The title of a recently released ABC News article is "Obama Proposes New Financial Regulatory Overhaul, Create New Oversight Panel". The key words in this title are obviously "Overhaul" and "Oversight", and, as expected, critics are not happy about the latest Obama proposal.

This leads nicely on to the subtitle: "White House Says Plan Will Help Prevent Future Crises (while) Critics Say Administration Is On a Power Grab". There's the old argument (i.e. the administration is essentially saying that this is necessary for our economy to recover while opponents are grumbling once again that Mr. Obama is unjustifiably trying to expand his powers).

So the question is: who has a more convincing argument? Obama started: "It is an indisputable fact that one of the most significant contributors to our economic downturn was an unraveling of major financial institutions and the lack of adequate regulatory structures to prevent abuse and excess. We did not choose how this crisis began (?), but we do have a choice in the legacy (that) this crisis leaves behind. So, today, my administration is proposing a sweeping overhaul of the financial regulatory system, a transformation on a scale not seen since the reforms that followed the end of the Great Depression", There is a major gaffe in the first part of Mr. Obama's remarks: "We did not choose how this crisis began?" Of course we did, by overspending and banks making risky loans to people who could not repay them. Other than that, these words are something like what FDR would have said back in 1932 when he tried to fix the problems associated with the Great Depression that his predecessor, Herbert Hoover left behind. The president added that the aim of this is to "restore markets in which we reward hard work and responsibility and innovation (and) not recklessness and greed in which honest, vigorous competition and the system is prized and those who game the system are thwarted". To his critics, this is what he had to say: "There are those who will say (that) we do not go far enough, that we should have scrapped the system and started all over again. I think that would be a mistake. Instead, we've crafted reforms to pinpoint the strucutral weaknesses that allowed for this crisis (to occur) and to make sure that these problems are dealt with so that we're preventing crises in the future". First, let's identify who these people are. "...those who say (that) we did not go far enough" are Democrats who believe in more intervention than Obama is proposing. "There are also those who say (that) we are going too far. BUT THE EVENTS OF THE PAST FEW YEARS OFFER AMPLE TESTIMONY FOR THE NEED TO MAKE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. The absence of a working regulatory regime over many parts of the financial system - and over the system as a whole - LED US TO NEAR CATASTROPHE. We shouldn't forget that". "...those who say (that) we are going too far" are Republicans. This is reminiscent of Obama mocking McCain and George W. Bush for saying that "The fundamentals are strong" during last year's presidential campaign.

"I've always been a believer in the power of the free market". The president is saying this to critics who argue that he wants to always be involved in the running and operations of companies. "It has been and will continue to be, America's engine for progress, the source of prosperity that's unrivaled in history. With the reforms we are proposing today, we seek to put in place rules that will allow our markets to seek innovation WHILE PREVENTING ABUSE (of power or abuse of the system). We (certainly) don't want to stifle innovation. But I'm convinced that by setting clear rules of the road and ensuring transparency and fair dealing, we will actually promote a more vibrant market". In other words, even though the US is a free market, it cannot be allowed to go back to "business as usual" (as the president would call it) because this is precisely what caused the financial crisis (people overbuying people buying things they either didn't need or clearly afford, banks making risky loans & investments, etc.)

Furthermore, "Consumers will be provided with information that is simple, transparent and accurate. You'll be able to compare products (and services) and see what's best for you. The most unfair (trade/sales) practices will be banned. Those ridiculous contracts with pages of fine print that no one can figure out, those things will be a thing of the past. And - and enforcement will be the rule, not the exception" together with regulated free market practices.

According to Christina Romer, chairwoman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, speaking on "Good Morning America", "The key thing to say is (that) the status quo is not an option. One of things we've seen from the crisis is (that) there were GAPS, there were FAILURES in our regulatory system and we need to make it better". The key words in Romer's statement are obviously "gaps" and "failures", which need reform.

As expected, the remarks by the president and the chairwoman of his Council of Economic Advisers drew plenty of reactions, of course both positive and negative. According to Travis Plunkett, legislative director for the Consumer Federation of America, a consumer rights group based in the nation's capital, "It's about time we had a government agency whose only job is to protect consumers in the marketplace. IF SUCH AN AGENCY EXISTED FIVE YEARS AGO, WE MIGHT NOT BE IN THE FINANCIAL CRISIS WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW". So Plunkett is on Obama's side and denouncing former president Bush and he is essentially asking 'What took so long' for us to get a law to protect consumers?

According to Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, "I AM FAIRLY OPTIMISTIC that we're going to have a product that looks like what the president wants on his desk by the end of the year. NOT EVERY SPECIFIC WILL COME OUT THE SAME WAY, but I think the fundamental proposals the president is seeking to accomplish will be embodied by the end of the year". This is a nicely balanced statement. "I am fairly optimistic" (positive connotation) is balanced out by the possibility that "Not every specific will come out the same way" (a potential negative). So, the Democrats are not jumping for joy just yet.

However, House Minority Leader John Boehner fired back: "These kinds of policies are going to work TO SLOW DOWN JOB GROWTH and PREVENT (the) PRIVATE SECTOR FROM GROWING". Obviously this is a damning condemnation that President Obama will have to deal with. We now have two comments in favor of Obama's proposal and one adamantly against.

