

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

A leading consumer group warned that special interest attacks designed to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau would also jeopardize its efforts to rein in the Big Three credit bureaus, which make mistakes that deny financial or employment opportunity to millions. The group added that since 2011 the successful CFPB has returned nearly $12 billion to 29 million consumers harmed by Wall Street banks, debt collectors, payday lenders, credit bureaus and other financial players.
The CFPB has used its strong tools, including supervisory, or examination, authority to investigate and improve compliance with the 1970 Fair Credit Reporting Act by large credit bureaus, especially the so-called Big Three - Experian, TransUnion and Equifax. Recent news reports that the credit bureaus are removing liens and judgments that may be inaccurate info suggest strongly that the CFPB oversight is helping consumers.
"Congress passed legislation in 1970 to hold the credit bureaus accountable, but it never gave the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) the tools it needed to enforce the law or protect consumers," said Ed Mierzwinski, the Consumer Program Director for U.S. PIRG. "Yet, we are now seeing strong evidence that CFPB oversight is working to clean up inaccurate info. Taking away the CFPB would let the reckless credit bureaus run amok again, allowing their mistakes and abject refusal to fix them to deny financial opportunity again, just as it did for forty years."
Highlights of recent CFPB actions include:
Recognizing the significance of credit bureaus in the consumer marketplace, the first use of CFPB's Congressionally-authorized "larger participant" authority was to grant itself supervisory, or examination, authority over larger credit bureaus. The FTC never had this tool.
CFPB's publication this month of a special edition of a "supervisory highlights" report outlines all the problems examiners have identified with credit bureaus and lists CFPB-demanded changes to the credit bureau's "sub-par" reporting, reinvestigation and complaint procedures.
CFPB's Monthly Complaint Database "snapshots" regularly list the credit bureaus as ranking 1, 2, and 3 in consumer complaints of all financial companies.
According to an in-depth analysis of that CFPB "Supervisory Highlights Report" by Chi Chi Wu of the National Consumer Law Center, "The report confirms the long-standing and extensive criticisms that attorneys and advocates have had of the Big Three CRCs [Consumer Reporting Companies] over the decades. As CFPB Director Richard Cordray characterized it, "Standards on the accuracy of information in consumer credit files were distinctly sub-par."
Both NCLC and PIRG have conducted numerous studies of the credit bureaus and the two groups' many reports have documented that the bureaus not only make serious mistakes in credit reports, they fail to reinvestigate them as required by law. Consequently, 5% of consumers have mistakes significant enough to be denied employment or financial opportunity or force them to pay too much for the credit they deserve, according to a 2013 FTC report, Mierzwinski added.
"The credit bureaus have for too long functioned as gatekeepers to financial and employment opportunity without adequate oversight," added Mike Litt, U.S. PIRG Consumer Advocate. "Their mistakes mean you won't get a fairly priced loan, a bank account, a place to live or even a job."
"You can choose your bank and you can vote with your feet if you don't like it. You're stuck, however, with the credit bureaus," concluded Mierzwinski."We need to protect a strong CFPB because it's making a difference for consumers in all financial markets, including credit reporting."
U.S. PIRG, the federation of state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs), stands up to powerful special interests on behalf of the American public, working to win concrete results for our health and our well-being. With a strong network of researchers, advocates, organizers and students in state capitols across the country, we take on the special interests on issues, such as product safety,political corruption, prescription drugs and voting rights,where these interests stand in the way of reform and progress.
"If Jeff Bezos could afford to spend $75 million on the Melania movie," said the senator, "please don't tell me he needed to fire one-third of the Washington Post staff."
Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday added his voice to those who categorically rejected the notion that "financial challenges" were behind the Washington Post's decision to slash more than 300 jobs, considering the venerated newspaper is owned by the world's fourth-richest person, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.
The tech mogul, Sanders (I-Vt.) noted, spent tens of millions of dollars last year on his wedding in Italy, and owns a $500 million yacht. Bezos has a net worth of at least $235 billion.
