Bank Bailout Bill’s Potentially Unconstitutional Racial and Gender Quotas
by Brian DarlingThe President is expected to sign the financial overhaul bill today, yet he might want to pause a moment to consider not signing this bill because of the potentially unconstitutional racial and gender preference provisions buried in the massive bill.
Four members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights have signed a letter complaining that Section 324 of the conference report titled the “Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act” “includes a section on race and gender that even those who pride themselves on keeping up with national affairs may have failed to notice.” This provision, which can be found on page 172 of the conference report, may lead to unconstitutional racial and gender preferences being forced on financial institutions covered by the new law.
As the Becker-Posner blog argues, this over 2000-page long bill is “complex, disorderly, politically motivated, and not well thought out reaction to the financial crisis that erupted beginning with the panic of the fall of 2008.” One of the critiques leveled by Gary Becker and Richard Posner is that “the bill adds regulations and rules about many activities that had little or nothing to do with the crisis.” It is clear that the lack of racial and gender preferences had nothing to do with the financial meltdown in the fall of 2008. Section 342 is a special interest provision that has no relevance to financial services reform and may lead to this law being deemed unconstitutional by the courts.
The letter from members of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was signed by Commissioners Peter Kirsanow, Ashley Taylor, Gail Heriot, and Todd Gaziano. In the letter these experts in civil rights law explain that the legislation “requires that each covered agency establish an ‘Office of Minority and Women Inclusion’ responsible for ‘all matters of the agency relating to diversity in management, employment, and business activities.’” This law will empower federal bureaucrats to issue rules and regulations governing the financial sector of the economy, if those businesses are doing any work for the federal government.
The Commissioners further argue that these new bureaucrats will be empowered to shall “’develop standards’ for ‘assessing the diversity policies and practices of entities regulated by the agency’ and ‘develop and implement standards and procedures to ensure, to the maximum extent possible, the fair inclusion and utilization of minorities, women, and minority-owned and women-owned businesses in all businesses and activities of the agency.” According to the letter, this new mandate will cover “financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants and providers of legal services.” If these institutions are doing business with the government, newly minted bureaucrats will be allowed to study the racial and gender composition of these covered entities work forces to search for companies with not enough minorities and women in a decision making capacity.
The commissioners are not the only ones to notice this offensive provision. Diana Furchtgott-Roth of the Manhattan Institute wrote for Real Clear Markets that
“I was searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America’s financial industry.”
The major media has ignored this important issue, yet this issue may cause some expensive litigation for companies alleged to engage in racial or gender discrimination without any court finding, but merely some bureaucrat deeming them not to be in compliance of the new law.
This legislation does not merely set up one bureaucracy, but it will be a jobs program for those who specialize in forcing racial and gender quotas on private enterprise. Furchtgott-Roth points out that “the Treasury, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Federal Housing Finance Agency, the 12 Federal Reserve regional banks, the Board of Governors of the Fed, the National Credit Union Administration, the Comptroller of the Currency, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…all would get their own Office of Minority and Women Inclusion.” As the financial sector outsources to other nations and contracts without this new regulatory stranglehold known as Financial Services Reform, the federal government will have established a new jobs program to further expand the size and scope of the federal government.
The Commissioners further argue:
The potential for abuse should be obvious, but sadly sometimes it is not to those who are unfamiliar with the workings of governmental and corporate bureaucracies. All too often, when bureaucrats are charged with the worthy task of preventing race or gender discrimination, they in fact do precisely the opposite: Consciously or unconsciously, they require discrimination by setting overly optimistic goals that can only be fulfilled by discriminating in favor of the groups the goals are supposed to benefit. Those who are regulated by, or do business with, a federal agency are understandably eager to please that agency. When the agency says, “Jump!,” they know the financially smart response is, “How high?,” not “We’re concerned that your diversity goals cannot be achieved without tilting the playing field in favor of one group or another—something we believe the law and the Constitution forbid.”
At a minimum, President Obama needs to pause before signing this massive new regulatory regime for the financial sector to make sure that he is not violating his oath to the Constitution of the United States.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
64 Comments
"At a minimum, President Obama needs to pause before signing this massive new regulatory regime for the financial sector to make sure that he is not violating his oath to the Constitution of the United States."
