EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Who's Afraid of Elizabeth Warren?
The attacks on Elizabeth Warren and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) just keep coming, fast and furious, facts be damned.
Elizabeth Warren. (AP/Charles Dharapak)
The CFPB will be “powerful, hard-nosed and unaccountable,” warns Fred Barnes, executive editor of The Weekly Standard. The agency “will decide its own budget,” its “rulings can’t be vetoed,” and it “will be almost impossible to challenge” in court.
“Who in the world would consider it appropriate to have one person appointed to set the rules for the entire financial industry?” wonders Senator Bob Corker.
The Wall Street Journal describes Warren’s “ideological agenda that banks are the villains of the credit crisis while distributing cash to homeowners who will presumably be grateful on Election Day 2012.”
And the latest? A proposed $20 billion settlement with the Big Banks for foreclosure fraud and abuse is deemed by bank executives as “a naked shakedown” by the CFPB.
(Never mind that banks have illegally foreclosed on some homeowners, and imposed unwarranted fines on others, to name just a couple categories of violations.)
Clearly, what we have here is a scene straight out of South Park: a Godzilla-like CFPB with the face of Elizabeth Warren on a rampage. Upstanding citizens must either run for their lives or join the GOP, Wall Street, and conservative Democrats to bring this monster to its knees—just as these defenders of deregulation brought our economy to its knees.
Don’t let this concerted rightwing smear campaign—straight out of their stale playbook—distract from the facts. These daily hit-jobs on Warren and the CFPB are designed to do one thing only: lay the groundwork to limit the agency’s funding and autonomy and, consequently, its power.
Currently, the bureau is funded through the Fed—just as all bank supervisory agencies are independently funded—in order to avoid politicizing its mission by subjecting it to Congressional appropriations. Yet the GOP would like to create a different set of rules for the CFPB. That’s why Texas Republican Representative Randy Neugebauer has introduced legislation to house the CFPB in Treasury so that Congress can control the purse strings. He didn't try to hid his objective, saying the move would allow Congress to “have some say-so on how big this organization gets and some of their activities.”
Warren addressed this issue squarely in a recent speech, “While the banking regulators charged with preserving the safety and soundness of financial institutions and ensuring consumer protection compliance by smaller banks would continue to receive independent funding, the agency in the financial regulatory system with lead responsibility for protecting consumers would face a different set of rules – rules that threaten its independence.”
It’s also a downright fabrication when people like Barnes and Corker paint a picture of a completely unaccountable CFPB.
Under the Dodd-Frank Act there are ample opportunities for Congress to do its oversight job: like when the CFPB Director testifies twice a year to Congress; or when the agency submits quarterly financial reports to the Office of Management and Budget, and reports annually to Congress on its budget and operating plans; and when the Government Accountability Office does its annual audit.
As for the Director’s power “to set the rules for the entire financial industry”—aside from that being a ridiculous statement on the face of it—the Financial Stability Oversight Council will be able to review CFPB regs, and the Administrative Procedures Act allows for federal courts to review agency decisions as well. The courts are also empowered to ensure that the CFPB—like any agency—is acting within its Congressional mandate. Finally, when all else fails, Big Business’ Congressional cronies can attempt to get whichever regulations they find objectionable repealed by their colleagues.
What is most striking and infuriating about these cynical and calculated attacks against the CFPB and Warren is this: until now, too many federal agencies were charged with consumer financial protection, and that obligation usually received short shrift, lost amidst competing interests and responsibilities. We’ve seen the disastrous results—not only for consumers, but businesses competing honestly against competitors who make their products seem more enticing by burying the true costs in intentionally confusing contracts and legalese.
As Warren put it in a recent letter to Chairman Shelley Moore Capito and Ranking Member Carolyn Maloney of the House Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit: “Markets work only when people can see the prices and risks up front and can make apples-to-apples comparisons among products. We want consumers to have the information they need—upfront, not buried in the fine print…. This is a market that will allow small businesses to compete.”
Now that we finally have a bureau tasked with protecting the interests of consumers and those good businesses which desire market transparency, let's make sure that the CFPB is able to do its job. One important way to make that happen is for people to stay engaged, opposing politicians who do the bidding of well-funded lobbyists, and challenging those in the media who give them a bully pulpit.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


23 Comments so far
Show AllWhy was Obama unwilling to have the Senate vote on whether to confirm her?
Does everyone have his price?
or, in this case, HER price?
wow...are we still talking about Elizabeth Warren?
why?
Because they are trying to take her out, figuratively speaking.
why does that matter?
Maybe it doesn't.
Probably it doesn't.
Without considerable help from others including working class people in the streets Elizabeth Warren doesn't stand much of a chance in her efforts.
