Economic Bust in Australia:Near-Record Corporate Bankruptcies, Employment Drops Unexpectedly; Rise in Bad Home Loans;Record Low Property Transactions
Australia Real Estate Bulls Trot Out Every Cliché Known To Man
INFLATION? Just Look At All The Deflation All Around You
Two Trends in Global Poverty
Needed: Plain Talk About the Dollar
Chart: The Recession by Race
Justice Department, SEC investigations often rely on companies’ internal probes
Where the jobs are, and aren't
Stuck in a post-crisis gloom
GE Joins Intel to Advise Obama as Overseas Holdings Expand
When Austerity Fails
Private Sector Lifts Grads' Job Outlook
As Lenders Hold Homes in Foreclosure, Sales Are Hurt
Why the GOP wants to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It can't be because Republicans have been the main beneficiaries of campaign contributions from banks. No, not that.
There can be only two possible reasons for Republican lawmakers' steadfast opposition to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
One: Maybe not a single GOP member of Congress has ever had a problem with his or her bank, credit cards, mortgage or car loan, and thus sees no need for additional oversight of financial institutions.
Or two: Maybe GOP lawmakers are responding to the millions of dollars spent by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the financial services industry to undermine a new government agency intended to rein in abusive lending practices.
Man, there's a coin toss, right?
The Republican-controlled House Financial Services Committee voted to limit the power of the new agency by making it simpler for the bureau's decisions to be reversed by other regulators and by replacing its director with a more easily influenced five-member commission.
While the GOP-backed bills are likely to die in the Democratic-controlled Senate, they highlight Republicans' unyielding opposition to providing consumers with new protections from rapacious banks.
"Some have characterized these measures as an attack on the CFPB, but I couldn't disagree more," said Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va), who heads the financial institutions and consumer credit subcommittee. "These bills are an effort to make sure that Congress is doing its job and there is a watchdog for the watchdog."
Um, no. These bills are nothing but a shameless attempt to prevent that watchdog from doing its job. And if banks are keeping their noses clean, they have nothing to worry about.
It's not surprising that Republican lawmakers are doing their darnedest to shield banks from additional scrutiny. In the 2010 campaign cycle, individuals and political action committees associated with banks gave nearly $19 million to federal candidates, committees and parties, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
The vast majority of that money made its way to GOP recipients, the center found.
What is surprising is that Republican voters aren't raising a ruckus over their representatives' naked pandering to the money club. Differences in political ideology aside, I'm sure rank-and-file conservatives have just as much hassles with banks as anyone else.
So why aren't they telling their lawmakers to stop shilling for the industry?
Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, an advocacy organization, said he thinks conservatives simply have no idea what their reps are up to.
"Financial reform isn't on the front page anymore, so Republican voters are unaware that their elected officials are carrying water for the Wall Street banks again," he said. "If they knew, they'd probably be outraged."
Also, the GOP has done a masterful job of misdirecting party members into thinking that this isn't about safeguarding consumers from greedy banks but instead is an example of government regulation run amok.
As I reported last year when talk of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was just getting serious, Republican pollster Frank Luntz had concocted talking points for conservatives aimed at reshaping the debate over a new watchdog agency.
"We don't need another federal government agency," he advised lawmakers to say. "We don't need bigger government. What we need is a better approach that promotes accountability, responsibility and effective oversight."
To which I say: If existing regulators were up to the task of keeping consumers safe, there'd be no need for a new agency. They aren't. So there is.
Simple as that.
No comments:
Post a Comment