Since I came to Washington in 2003, I’ve noticed, much too often, the weird ways politics can twist and mischaracterize a person’s character and reputation. Still, it was a shock to see how a few lawmakers chose to portray Sarah Bloom Raskin at her nomination hearing before the Senate Banking Committee last week, especially since the Senate has confirmed her twice unanimously since 2010.
Time and again, several Republicans argued that Raskin was a danger to banks, the oil and gas sector and perhaps the economy at large. Their principal line of attack was that if confirmed as the Federal Reserve’s vice chair of bank supervision and regulation, she would use that position to force banks to stop lending to the fossil fuel industry — a charge Raskin repeatedly denied.
If Raskin were new to Washington, this line of criticism might be understandable. After all, when someone lacks a record, it’s hard to know how exactly they might act once confirmed to a top supervisory post. But what was so odd was that Raskin is hardly a stranger to D.C., Capitol Hill or banks. Indeed, she’s one of the most experienced bank regulators ever to be nominated. She has previously served as a state banking commissioner in Maryland, a Fed governor and as No. 2 at the Treasury Department.
I ought to know. As the former CEO and president of the Independent Community Bankers of America — a group that represents thousands of small banks nationwide — I worked with Raskin in all three of those roles. We worked on vital issues together, including on temporary and permanent financial crisis era programs. We didn’t always agree, but she was consistently willing to meet with me and community bankers to hear and consider our positions. I found her a reasonable, intelligent voice at Treasury and the Fed.
That’s why it’s so hard to square that first-hand experience with the portrayal of her last week. She was asked repeatedly if she would force banks to stop lending to oil and gas companies, and said no. “It is inappropriate for the Fed to make credit decisions and allocations. Banks choose their borrowers, not the Fed,” she said.
Her critics point to two articles she wrote last year as proof she didn’t mean this. In the
A few lawmakers appear not to believe Raskin’s assurances she won’t meddle directly in affairs at financial institutions, but I believe her, and so do my fellow bankers. After all, if she had any inclination to tell bankers what to do, surely she would have done so while at the Fed or Treasury previously. She didn’t because she knows and understands the role of a bank regulator.
At the hearing, Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., mentioned that he was “pleasantly surprised” that many community bankers in his state — including myself — had nice things to say about a Democratic regulatory nominee. That’s because we’ve worked with Raskin for years, and we know what kind of regulator she was and will be. While she will — rightfully, in my view — ensure that banks factor climate change into their risk analysis, she will not dictate who banks lend to.
The economy has been roiled by two financial crises in a little over a decade, so it’s more important than ever that the president select qualified nominees to top bank supervisory roles. Raskin easily clears this hurdle. She’s already shown us what kind of regulator she will be. The Fed, the financial services industry and the country will be well served if the Senate moves quickly to approve her nomination.