Now that's funny!! Pause? The man will be running to sign anything degrading the Constitution of the United States
This bill is very much against the American Constitution, and pushes us over the hill towards full blown socialist/fascist economic system. It needs to be opposed and overturned.
Every word out of his mouth at the signing ceremony was a lie. We can expect only more of the same from our Liar in Chief.
and EVERY Republican that voted for this needs to be recalled….
There will be MUCH to do for Patriots to roll back the agenda of our POS-POTUS over the next 20 years.
Where are those darn feminist groups opposing such a measure? By golly, woman shouldn't need extra help (mandate) in obtaining a job in which they are most qualified to fill. Isn't it all about equality? Level playing field etc? Or is it really not about women, but downgrading men? I get confused with all of the "special" needs of these type of groups.
Or required to take a course in the Constitution. The Constitution I've read is pretty easy to understand, but then again, I'm just one of them there common folk who done don't know the complexities of being an elitist who done did sold thems soul to the devil.
The Constitution? What's that for?
Patriots? Sounds like a racist football team.
LMAO. Barack Hussein Obama II, aka Barry Soetoro, aka Barack/Barry Duhnam may not be an Article III president. As I see it, we have an illegal alien occupying the white house. Moreover, every bill and legal document signed by Mr. Obama maybe false, and require nullification. Hence, a Constitutional crisis. Until he proves otherwise, Barack Hussein Obama's a usurper, and fake!
NAACP, SPREADING HATE, DIVISION, AND RACISM
The 10 commandments are pretty easy to understand too… look how much trouble libs have with those.
Add another bill to de-fund and kill when common sense finally gets into the white house.
Repeal it. One way or the other, the majority in this country will bring this mockery back to center.
It might take 20 years, but I agree with you. This will not stand.
The bill also created a new Bureau for Consumer Protection inside the Federal Reserve that includes : Office of Fair Lending and Equal Opportunity and Office of Financial Literacy .
WTF?
Asking the Liar in Chief to pause is like asking the MSM to report the news.
That's because the libs are the ones that like to give out the "commands".
Equality (of outcome) is now mandatory.
Lefties love the sound of that, because lefties have no idea what it really means.
LOL! You're spot on. However, it isn't just the libs…there are many a republican that can't grasp the meaning of the ten commandments.:)
OFF TOPIC: Oops….. alWhore has sprouted another BIMBO ERRUPTION !
Is the Left using poor Al as a decoy, releasing these sordid details of his private life
whenever we knock them back on their heels?
Equality of misery. Like North Korea.
Or even worse, the equality of Frenchiness, like in France.
/I kid. I'm a kidder.
Girls just go wild when they catch a whiff of his ozone cologne.
O3. By Calvin Klein.
Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. hehe
Those dam feminist groups are cut from the same old ragged cloth as the NAACP. They exist to divide us into neat little groups that NEED THEIR HELP. This garbage in this bill helps to maintain the divisiveness while creating even more worthless government jobs.
The only females that have enough brains not to buy this crap, are the Mama Grizzlies.
Deuse,
was it a voice vote, or can we find out who voted how?
Just like all the other legislation the libs have passed, it too will end up in court.
What an mental midget we have in the WH. He needs to look no farther than the guy who wrote the reform to find who is guilty for the financial meltdown.
If I was foolish enough to own a business in the US with this sort of political involvement, I would move it out of the country so fast I'd break the sound barrier.
and it's free! until the gov't figures out how to tax it.
If there's ever a pun tax, I'll have no choice but to go on welfare, or move to Finland.
I wonder if reindeer is kosher…
Colins, Snowe, and Brown……
if puns are outlawed only outlaws will be punished.
Very true — but I would say the problem is worse with liberals.
Again…..why are we not surprised. Snowe is a ringer in every vote taken this year. But unfortunately the folks in Maine….the folks she's supposed to represent, either FEEL represented, or Snowe won't be back.
Colins and Brown…..Again, do the folks in their states feel betrayed or represented? They are the only ones who can answer that question or vote for or against them. Not my area. I got McCain to worry about and he's the only one I have any say over.
