House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas (R-Calif.)has been painted as a villain by some in the credit union industryfor his obvious interest in the credit union tax-exemption, whichcame to a head last year with a hearing on the matter in hiscommittee. I have never viewed Thomas as a villain. This is acongressman who not only looked at the tax-exemption of creditunions, but of other nonprofits, such as hospitals. Thomas alsomade what I thought to be very reasonable comments about creditunions during and after the hearing. This did not seem like acongressman hell bent on getting credit unions taxed. The infamoushearing led to NCUA's current data collection effort, which was apositive development in my eyes, and Thomas is the one who made ithappen. Credit unions should be able to document how they areserving the underserved. Yes, I know there is no perfect formula toshow all that credit unions do, but the ball has definitely startedrolling and over time I believe an appropriate collection methodwill come to light. So Thomas, despite his reputation, has neverhit my radar screen as a credit union antagonist. But that allchanged last week when Thomas showed his hand - showed that, forwhatever reason, he's targeting credit unions. Thomas wrote aletter to NCUA Chairman JoAnn Johnson expressing his concern aboutNCUA acting as a "cheerleader" for credit unions. Thomas cited aCredit Union Times' online story that quoted NCUA Board Member GigiHyland speaking to a group of California credit unions. Hyland (seepage 1 story) essentially said that credit unions should viewCongress' interest in seeing how credit unions are serving theunderserved as an opportunity for credit unions to tell their"feel-good" story of how they are helping people. Thomas wrote thatHyland's comments caused him great concern about NCUA's ability toconduct the data collection effort in an objective and independentway. Thomas, who is known as one of the brightest members ofCongress, should have called on that intelligence and thought alittle deeper before firing off this letter to NCUA. He states inhis letter, "We do not need a cheerleader collecting and analyzinginformation about whether credit unions are fulfilling goalsintended with their tax exemption. I ask that you be mindful ofyour role as an independent and objective regulator of creditunions as you move forward with your data collection project." Isthat so Mr. Chairman? Does this road go both ways or do bankingregulators get a pass on objectivity? Thomas is a very informedcongressman. Surely, he must know banking regulators haveegregiously crossed the bounds of objectivity time and time again.If NCUA is a cheerleader then the FDIC is a whole cheering section.I wonder what Thomas thought when former FDIC Chairman Don Powellcalled for credit unions to be taxed. What in the world does thathave to do with regulating banks? If that isn't being acheerleader, I don't know what is. When the banking regulator issaying the same exact thing banking trade associations are sayingabout credit unions, you have some serious cheerleading going on.Powell wasn't alone. Office of Thrift Supervision Director JohnReich, a board member of the FDIC, has also called for credit uniontaxation. Not very relevant to regulating banks, but bankers get apass for some reason. Maybe it's because the banking regulators aremore sophisticated than NCUA. No, that can't be it. Wasn't it thebanking regulators that were asleep at the switch during theS&L crisis? A crisis that cost taxpayers more than a $100billion. What about the commercial real estate problems that haveplagued the banking industry? And now the banking regulators aredoing all they can to bring bankers deeper into the real estateindustry. Smart, objective regulating? I doubt it. Let's play namethat speaker. Here goes: "All of us should have a common goal toensure that the next generation of the best and the brightest seecommunity banking as a vibrant, prosperous, and promising business...." Let's think about it. The speaker says all of "us" and usesthe word "prosperous" - that's a banker talking if I ever heard it.Is it America's Community Bankers President Diane Casey-Landry? Ormaybe American Bankers Association Chairman Harris Simmons? No,it's actually the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's JulieWilliams. Now that's cheerleader talk coming from a regulator.Thomas must have fired off a scathing letter to Ms. Williamscriticizing her objectivity. Maybe the OCC isn't as objective asThomas would like, but he hasn't bothered to criticize itsobjectivity-NCUA and the $700 billion credit union industry(smaller than the biggest bank Mr. Chairman) are on his mind.Here's another one: "In my past life, I worked hard on the SenateBanking Committee staff, at the Treasury Department, and in privatepractice to enable banks to compete vigorously to provide consumerswith the broad range of financial products and services theydemand, wherever they demand it." That's straight from the mouth ofComptroller of the Currency John Dugan. Sure doesn't sound likeDugan is objective. But that's OK, bankers get a pass. Maybe it'sbankers' record profits that impress Thomas. The banks are makingthe big bucks, charging the higher fees, let's leave them alone,and instead target the $700 billion credit union industry (stillsmaller than the largest bank). Credit unions are small nicheplayers that charge lower and fewer fees and pay better rates thanbanks, so they logically should be the ones scrutinized by Thomas.Now that Thomas has showed his hand, can we really expect him to beobjective in analyzing NCUA's data collection effort? I venture toguess no matter how good credit unions look in the data collectionpilot, Thomas may not be satisfied. Objectivity goes both ways Mr.Chairman, give NCUA and credit unions the fair shake they deserve.Or at least take the banking regulators to task for theircheerleading. One last thing, Thomas didn't interpret Hyland'scomments correctly. She was talking not about the data collectionpilot, but about anecdotal stories credit unions should tell todemonstrate further their "people helping people" philosophy. He ineffect misquoted her, which leads me to believe he didn't thinkthis through. -Comments? E-mail [email protected]