The authors are arguing for repealing Titles I, II, and VIII of Dodd-Frank. So, what do those titles do, and what are the practical consequences to an American consumer, of repealing them?

Title I created the Financial Stability Oversight Council, as described above. Repealing it increases the likelihood of big banks taking on more risks without facing regulatory oversight, potentially leading to increased instability in the financial system. This means a greater risk of taxpayer-funded bailouts, which affects consumers’ access to credit, loans, and savings, and causes job losses, reduced home values, and losses in retirement savings.

Title II provided the orderly liquidation framework. Without it, the government might revert to bailouts using taxpayer money to rescue failing institutions, instead of letting them fail in a controlled way. Conversely, if the banks are allowed uncontrolled failures, this could see consumers finding their bank accounts frozen or losing access to funds if their bank collapses. If this becomes common, customer trust in the financial system will erode, potentially leading people to withdraw their money from banks, which in turn could lead to financial panics.

Title VIII provided regulators the authority to supervise and regulate the systems that handle the processing of trillions of dollars in transactions daily, ensuring the smooth transfer of money and securities between banks. Repealing this would lead to reduced oversight, increasing the risk of disruptions in payment, clearing, and settlement processes. It could lead to delays or failures in transactions, affecting everything from stock trades to everyday debit card purchases.

The bottom line is, as always, that deregulation is good for corporations; bad for people.

Full contextual analysis of Section 4.2: Department of the Treasury here.