More Weigh In on Treasury’s Proposal for OFC

The following is reaction to the Treasury Department's "Blueprint for a Modernized Financial Regulatory Structure," which endorses an optional federal charter system for insurance.  
 
"The current regulatory structures make serving insurance customers across the country complicated, costly and cumbersome. Increasingly, insurance challenges are also national and international in scope. In the 21st century, we should be able to do better for our customers." -- Ed Rust Jr., chairman and chief executive officer, State Farm  
 
"The sub-prime crisis happened under federal regulation at the same time that the insurance industry, which is under state regulation, remained on a firm financial footing while achieving record profits. The insurance industry is solvent, strong and well regulated at the state level. It needs to stay that way." -- Robert Page, president, National Association of Professional Insurance Agents  
 
"(The state regulatory system) can be confusing, time-consuming and inefficient. A single regulator will simplify the insurance process and allow our members to focus on their principal duties of protecting and serving our country." -- Brian Conklin, vice president of federal government relations, USAA  
 
"If the (federal) government wants to go into the business of regulating, they ought to be in the business of regulating. You have to take the whole kit-and-kaboodle, so to speak. An optional federal charter has not been a good design for banking, and it's a worse design for insurance." -- Kevin McCarty, Florida insurance commissioner  
 
"For those who support a more open and creative insurance market, this report is a major step forward. It's not perfect but, on insurance issues, it outlines a productive way forward." -- Eli Lehrer, senior fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute  
 
"Just as systemic risk cannot be neatly parceled along outdated regulatory lines, the overarching objective of investor protection can't be fully achieved if it fails to encompass derivatives, insurance, and new instruments that straddle today's regulatory divides. The proposed consolidation of responsibility for investor protection and the regulation of financial products deserves serious consideration as a way to better address the realities of today's markets." -- Christopher Cox, chairman, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission  
 
"Increased federal regulations are not the answer to our nation's current economic concerns. Like most Americans, I want market discipline — but the Congress cannot create that by needlessly empowering the Fed." -- U.S. Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J.  
 
"The reduction of costs associated with working with one regulator, not 50, would be reflected in the pricing of products. This would have the effect of reducing costs to the consumer, providing consistent agent licensing standards and continuing education requirements. Consumers and the insurance industry would all benefit significantly." -- Doug Mishkin, chairman, National Association of Independent Life Brokerage Agencies.  
 
"We must take care to preserve and respect the prerogatives of the states, which by law and long-standing practice are the acknowledged regulators of the insurance industry. Their experience in regulating our business is invaluable and would not be easily replicated at the federal level. Markets differ greatly from state to state and region to region, and this fact would make federal regulation problematic in its own way." -- David A. Sampson, president and CEO of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America  
 
"The risk management and commercial insurance buyer community has long supported the concept of an optional federal charter and believe that a regulatory system structured in the method proposed will provide an effective and m