Leave your feedback Share Copy URL https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/obamas-regulatory-reform-plan-stirs-mixed-reaction Email Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Tumblr Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Transcript Gwen Ifill speaks with a banking expert and an economist about what the administration's plans for reforming financial oversight mean for businesses and consumers alike. Read the Full Transcript Notice: Transcripts are machine and human generated and lightly edited for accuracy. They may contain errors. GWEN IFILL: In spelling out his proposal today, the president said he was trying to find the right balance between tougher regulation, consumer protection, and the power of the free market. The question is: Did he strike that balance?We ask two people who studied the new proposal today. Paul Krugman, professor of economics at Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School and a columnist for the New York Times, and Diane Casey-Landry, chief operating officer and executive vice president of the American Bankers Association.Diane Casey-Landry, we just heard what Christina Romer had to say about what your initial response was. Do you think that the president went far enough or too far? DIANE CASEY-LANDRY, American Bankers Association: I think we'd say the president went too far. We think there are certain aspects of the proposal that are absolutely correct. Dealing with systemically significant institutions is overdue and something that needs to be done, but the creation of a new agency to burden our system that's already overburdened we don't think is appropriate. GWEN IFILL: In response to Judy's question, Christina Romer said that there had been a lot of consultation. Just curious: Did the president talk to you about this or anybody in the White House? DIANE CASEY-LANDRY: Absolutely. We had several conversations with the White House, as well as the Treasury Department. They were very open and were soliciting of comments and feedback. GWEN IFILL: OK, Paul Krugman, to you. Too far or not far enough?PAUL KRUGMAN, columnist, New York Times: Oh, not far enough, which is sort of the predictable thing for me to say, right? Ideally, I would like to see something even stronger. I would like to have seen it really tackle the issue of compensation schemes in the financial industry, because basically we've had an industry where people have gotten rich, you know, by making huge mistakes, but which look good for a short time, and they didn't really address that.But the main thrust of it looks very good. I have to say, one thing that I was concerned about was whether this Consumer Financial Protection Agency would be toothless, but the opposition of people like Diane's organization makes me believe that it's not such a bad idea after all.