No need to dig up possible racism stories that are difficult to prove and hard to defend like Ms Shirley Sherrod when such obvious cases can be found that are much more relevant than the NAACP.
Looks like MS. Sherrod may have wrote this herself, why should the welfare state be 90% or higher white? The real question is why should it exist at all.
“I was searching the bill for a provision about derivatives. What did I find but Section 342, which declares that race and gender employment ratios, if not quotas, must be observed by private financial institutions that do business with the government. In a major power grab, the new law inserts race and gender quotas into America’s financial industry.”
Racial profiling as law…is this the 1934 nuremburg laws!!!???
I hope that JacksonPearson, above, is right! I hope that Obama is found to be an Illegl Alien or found to be in power by committing Fraud. Then we can nullify ALL of the Toxic Triumverate's Bills, Obama/Pelosi/Reid;
who had great support from the other Toxic Triumverate: Brown/Snowe/Collins. Bye.
Thanks for the Socialist Lessons guys. Now prepare for the response.
Did someone say that the Tea Party Caucus was certified today? Yeay! under Michele Bachmann? Uh Which way is the train to D.C? Michele Bachmann for President! ——
and Paul Brown (R) Georgia, would be a GREAT Candidate for V.P! —–
I heard him speak today. He believes in everything good: Lower Taxes & spending, smaller Govt., Constittional Govt, Private Rights, and Free Markets! Uh, I would add, NO SOCIALISM!
Unconstitutional-? Great, let's bring on the lawsuits and bog the whole process down to a screeching halt.
Challenge…name the group…contributions
It is time for Constitutionalists who believe in founding principles to fund organizations to challenge Statist/Leftist legislation in the courts. Obviously, there are organizations who do this; however, the American public is generally not aware of them; none have the kind of name recognition that the ACLU enjoys. It is long past time to change that!
From the article "…they require discrimination by setting overly optimistic goals that can only be fulfilled by discriminating…"
Clarence Thomas had it right when he said something similar in rejection of this approach. "the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race"
I suspect the progressive mantra would be 'we had to discriminate in order to end discrimination' Absolutely nuts.
This governement's toilet paper has the Constitution printed on it and is in every bathroom stall in the Capitol and the WH. November and 2012 cannot come soon enough.
Everything this man does is against the Constitution!!!! IMPEACH, IMPEACH!!!
Good bye Capitalism, it was nice knowing you and thanks for the freedoms you gave me!
If you want to know why this is happening read "Ayn Rand – Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal"! It will BLOW your mind! What she wrote back then is going on right now!
What we need is "Laissez-Faire Capitalism" not more Socialism!
The reason everything is fucked right now is because of government intervention!
On a side note –
Did Feds Shut Down 73,000 Blogs, and Why? http://www.politicsdaily.com
A Web-hosting firm says it was ordered by a law enforcement agency to shut down Blogetry.com, a free platform used by over 70,000 bloggers, but a company spokesman won't say why or who is responsible for the termination of service.
Now that's not fair! Remember he paused for about 4 months when he was "thinking about" McCrystal's troop request.
Dept. of Redundancy Dept.
at least the ones in government should be taught at least one of the commandment, hmmmmmmmm, I know!!! Lets teach them the one about stealing being wrong!!!!
Possible Crazy White(so therefore racist apparently) Guy question: Didn't this happen before during Bubba's reign of false prosperity?
Hey lets lend money to people with their hands out who can't afford to pay it just because of what they look like?
Black Panthers on the TV yelling kill white babies, laws giving jobs to people based on sex and race, laws lending money to people based on race and sex, 60% of all news dealing with racial issues.
What is this the 60's?
I read somewhere that racist Maxine Waters had these racist quotas put into the bill.
Most of the racists we see are black, not white. And they can no longer offer the excuse that they cannot be racists because they don't have the power. Obviously they do have the power and indeed we see that blacks are the biggest bunch of racists in the country.
We hear about killing "white cracker babies" from racist blacks.
We hear of blacks spitting into "whitey's soup"
Many of these radical black groups are as racist as the KKK. and some worse.
With a blackman in the Bleak House, it seems that the black terrorists and racists have been given the nod to act out their worst racism, and they are doing it.