Most notably, the senator pointed to the $75 million Bezos just spent purchasing the rights to and promoting a documentary film about First Lady Melania Trump—one that critics have condemned as a clear "bribe," and whose premiere was followed by a visit to Bezos' space tech company Blue Origin by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, who said the firm is likely to do “plenty of winning” as the Pentagon hands out new defense contracts.
In a grim play on the tagline Bezos emblazoned on the Post's masthead after he bought the paper in 2013 for $250 million, Sanders wrote, "Democracy dies in oligarchy."
Sanders spoke out as numerous Post journalists announced that they had been affected by the mass layoffs, which will hit all sections of the newspaper and entirely shut down its sports and book review pages.
The international news section was also heavily impacted by the layoffs, and Ukraine correspondent Lizzie Johnson announced on social media that she had been "laid off by the Washington Post in the middle of a war zone."
Martin Weil, a longtime local reporter who joined the Post in 1965 and contributed to the paper's historic Watergate coverage, was also among those who were laid off.
Sanders has long criticized Bezos' decision to take over the Post and suggested that the mogul would not ensure fair coverage of issues impacting working Americans. In 2019, he said that the newspaper appeared biased against his progressive politics as he sought the Democratic nomination to run for president.
At the time, then-executive editor Martin Baron countered that "Jeff Bezos allows our newsroom to operate with full independence, as our reporters and editors can attest."
Last year, months after Bezos pulled an endorsement for then-Vice President Kamala Harris' presidential campaign and following an announcement that the opinion page would focus on “personal liberties and free markets," opinion editor David Shipley announced his resignation. Columnist Ruth Marcus also stepped down weeks later after CEO Will Lewis allegedly refused to run a column critiquing Bezos' changes to the opinion section.
On Wednesday, Baron said the gutting of the Post's newsroom marked one of "the darkest days in the history of one of the world's greatest news organizations" and took aim at Bezos, whom he accused of "betraying the values he was supposed to uphold."
"The Post's challenges... were made infinitely worse by ill-conceived decisions that came from the very top," said Baron. "Bezos' sickening efforts to curry favor with President [Donald] Trump have left an especially ugly stain of their own."
"Schumer needs to get the hell out," said Rep. Delia Ramirez. "He continues to demonstrate to us that he can't meet the moment."
Democratic leaders in Congress are already backing down on one of their key demands in the fight to reform the federal immigration agencies terrorizing Minnesota and other parts of the country.
On Wednesday, Democrats laid out a list of 10 "guardrails" they said they wanted to see put in place to protect the public from abuses by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents, before agreeing to a new round of funding for their parent agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
The list called to "prohibit ICE and immigration agents from wearing face coverings" to conceal their identities, which Democratic leaders have stressed as a key reform for weeks.
But during a press conference on Wednesday, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) raised many eyebrows when they introduced a heap of caveats to their demand.
“I think there’s agreement that no masks should be deployed in an arbitrary and capricious fashion, as has been the case, horrifying the American people,” Jeffries said.
Schumer added that agents “need identification and no masks, except in extraordinary and unusual circumstances.”
When a HuffPost reporter attempted to ask Schumer if the party had changed its position on masks, Schumer sidestepped the question. But other top Democrats clarified that they were looking at certain exceptions.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said that while masks should generally be "prohibited by law" as a part of everyday enforcement, there are "sometimes safety reasons why you may need a mask."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), who went against the majority of the party earlier this week to vote for two weeks of DHS funding to keep the government open, said they were discussing when to implement "narrow exceptions" with members of law enforcement and suggested that "dealing with a cartel" could be one of them.
Of course, the Trump administration has often asserted that all the immigrants they target are dangerous criminals—"the worst of the worst"—including cartel members, even when this is not the case, raising questions about who might be in charge of determining when masks are necessary.
Critics have been underwhelmed by many of the other demands on the list as well.
