Why not prosecute nonfeasant regulators?

Bank regulators referred 1,837 cases to the Justice Department in 1995. Starting in 2006, the average dropped to about 75 cases a year.

Ritholtz

This is more “Nonfeasance” — that is what I accused the Greenspan Fed of doing in Bailout Nation. It is also what the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency did and what the Office of Thrift Supervision engaged in.

They did not do a bad job in the discharge of their duties. THEY REFUSED TO DO THEIR JOBS AT ALL. They simply refused to discharge their legal obligations, because the people in charge did not believe, philosophically, in regulations.

Randian philosopy provides a convenient rationale for criminality, doesn’t it? (Alan Greenspan was of course not a Randian at all as he constantly interfered with the markets.) This process has continued under Obama. The policy is hands off the big banks, because after all, the government must protect its investment with them, even if it hurts the rest of the country.

If you want to understand why the public remains so angry about the bailouts, these facts are merely frosting on the cake. The bailouts work to prevent the government from fulfilling its duties as prosecutors. Once they get in bed with banks, they refuse to do anything to “harm” that investment.

And the public gets angrier and angrier.

Clearly, this is corruption, and at the highest levels. Laws are deliberately not enforced so as to protect and enrich a tiny few who continue to loot the government, aided and abetted by that very same government.