The Clarence Thomases are the exceptions to black racism. Just look around and take it all in.
Racism, ie: anti-white racism is positively institutionalized in the Obama administration by the same race peddling victimologist coalition that put Obama in power and who use the race card to the nth degree as a means to an end.
“Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act”; just one more act in need of repeal
Yeah, I suppose I do feel a bit betrayed by Brown. He watered down the Volcker Rule by having language inserted that lets banks invest 3% of their assets in hedge funds. Otherwise, risks from proprietary trading underneath the FDIC umbrella (ie. taxpayers you, and me) would have been practially eliminated. Not that 38 Republicans cared about it.
McCain favors returning to Glass-Stegall. You?
..
Not really. Low short term interest rates, teaser option-ARM loans and the ability for banks to both sell mortgages and buy credit default swaps were features of Bush's years.
Your comment about lending to those who can't afford is way off the mark. The Bill forces banks who underwrite crap mortgages to keep 5% of their garbage, a disincentive to screwing over both borrowers who really can't afford them and screwing over the bondholders those mortgages get securitized into.
Big Government and Mr. Darling want you to think reform was all about race. Otherwise, they would have addressed this Bill head on, and lost. Go fry another NAACP fish. The party you'll probably support in November is the party of Wall Street free-market crime.
Hey Cog,
I'm still not FULLY convinced Brown is acting against HIS constituents. After all their Senator was Kennedy so he may be following the will of the majority? Hard to say.
As for McCain, there is little he says or does I believe. He's for amnesty unless he's against it, for big spending unless he's against it. Pick the issue….he's been on both sides of all of them. Whatever pays the old jet fuel bill.
That said I am NO LAWYER and have no REAL understanding of Glass-Stegall. Without a clear understanding of what the bill says, does, and unintended consequences of it, I can only view his support of it through my REAL understanding of his past behavior, which is fish out of water territory…..flip……flop……flip……flop.
Hayworth is little better so while your choice with Brown was, I think, a shrewd campaigner walkin the walk and drivin the truck scam to get elected by gullible voters who wanted so much to believe Brown was a true Tea Party politician…..my choice is dumb and dumber.
I had a long chat with NOQUARTER who put things in a different perspective for me. What it boiled down to is between two evils, choose neither. Choose for the long term betterment of the country so I'll probably go with the Tea Party candidate and screw the two party guys.
I've heard lots of folks talk about Glass-Stegall and, dumb ole me, I still don't really understand it or why everyone thinks it's the worst thing on the planet or the answer to life, the universe, and everything.
What's YOUR take on it cause I really don't know. And big bills, big laws fraught with hidden regulation, cost, and unintended consequences should NOT be for amateurs. I'll take any help I can get figuring out the right call on that one.
A great day getting it done for America. President Obama signed into law a Bill that:
-Establishes more orderly liquidation of failed banks and non-banks
-Broadens the proven FDIC powers to remove threats from the financial landscape
-Caps debit card fees, restoring the freedom of gas stations and all other retailers to decide for themselves if they want to give discounts for cash, cap credit card transaction amounts, etc.
-Puts substantially all derivatives through clearing houses, where money must be set aside for price changes
-Puts substantially all derivatives on exchanges, where price transparency will let farmers know when they're being raped by the bid and ask spread.
-Gets the credit default swaps we spent ~64 billion (13 to Goldman) on to clean up AIG taken off bank books and placed into toxically isolated subsidiaries (Lincoln amendment)
-Implements a fairly tough Volcker Rule that, thanks to Democratic Senators Merkley and Levin, won't be subject to the whims of some Executive branch clown.
Apart from the other Democratic ornamental crap, this Bill did a lot…FINANCIALLY.
TexasStomp,
Correct. Brown needed to moderate to have a prayer in the 2012 election. MA is ~12% Republican and majority independent. Coakley left a lot on the table with her campaign when she went on vacation after a tough primary, didn't hire a pollster and chose not to debate Brown. She was indeed aloof in the classic Democratic sence.
There was no other major legislation Brown could jump the isle on (Health care / Carbon?) and not loose more of the right.