Journalist and commentator Adam Johnson said it was a collection of “mostly cosmetic, pointless, unenforceable, or actively harmful ‘reforms,’” with some—including the requirement for judicial warrants and a ban on racial profiling—already being mandated by the Constitution but flouted by agents regardless.
He described it as outrageous that Democrats were demanding "zero reduction in DHS’ obscene budget which... tripled, just 12 months ago."
Civil rights lawyer Alec Karakatsanis, the founder of the group Civil Rights Corps, called the list "one of the great political failures of our time" and said "it must be immediately denounced by all people of goodwill."
Meanwhile, Axios reported on Thursday that many rank-and-file members of the Democratic caucus are fuming over party leadership's refusal earlier this week to use the threat of a government shutdown to force reforms.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the CPC's chair emerita, pondered "'What are we going to get in 10 days that we didn't get?'"
"Every time that we are winning, we seem to somehow sabotage [it]," said Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC).
She noted that House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has already ruled out several Democratic demands, including the requirement of judicial warrants.
ICE agents do not need a warrant to make arrests, but the Fourth Amendment prohibits them from entering private residences without a judicial warrant. An internal memo last month advised agents to ignore that law. Johnson said this week that requiring federal agents to obtain judicial warrants is "a road we cannot and should not go down.”
Other Democrats anonymously expressed their distrust in Schumer, who has caved in other hugely consequential fights in the second Trump era, most recently regarding the extension of Affordable Care Act subsidies during last fall’s record-breaking government shutdown, which left tens of millions of Americans facing doubled health insurance premiums.
"The main feeling among members is a lack of trust in his strength and ability to strike a hard bargain," one anonymous Democrat said.
Another said, “All those spending bills, that is the most leverage,” adding that “many folks in the [House] Democratic caucus wish that we had more confidence in Schumer’s ability to navigate a good, tough deal.”
Sixty votes will be required for a deal to pass the Senate, meaning at least seven Democrats will need to join Republicans for DHS to receive full funding and avoid shutting down on February 14.
While this still gives Democrats some leverage to push demands, Ramirez said previous fights give her zero confidence in Schumer's willingness to hold the line.
"I'm gonna continue to tell you that Schumer needs to get the hell out over and over and over until he does," Ramirez said. "He continues to demonstrate to us that he can't meet the moment."
"This incident cannot be viewed in isolation from the scorched-earth policy pursued by the Israeli army," said watchdog Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor.
The Lebanese president has accused the Israeli government of committing "a crime against the environment and health" for allegedly spraying the herbicide glyphosate on agricultural lands in Lebanon and Syria.
As reported by Naharnet on Wednesday, Lebanon's agriculture and environmental ministries recently conducted analysis of soil near the site where Israel had sprayed a chemical substance and found glyphosate "20 to 30 times higher than the average" in the area.
The ministries said that this level of glyphosate in the soil could cause "damage to agricultural production," while also harming soil fertility.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun denounced the spraying as a "flagrant violation of Lebanese sovereignty," and called on the United Nations (UN) and the international community at large to take action to stop future attacks.
Al-Jazeera reported on Tuesday that the UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was warned by the Israel military on Monday to stay away from the border area because it planned to deploy a "nontoxic chemical substance" there, forcing the peacekeeping forces to cancel over a dozen planned activities.
Stephane Dujarric, a spokesperson for UN Secretary-General António Guterres, condemned Israel for preventing UNIFIL from conducting operations, emphasizing that "any activity that may put peacekeepers and civilians at risk is of serious concern."
Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor said on Wednesday that it has detected "Israeli aircraft spraying pesticides of unknown composition over farmland in the countryside of Quneitra in southern Syria" on January 26 and 27.
"This incident cannot be viewed in isolation from the scorched-earth policy pursued by the Israeli army," the human rights watchdog said. "It forms part of a pattern of systematic destruction of agricultural land, including the burning of approximately 9,000 hectares during recent military operations using white phosphorus and incendiary munitions."