Boehner continued: "There certainly are gaps in the current system and we need to fill those gaps. The question is: how big of a foot does the government have to play in the private sector and in our economy?" The president has already said that he has no interest in nationalizing companies just for the sake of expanding his powers. He is only trying to make them financially competitive again. Once companies such as GM, Chrysler and Citigroup are financially viable again, of course, there will a more hands-off approach. Look at it this way Mr. Boehner: without the private sector, there is no innovation or creativity and without innovation and creativity, there can be no growth or recovery.

Romer chimed back in: "We have a lot of those policies today spread around to a lot of different agencies. What we're saying is that consumers deserve ONE AGENCY whose ONLY JOB is to watch out for them. This is getting people information NOT MAKING CHOICES FOR THEM", which is precisely Boehner's argument/objection.

According to an unidentified senior administration official, "We don't think the country can afford to wait and the leadership in the Senate and the House has made it clear that WE'RE GOING TO BE ACTING NOW ON THIS. We're going to PUSH FORWARD with legislation, we'll be sending legislation up to the Hill (i.e. Capitol Hill) shortly". This source added that "there are elements that cand one through legislation and international cooperation and we're PUSHING FORWARD with those at the same time. Our goal is to get it done this year". The only concern are the phrase "push forward" and "pushing forward". This will all be for naught if the administration cannot get at least 2 Republicans on board. And right now trying to get 2 GOP senators on board seems like a monumental task.

"We have not done a detailed cost estimate,(but) CERTAINLY THE COSTS OF INACTION ARE RATHER APPARENT". This is essentially political suicide. The deficit and costs are about the only things the Republicans are concerned about.

According to Rep. Jeb Hensarling, a Texas Republican and a member of the Congressional Oversight Panel, "If the administration gets the wrong diagnosis, (then) they're going to get the wrong remedy. The administration got the wrong diagnosis. They blame everything on de-regulation. It's not a matter of de-regulation. It's a matter of DUMB regulation". This is a purely political opinion highlighted by the word "dumb", which only has emotive connotations.

"And so what the administration has effectively is leave the regulatory infrastructure in place and then they add on to it. It's kind of like taking rotted wood and putting a fresh coat of paint on it - to some extent it doesn't solve the problem and it can make it worse by hiding the problems THAT LIE UNDERNEATH". This is a more legitimate argument.

New Jersey Republican Rep. Scott Garrett, a ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee, used the "too much, too soon" argument: "When the administration continues to meddle and continues to have new proposals and new solutions EVEN BEFORE THEY HAVE A CONCENSUS ON WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS, there is a lack of trust on Wall Street and Main Street THAT THE ADMINISTRATION KNOWS WHAT THE HECK ITS DOING. And in the meantime, BOTH WALL STREET AND MAIN STREET is going to sit on the sidelines and not invest, you're going to see unemployment go up JUST BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE CONFIDENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATION THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT PLAN". Republican opposition to this latest plan/proposal is getting increasingly voiferous, but in order to get a more balanced view of what's going on we have to read what Democrats are saying...and it looks like at least one Democrat isn't happy either.

Let's just think about what Virginia Democratic Sen. Mark Warner said: "The additional responsibility on the Federal Reserve, I believe, IS A STEP TOO FAR. My other concern is rooted in the philosophy of this country, WHICH I THINK HAS QUITE HONESTLY SERVED US WELL. That philosophy is that too much economic power placed in one place PUTS OUR (entire) SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT AT RISK". Wow. This is the most serious intra-party dissent that President Obama will have to address.

"When elephants dance, the grass gets trampled (an old African saying). Well...we've got a trampled grass problem at this point. AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN SOLVE IT WITH BIGGER ELEPHANTS, WHETHER THOSE ELEPHANTS ARE REGULATORS OR INSTITUTIONS" including the people sitting in offices at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. So it looks like Sen. Warner is siding with the GOP on this one.

According to a statement written in The Washington Post by Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and National Economic Council director Larry Summers, "Like all financial crises, this crisis is a crisis of CONFIDENCE and TRUST. Reassuring the American people that our financial system will be better CONTROLLED is critical to our economic recovery". Once again, Republicans will denounce "control".

According to an anonymous senior administration official, "Our goal is to get it done this year", but will it, given all the opposition from Republicans and at least one Democrat?

There are also strong objections from experts not on Capitol Hill. According to David Hirschmann, CEO for capital markets competitiveness at the American Chamber of Commerce, "WE NEED TO (completely) OVERHAUL THE SYSTEM. We hope (that) the administration has not listened to those WHO ONLY WANT TO TINKER WITH THE EDGES. We believe it is the best for our long-term recovery to emerge from this crisis WITH A COMPREHENSIVE OVERHAUL AND MODERNIZATION of the regulatory system. If not now, then when should Congress take the time necessary to get it right rather than to move in a piecemeal fashion THAT WILL ONLY MAGNIFY THE WEAKNESSES OF THE CURRENT STRUCTURE ADD BANDAIDS AND NEW LAYERS OF REGULAGTION TO A BROKEN SYSTEM".

Finally, Gerard McCoy of RBC Capital is worried about "an OVERACTIVE and OVERINTERVENTIONIST government (that) COULD REALLY STIFLE ECONOMIC GROWTH".

This is yet another damning criticism of Mr. Obama's latest proposal, but, oddly enough, the opposition from these industry experts shouldn't be his top concern. Nor should he be particularly concerned about the opposition from House Minority Leader Boehner BECAUSE REPUBLICANS HAVE OPPOSED OBAMA ON ALMOST EVERY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE. The president should be focusing on quelling dissent WITHIN HIS OWN PARTY. This time, he has to overcome the objections of Sen. Mark Warner.