Glass-Stegall addressed the classic conflict of interest where a bank CEO has the job of taking care of both a depositors money and his shareholders. If he serves the depositor, he stays conservative, makes safe loans, etc. If he serves his shareholder, or owns a part of the bank himself, he will tend to put the depositors money at more risk to reward his shareholder/himself. That is why in the 1930's Senators Glass and Stegall broke the banks up between investment houses (start up money for businesses) and commercial banks (deposits/loans). GLB repealed that Act in 1999.
Ok….
Here's what I "think" I think so far. I see the conflict of interest and it actually hurts both parties. Lose lose. Plus bank regulation, even after this latest bill, doesn't really promise to put teeth in regulating risky investment behavior.
One thing I do know not usually discussed is the percentage of total cash assets any bank can "play" with. I know in France and I think the EU, not certain, that banks can only speculate with 3% of their "free assets" whereas here I think it's closer to 7%. Limiting that percentage could help.
Also….and I'm gonna catch hell for this….but this TOO BIG TO FAIL is BS. Investors lose money all the time on high risk investments so protecting them after the fact when you have laws that allow bankers to engage in high risk behavior is dumb.
Failure is a wonderful teacher for everyone burned by it. Invest in banks that don't engage in high risk behavior like derivatives and hedge funds and other entities. They have to report it in their stock holder's report. Read those reports and decide if you want to let a bank roll the dice with your money. ACCOUNTABILITY IS KEY.
nobody should be too big to fail.
I don't really know why cause I don't really understand the nuance between banks and investment banks….but just a gut feeling….I don't like gov't interference in the free market…if it's really FREE. That said, I don't like the blurring of lines between banks straight up, and "investment" banks.
We gave up trying to understand macro economics and investment lingo. Just not gonna happen. So all our banking is done with a locally owned STATE bank. No big institutional banking for us. We have a long history…..40+ years with the owners, and frankly we keep as liquid as possible and have for the past 25 years. The market is manipulated these days to the extent that I just don't feel average investors have a chance in hell other than using the long term buy and hold with a 4-5 star mutual fund. And then 10% will probably be what they gain over a life time of investment. We're in property. Less risk. Less micromanagement. And it never goes to zero. Even if it burns to the ground….dirt don't burn, lol.
Does Glass Stegall prevent banks from high risk lending practices in today's world?
Does Glass Stegall prevent the TOO BIG TO FAIL crap of past years?
If so…I'm for it. If not….what good is it? The problems are coming from the behaviors above so does GS even matter?
The 5% retention rate on riskier mortgages has teeth
The mandatory licensing of mortgage brokers has teeth. Something like 10+ thousand in Florida's mortgage industry had a criminal record, I read this week.
RE: TBTF is BS.
Yes, investors do loose money all the time and should go bankrupt for their folly, but consider that unlike banks investors don't lend $14 for every $1 they have (7% capital requirement). When a bank looses so much as $2 of a loan portfolio like that, they are insolvent and have wiped out their capital. This is why they are subject to "bigger government" and should be.
Bank financials are notoriously complex. I'm an analyst, trust me on this one. If the government has to resort to asking Goldman to provide them a list of swap counterparties who would have paid them, had AIG's obligations not been paid by the US government, tells me it would be impossible to just go over the notes to Goldman's financials and sort this stuff out. It is simply not there and that is what explains why banks stocks trade below book. Nobody can figure them out, or trusts them.
The constitution never said we could compel the Goldman's of the world to tell us what they're up to. That happened as an eligability requirement to trade on a public exchange. Financial statement requirements were a governmental, non-free market, imposition and more recently banks, enron, worldcom, etc. are all instances of an attempt to get away from that. I like those arguably un-constitutional laws and think they advantaged the little guy, built trust, enhanced US investment and went a ways toward creating our middle class.
Investment lingo has gotten intense. I don't think the market is as manipulated as you do, though. On the contrary, the lack of good information and amount of politics people are imposing over good investment decisions has made the market very inefficient. You can spot Republicans and Democrats too easily these days within the market commentary and that's creating fear and fog over what's really happening.
