. >> they want to leave ncua coverage? >> caller: they do, yes. >> i am not comfortable with that at all. are they making it up for a membership vote or are they just telling you? >> caller: no. it will be -- they are persuading us, but they did say it's definitely going to be up for a vote. >> vote no. >> caller: vote no? >> this is really odd timing. >> caller: yes. >> for a credit union to choose with people's insecurities, credit unions, almost none have failed anywhere. and to not have the safety net of the ncua, which is the credit union equivalent of fdic -- >> caller: that's right. >> i don't understand at all. what justification do they give for leaving the federal nest? >> caller: well, it's funny you say that, because, you know, in the letter they say they're going to be assessed a premium up to like $675,000. it says it's like .15% of all their insured shares. >> no. they should just pay the premium. >> caller: thank you. >> you know, the banking system is short on money because of all the failures of financial institutions and so ther

we already have the occ, the ots, the ncua, the fdic and the fed, so why not address the real problems with these agencies instead of creating another one? are we creating another agency or just another problem? one lesson that we learned is that bigger, uncoordinated government does not work when it comes to protecting consumers and regulating football institutions -- financial institutions. instead, it only creates more cracks, confusion and costs for the consumer. and what's the cost to the new bureaucracy? the new agency has the authority to level fees on consumers and businesses which amount to more indirect taxes. most of these folks didn't create the financial crisis. did walmart and our local 100-year-old community banks, churches or yourmber w gives you alan c no. but all could find themselves regulated and taxed by this new agency. another victim of this new bureaucracy is consumer choice. the agency can tell businesses what service products that they can offer certain consumers, and it can make financial decisions for american families which really is an insult to the majori

we already have the occ, the ots, the ncua, the fdic and the fed, so why not address the real problems with these agencies instead of creating another one? are we creating another agency or just another problem? one lesson that we learned is that bigger, uncoordinated government does not work when it comes to protecting consumers and regulating football institutions -- financial institutions. instead, it only creates more cracks, confusion and costs for the consumer. and what's the cost to the new bureaucracy? the new agency has the authority to level fees on consumers and businesses which amount to more indirect taxes. most of these folks didn't create the financial crisis. did walmart and our local 100-year-old community banks, churches or your plumber who gives you a payment plan create the mess? no. but all could find themselves regulated and taxed by this new agency. another victim of this new bureaucracy is consumer choice. the agency can tell businesses what service products that they can offer certain consumers, and it can make financial decisions for american families which re