... things have not gotten any better since he left office.
Under President Bush, federal prosecutions for financial crimes dropped precipitously. That is, perhaps, what you might expect. Bush the Younger was widely believed to be a “captured” administration, in the sense that the regulatees had taken over from the regulators. Moreover, we were in the middle of a bubblicious boom: wrongdoing was taking place, but the happy noises coming from the financial and housing markets covered that up.
That said, the scale of the change under Bush II is quite remarkable. His administration really was different from its predecessors.
Of course, you would expect that to all change in January 2009, after President Obama took office. The onset of the Great Recession had unmasked the malfeasance of the financial sector, public opinion had swung against them, and the new administration was free of the encumbrances of the old one.
Only it didn’t. Prosecutions have kept falling. Why?
Why wouldn't capture apply to the Obama administration as well? He received plenty of funding from wall street, no?
Posted by: Faeelin | November 18, 2011 at 12:10 AM
Because eight years of featherbedding and partisan pruning emptied the appropriate SEC, DOJ, Treasury, and FBI enforcement offices horribly short of personnel to bring financial crimes cases.
Posted by: The New York City Math Teacher | November 18, 2011 at 01:26 PM
And it's not like a single Republican will vote for the increased funding and reorganization needed to fix the situation.
Posted by: BMunro | November 19, 2011 at 12:44 PM
Way late to the discussion, but maybe someone is still reading.
@NYCMT: Not sure damage during the Bush years can explain a continued decline during the Obama years.
@BMunro: Since the Democrats controlled Congress during Obama's first two years, Republican attitudes aren't really relevant.
Posted by: King-Walters | December 17, 2011 at 01:18 PM