RE: Glass Stegall preventing big risks and TBTF: Tough question. There's no silver bullet. Seperation is the only final way, in my opinion. Fin Reg gives a start by separating swaps from FDIC bank subsidiaries, placing derivatives on exchanges, placing restrictions on trading on the FDIC covered firm's own account, expanding FDIC coverage to non-banks (like AIG). These things should also be more transparent to investors/analysts. Pricing histories will be a matter of public record and price gouging of farmers and other former participants of the cloak and dagger OTC derivatives markets will be much more difficult.
I think the 5% retention, if enforced, is a strong disincentive to making loans you know are likely to go bad. Being able to skim off the top "sell off" the risk and pass things on has to slow down. The game will always be to put a new acronym dress on it and speed it back up. So, the takeaway will also remain not to buy it if you don't trust it, or can't figure it out.
Cog……
You'll need to sit down for this one….just a FYI
HOW SAD, LAME, AND UTTERLY PATHETIC IS IT THAT I READ YOUR POST THREE TIMES AND STILL CAN'T DECIDE WHETHER YOU AGREED WITH ME OR EVEN WHAT WE DECIDED ABOUT GLASS STEGALL..BWAHAHAHAHA!
GOD…Just tell me what I think about Glass Stegall…..hell I'll take ANYONE'S word for it rather than have to read another economic article, LOLOL!
Oh, one more thing I am pretty suspicious about at least, Cog. You say the market isn't being manipulated. And we may each mean two different things by the word "manipulated." Let me give you the reason I am "suspicious" of what's going on.
Two comments in the news by "talking heads" on separate networks within a relatively short time just seemed TOO COINCIDENTAL to me to be reeely good guesswork.
It's been a couple of weeks ago. And both were just thrown out in the course of interviews, okay…not a formal address or report.
Statement one:
"I don't think gold is over priced. I've seen it go as $1248 per ounce.
BA DA BING next day, the VERY next day gold close at $1248 per ounce.
The other "coincidence" I really can't remember the specifics of but it had to do with one of the indexes. A talking head again delivered a "contrarian" prediction on a rise or fall, said he would not be surprised if the index rose to an EXACT CLOSING FIGURE ( which I of course can't remember) but again
BA DA BING….NEXT DAY THAT INDEX, AGAINST ALL BUT ONE PREDICTION, ROSE TO THAT EXACT CLOSING FIGURE.
That crap don't happen without some sort of insider info. That or those two should be gazillionaires for making TO THE PENNY predictions.
These are not isolated, dumb luck events. I have been watching for nearly two years and the STARTLING ACCURACY with which some of these "predictions" come to be is waaaay beyond any kind of reasonable "chance" at all.
Also when these "coincidences" occurred, I noticed there was a HUGE MOVE IN OTC activity in both gold and that index. If it isn't manipulation directly, it's a more cynical kind of manipulation by suggestion. The lemming effect. Still, who can predict, more than once, the exact to the penny effect of a real lemming rush over a cliff or up a hill?
Like I said….these guys are either not maximizing their "preternatural" guessing ability to get richer than God, or they're causing the effect they desire, or know someone who is or will.
my story and I'm stickin to it, lol. Either way I'm out till I see at least a return of an honest invers dollar to gold ratio and normal swings up and down in the indexes.
How bout this. I believe the banks need to be broken up and Glass Stegall did that. So, I believe in Glass Stegall as a means to break banks up. Accept for McCain, that solution has been offered by progressives. Brown-Kaufman was going to break them up, but got only 33 votes (3 republican).
You said "I think the market is manipulated so that individual investors don't have a chance in hell". to which I replied, I didn't think the market was "AS manipulated, as you do". Hedge funds probably are driving the gold price. There's so little gold relative to all the world's currency that I believe it doesn't take much to drive its price up.
I'm not saying the market isn't manipulated. Shoot, my biggest example is oil and how BA DA BING the price would go up when an investment bank would release a "research" report that would suggest $200 oil was right around the corner.
You know how that works? Well, the higher oil's price, the more fund raising and fee generating those same investment banks can do to do things like extract it from sand….
But even these guys get it wrong, badly, sometimes. Value investing is the way to go. Low P/E's, like Ford, etc. My opinion only.
You must be logged in to post a comment.