Ronald L. Rubin:
Last Friday, President Trump signed an executive order listing “Core Principles” for reforming financial regulation, including the Democrats’ 2010 Dodd-Frank Act and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau it created. Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren could hardly object to some of the principles — for example, “prevent taxpayer-funded bailouts” or “empower Americans to make independent financial decisions and informed choices in the marketplace” — because she herself had previously expressed similar sentiments. So instead, she quickly accused Republicans of “rushing to unleash the big banks” and “gut the consumer agency that has forced banks to give $12 billion back to customers they cheated.”
It’s time to retire these slurs, which Democrats have used for five years to attack any Republican who criticizes the CFPB or suggests ways to fix it. The vast majority of Republicans are not billionaires, or even millionaires, but they are all consumers, and they don’t enjoy being defrauded any more than Democrats do. Understanding economics and opposing policies that harm rather than protect consumers do not make one a bank worshipper.
Democrats’ latest talking point, that the CFPB has forced banks to give $12 billion back to their customers, is incorrect for the same reasons as the myth that the bureau forced Wells Fargo to return $185 million to its victims. The bank actually paid less than $5 million to the millions of customers who had unauthorized accounts opened in their names; the remaining fines disappeared into various government black holes.
It’s no surprise that Democrats and the liberal media shamelessly perpetuate such obvious lies about the CFPB, since its leadership by an ostensibly irremovable director, funding outside the congressional appropriations process, and ideological hiring turned the bureau into a political rather than professional organization. Just this week, Paul Krugman wrote in his New York Times column that the Wells Fargo “scandal only came to light thanks to the bureau.” In fact, a Los Angeles Times article exposed the fraud in 2013, and the CFPB allowed it to continue for three years while the Los Angeles City Attorney and Comptroller of the Currency led investigations that produced the $185 million settlement.
Those who defend the CFPB status quo by extolling the bureau’s “mission” are almost as dishonest as Krugman. Their straw-man argument implies that Republicans are calling for the bureau’s elimination, a goal all but its most strident critics abandoned years ago. Furthermore, the bureau almost immediately strayed from its official mission of consumer protection into consumer advocacy. The 20th century taught us that advocates most of all should never be given absolute power.
CFPB supporters are outraged that President Trump might remove Director Richard Cordray before he completes his five-year term. But Cordray has been director since January 4, 2012. He remains in office only because his illegal recess appointment was followed by confirmation 18 months later as Democrats threatened to change Senate filibuster rules. The Supreme Court subsequently held the three other recess appointments President Obama made on January 4, 2012, unconstitutional. However one feels about Cordray, he’s served a full term.
How would Republicans “gut” the CFPB? Exclusive jurisdiction over debt-collection laws could be returned to the Federal Trade Commission, and non-discriminatory–lending laws to the Department of Justice. Arbitration regulations could be limited to ensuring clear and meaningful waiver disclosures. The CFPB’s mission could be restricted to “establishing guidelines for consumer disclosure” and “evaluating financial products to eliminate the hidden tricks and traps that make some of them far more dangerous than others.”
Lets see if liberal demacrats can think with the walnut sized brains without getting a migraine
The cfpb is a liberal boondoogle, period…
Maybe someone needs to take a 25000 volt cattle prod to that stuborn liberal jackass
Equifax. The silence on the right speaks volumes.
Before its massive data breach, Equifax fought to kill a rule allowing victims to sue
Don’t expect Congress to toughen standards after the Equifax mess
Equifax hired a music major as chief security officer and she has just retired
But not Richard Smith, the top CEO. Go figure.
Equifax should be burned to the ground—figuratively speaking, of course. Or maybe literally. The potential damage their negligence has done to ordinary, unsuspecting Americans could be incalculable. You don’t need to have consciously dealt with this company to have been made personally vulnerable by them. I just checked on myself. Even though I have never once dealt with Equifax, they tell me they likely allowed my personal financial data and critical identifying information to be stolen. I should closely watch my bank account, credit card statements, health insurance statements, etc etc. If money begins inexplicably vanishing, I should probably look into that. If somebody works using my SSN, or files for tax refunds using my SSN and name, I should look into that. For possible damages done, they will provide me with free credit monitoring and insurance for a year. All I have to do is sign on and provide information to them to add to yet another database. Of course, after a year, I’m on my own. Unless I pay for continued service and insurance. Yeah, right.
Consumer protections and financial sector regulation initiated during the Obama administration should be strengthened, not weakened. I really don’t give a damn if it puts a crimp in some corporation’s high stakes financial game. They need to be tightly regulated, because they can’t be trusted—a fact that has been repeatedly established with irrefutable evidence.
By the way, Trump’s list of “core principles” is totally devoid of meaningful specifics, in case anyone somehow missed the obvious. The man is a master of air guitar. It’s another Executive Order that says and does absolutely nothing.
Want to put a credit freeze in effect, to protect yourself from the consequences of the data breach? It will cost you from $5 to $10, payable to each of the three credit bureaus that already hold your data, ready to be stolen. Then, if you want to take out a loan, buy a car, etc, you can pay them each another $5 to $10 to remove the freeze. If you want it back on again afterward—yep, another $5 to $10 each. Payable with your credit card.
Which, of course, rewards the b-stards who collected your data and allowed it to be stolen in the first place.
Does anyone seriously believe this system doesn’t need more regulation?
Lifelock offers to protect you from the Equifax breach–by selling you services provided by Equifax
Symantic, of course, is also a provider of computer security software. If computers could be keep far safer from hackers—so that breaches like this were rare instead of routine—would that be good for their business?
This is why we need government regulation to protect the public. Anyone who believes private sector corporate America puts what’s good for the public at the top of their priorities list is seriously deluded. The thing at the top of their list is making money.
Equifax put up a website that allows concerned consumers—which at this point should include everyone with any sense—to check if it’s likely that their data was lost in the recent hack. THE SECURITY OF THAT WEBSITE ITSELF IS QUESTIONABLE. When you check the URL on Norton’s Safe Web, it indicates it’s “OK” so far as viruses and such go. HOWEVER, they include the following comment:
In other words, the line itself is digitally secure, but you don’t really know who is on the other end. To use the d-mn thing, you have to fill in your last name and the last six digits of your SSN. Did you ever give anyone the first three, for some similar purpose? Now you could be giving them the rest.
Seriously… Is Equifax trying to scuttle their own ship? Or are they just really, really stupid? This company is probably doomed. They keep steering directly for the icebergs. And we’re all involuntary passengers.
I have only two words that are fit to say in public relevant to this situation: STRONGER REGULATION.