
oversight panel like that monitoring TARP funds -- is
one he's leaning against.

"I'm not looking for a TARP on steroids with
oversight," Sherman said. "I'm looking for an end of
TARP."

Aren't we all, Congressman.  I do not know if Obama is in the pockets
of these people or just naive as hell. But either way this kowtowing
to Wall Street has to end. 

Maybe it's time that the progressives start having some Tea Parties
of their own.

C