scott-bessent deregulation wall-street 3-3-3 treasury class-analysis follow-the-money

related: _Scott Bessent Master Profile · Goldman Sachs · The Wall Street-Schumer Funding Axis

donors: JPMorgan Goldman Sachs Citigroup

content-readiness:: ready


Wall Street Deregulation and the 3-3-3 Agenda

Money

Bessent’s “3-3-3” plan — 3% deficit, 3% GDP growth, 3 million barrels/day energy increase — is marketed as fiscal discipline. Its mechanism is Wall Street’s wish list: financial deregulation, weakened capital requirements, gutted consumer protections, and expanded private credit markets. The man who managed billions in speculative capital is now dismantling the regulatory framework that constrains speculative capital. The 3-3-3 plan is a macro hedge fund strategy applied to the Treasury — and the primary beneficiaries are the same class of fund managers Bessent spent his career among.


The Deregulation Agenda

Supplementary Leverage Ratio (SLR) overhaul: Bessent is restructuring SLR regulations to allow banks more lending and investment flexibility. Translation: banks can take on more risk with less capital reserve. This directly benefits large banks (JPMorgan, Goldman, Citi) and private credit firms by expanding their leverage capacity.

Community Reinvestment Act gutting: Proposed rescinding the 60,000-word CRA rule. The CRA requires banks to invest in low-income communities where they operate. Removing it frees banks from community lending obligations — a pure donor-class priority.

FSOC restructuring: Shifted the Financial Stability Oversight Council from precautionary oversight to “risk-based” approach. In practice: less preemptive regulation of systemically important financial institutions. The institutions that caused the 2008 crisis get lighter scrutiny.

Post-crisis rollback: Bessent has called post-2008 financial regulations “backward-looking” and “bureaucratic box-checking.” The regulations he targets were designed to prevent another financial crisis. Rolling them back benefits the financial institutions that fund Republican campaigns — and the hedge fund managers in Bessent’s professional network.


The 3-3-3 Beneficiary Map

”3-3-3” GoalMechanismWho Benefits
3% deficitCut discretionary spendingDefense contractors (protected), social programs (cut)
3% GDP growthDeregulation, energy expansionFinancial sector, fossil fuels, private equity
3M barrels/dayFederal land leases, permit accelerationOil/gas companies, energy investors

Tax positions:

  • Extend Trump tax cuts (disproportionately benefit top income brackets)
  • Eliminate taxes on tips (populist cover)
  • Eliminate taxes on Social Security benefits (retiree appeal)

Money

The 3-3-3 plan’s real innovation is packaging Wall Street deregulation inside fiscal conservatism. “Reduce the deficit” sounds responsible — but the deficit reduction comes from cutting social programs, not from taxing the financial wealth Bessent’s class accumulated. “Grow GDP” sounds universal — but the growth mechanism is deregulation that benefits the financial sector. “Increase energy” sounds productive — but the energy expansion serves fossil fuel investors. Every prong of the 3-3-3 plan serves Bessent’s class. The packaging makes it sound like it serves everyone else.


The $521 Million Conflict

Bessent’s disclosed assets exceed $521 million (estimates range $600–700M):

  • S&P 500 and Nasdaq ETFs: $50M+ each
  • U.S. Treasury bills: $50M+
  • Currency positions: $50M+ (dollar vs. euro, yuan, yen)
  • iShares Bitcoin Trust: $250K–$500K
  • North Dakota farmland: $5–25M (rental income up to $1M/year)
  • Real estate: Bahamas ($5–25M), North Carolina ($5–25M)

Ethics compliance failure: Bessent agreed to divest “at least two dozen assets” within 90 days (by April 28, 2025). As of August 2025, ethics watchdogs report he “failed to timely comply” — he had not reported selling even one asset. He requested extensions and exemptions.

Contradiction

The Treasury Secretary — whose decisions on interest rates, currency policy, and financial regulation directly affect asset values — holds $521M+ in financial assets he agreed to divest and then didn’t. His North Dakota farmland ($5–25M) generates income affected by the tariff negotiations he conducts. His currency positions ($50M+) are affected by the dollar policy he sets. The man responsible for the integrity of the financial system can’t comply with his own ethics agreement. The conflict of interest isn’t a bug — it’s the business model.


Sources