Elizabeth Warren was invited to make a speech to the Chicago Humanities Festival. She did so on 23 February 2011. The speech - in entirety - is 64 minutes long. IMO it answers any questions about who Elizabeth is, and what she hopes that the CFPB will eventually accomplish. It's an "I Have a Dream" speech for the oppressed white middle class. Here is the URL.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f519_LGjhCA
The exciting news about Ms. Warren is - after 30 years - a new hairdo. I was not sure about it at first, but it has grown on me. There has also been a 7 percent reduction in hand and arm waving - activity which is less to communicate anything other than she is just a bundle of well intended energy. Ya gotta love Elizabeth; not to do so is simply obstinate and wrong.
Trylon
If she's so wonderful, I repeat: why was Obama afraid to put her up for a public airing of her ideas and a Senate confirmation hearing?
Because even though everyone except perhaps Elizabeth Warren knows that Elizabeth Warren would be a powerless token, the Repbulicans, and most of the Democrats, weren't willing to take a chance on her anyway.
Actually Horace, the reason that the Obama administration did not want to take a chance on her as "corvo" has said is that in her role as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Warren wouldn't take any B.S. from anyone.
Obama, Geitner, none of them wanted her as director of the bureau and that is why she is being attacked now.
I think Warren knew what she was up against. But she is a bulldog.
A lot of people spoke out in favor of Warren's appointment. I think the Obama administation knew that they could take care of her later on and that is what they are doing now with Republican help, of course.
Personally I love KVH's black leather jacket. That is leather, correct?
Me too about the lady's leather. Also about what she has to say about Elizabeth Warren. Doing as he did and getting Ms Warren in at all, rather than caving to Congress by submitting her nomination to a vote by our useless Senators, is just about the only sign Obama has shown of having a backbone.
msmoore said:
"Also about what she has to say about Elizabeth Warren. Doing as he did and getting Ms Warren in at all, rather than caving to Congress by submitting her nomination to a vote by our useless Senators, is just about the only sign Obama has shown of having a backbone."
My reply:
I am sorry. I disagree with you.
It's just cartilage, not bone.
Obama was just molifying Warren's supporters.
Getting Elizabeth Warren in at all was just the first part of that old bait and switch routine.
Puffin,
Bingo!
Chelsea :)
And of course recess appointments are allowed under the Constitution. They are just not a way to make peace with the Senate and they usually show that the person in question wouldn't survive a confirmation hearing or would expose information the Administration would rather not have aired.
Elizabeth Warren is by far the best advocate for "honest capitalism" in DC. The Republican "pro-business" bias is about as far from "honest capitalism" as anyone can get. TRUE capitalism is based on consumers being able to make INFORMED decisions about the products they choose to purchase from suppliers. "Pro-business capitalism" advocates allowing businesses (suppliers) to do just about anything they want, including obscuring information about their products and misleading consumers. Republicans have hijacked "capitalism" to mean "pro-business" when, in fact, it means no such thing. TRUE "capitalism" is based on an equal playing field between consumer and supplier, not one tilted in favor of business.
I agree. But as I said in another comment here about Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren is no radical. It will take a lot more power than the power given to the CFPB to keep capitalism "honest", a lot more power.
Spot on on every point.
Warren is an expert in the real economics of the American family, and understands the tactics of the Wall Street thugs all too well.
Her appointment shows the direction Obama wants to go, despite the vastness of the entrenched corruption. Warren is on the front line of the anti-corruption campaign.
But it will be a tough fight. The Wall Street mob is ruthless.
In 2005 amidst the intense abuses of customers by credit card companies the Bankruptcy Protection and Consumer Protection Act was passed, which weakened the protections consumer and other debtors could obtain in bankruptcy court.
Elizabeth Warren, Harvard law professor and co-author of the "The Two Income Trap: Why Middle-Class Mothers and Fathers Are Going Broke" along with others, convinced me that this legislation was just another way to squeeze the middle class for ever thing they've got.
For some reason, I can't remember exactly, Republicans were once again complaining about class warfare as if class warfare necessarily involved some kind of insidious discrimination against the wealthy. Somebody probably wanted to raise taxes on the rich!
That's when it hit me. I guess I am a little slow about some things. But I realized right then, that there was a class war going on and it wasn't the middle class / working class, or the poor who had initiated the class war. It was the wealthy. And the wealthy and powerful were once again changing the rules of the game in their favor.
John Lennon had a lyric: "A working class hero is something to be."
Well, I far as I am concerned Elizabeth Warren - Harvard law professor, Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, and current Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) - although not a radical is nevertheless just like those folks in the streets in Madison, Wisconsin a working class hero!
Some people said she shouldn't take the top job at the CFPB which the Obama administration clearly wanted to give to someone else and as compromised as the bureau clearly would be right from the beginning. I don't know whether she would have been better off going back to Harvard, but at least Elizabeth Warren is fighting the good fight.
VP,
Well stated--spot on--and funny!
Love it!
Chelsea :)