Replies

Sorry Geoff, but it's 2006 and "sources" just don't make an assumption true anymore.

I agree..

"Sources said" means nothing..
"It's obvious the NRA hasn't been pleased with the mayor's campaign against guns," a Senate aide said.
This may be true, but it does not, "ipso facto", make the allegation true...
"They wanted to do a little bit of political payback . . . They just killed it."
Again, allegation.. Who's "They" anyhow?? The russians??
The apparent revenge attack ...
Nothing "apparent" from where I sit.. Except a lot of rhetoric and allegation...

I'm sure Bloomberg has plenty of political enemies beside the NRA..
And I cannot readily identify what the connection would be between Gun Advocacy and Banking..

The NRA may be responsible due to Bloomberg's stance on guns, and his relationship with this woman, but aside from weak circumstantial connections, I see no hard evidence that the NRA had anything to do with it..

I'm sure if there is credit to be taken, however, there will be an editorial column in "American Rifleman"..

From BankLawyers Blog--there appear to be other reasons to oppose her:

White House To Nominate Diana Taylor To Head FDIC

Press reports today indicate that the White House will nominate New York State Banking Superintendent (and New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's "main squeeze") Diana Taylor as Chairman of the FDIC, succeeding Don Powell, who resigned to head federal reconstruction efforts to rebuild damage caused by this Fall's hurricanes. Today's American Banker newspaper (paid subscription required) reports that Taylor's nomination should be announced in January or February, following completion of the normal vetting process.

As the head banking regulator for the State of New York, Ms. Taylor has been a strong proponent of the dual banking system and of state's rights, and a foe of the federal preemption of state consumer protection laws. She had highly publicized confrontations with the OCC over its preemption regulations, particularly with respect to the extension of federal preemption principles to operating subsidiaries of national banks. In May, Ms. Taylor testified before the FDIC in opposition to a proposal for FDIC preemption of state law (see here for this blog's most recent post about the FDIC proposal). In that testimony, she made two especially telling statements: (1) "The solution is not to compound what the OCC started, by giving every State the right to pre-empt every other state." (2) "Furthermore, mortgage bankers and brokers and MSBs should not be permitted to hide behind the skirts of national banks. State regulators and laws should be able to protect their consumers."

Given the foregoing positions, it is reasonable to believe that she will not be a strong proponent of the FDIC's proposed preemption regulation. On the other hand, when a rider changes horses, she tends to adapt to the needs of the animal she's currently riding so as not to be bucked off. She understands that the OCC is not going to rescind its preemption regulations, and that the US Congress is not likely to override them. Therefore, like Don Powell, she may decide that for the survival of the dual banking system (and for the survival of the FDIC's role as the primary federal regulator of state-chartered, non-FRB-member banks), some form of federal preemption for state-chartered banks will be necessary.

If any more large state banks decide to convert to national banks or federal thrifts, the "market" may force her hand, notwithsatnding her natural inclinations.