Cat Fight Over Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

[GURPS]

As a parting gift, and in an attempt to stymie the president, Cordray suddenly announced last Friday that he would be leaving at the end of the day and that he was promoting Leandra English—who is said to be close to Warren—to the position of deputy director, replacing acting Deputy Director David Silberman, who had been serving in that capacity for two years. Cordray said she would assume the position of acting director upon his departure.

In doing so, Cordray cited a position in the Dodd-Frank Act that states the deputy director “shall … serve as the acting director in the absence or unavailability of the director” until such time as the Senate confirms a new director.

[clip]

In this case, though, there is no need to address these knotty questions because the president is on firm legal ground by naming Mulvaney as acting director of the bureau.

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 provides—with limited exceptions not applicable here—that the president can designate any Senate-confirmed official (which would include Mulvaney) to perform the duties of a vacant federal office in an acting capacity for a statutorily limited period of time.

[clip]

As the Office of Legal Counsel memo states:

If Congress had intended to make the Vacancies Reform Act unavailable whenever another statute provided an alternative mechanism for acting service, then it would have said so. It would not have provided that the Vacancies Reform Act ceases to be the ‘exclusive means’ when another statute applies.​

CFPB Deputy Director Is Challenging the President’s Authority. Here’s Why Her Arguments Are Flawed.

 

[Hijinx]

As a parting gift, and in an attempt to stymie the president, Cordray suddenly announced last Friday that he would be leaving at the end of the day and that he was promoting Leandra English—who is said to be close to Warren—to the position of deputy director, replacing acting Deputy Director David Silberman, who had been serving in that capacity for two years. Cordray said she would assume the position of acting director upon his departure.

In doing so, Cordray cited a position in the Dodd-Frank Act that states the deputy director “shall … serve as the acting director in the absence or unavailability of the director” until such time as the Senate confirms a new director.

[clip]

In this case, though, there is no need to address these knotty questions because the president is on firm legal ground by naming Mulvaney as acting director of the bureau.

The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 provides—with limited exceptions not applicable here—that the president can designate any Senate-confirmed official (which would include Mulvaney) to perform the duties of a vacant federal office in an acting capacity for a statutorily limited period of time.

[clip]

As the Office of Legal Counsel memo states:

If Congress had intended to make the Vacancies Reform Act unavailable whenever another statute provided an alternative mechanism for acting service, then it would have said so. It would not have provided that the Vacancies Reform Act ceases to be the ‘exclusive means’ when another statute applies.​

CFPB Deputy Director Is Challenging the President’s Authority. Here’s Why Her Arguments Are Flawed.

I bet Elizabeth Warren wet her Depends when this started.

 

[littlelady]

I bet Elizabeth Warren wet her Depends when this started.

You win the best post of the week! Your reference to ‘Depends’ is so great! It explains the libprogs, and how it ‘Depends’ on their agenda, and where the wind blows. Good post! And, funny!

 

[GURPS]

Victorious Trump moves to reshape consumer bureau

Any administration pick is likely to enrage consumer advocates and civil rights groups, who have vowed to protect the watchdog agency.



Hot off a legal victory handing him control of the government’s top consumer watchdog, President Donald Trump is moving rapidly to nominate a permanent director to rein in the agency’s reach.

A U.S. District Court judge in Washington on Tuesday said the administration had the right to install White House budget director Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Judge Timothy Kelly denied a request by CFPB Deputy Director Leandra English, who also claims to hold the top job, to block Mulvaney from taking the post. Her lawyer said the case isn’t over.

For now, the ruling puts a halt to a chaotic series of events set in motion Friday, when former CFPB Director Richard Cordray abruptly resigned. It also moves the White House a step closer to curbing the power of the independent agency, which since its inception has bedeviled banks, credit card issuers and other financial companies. In the process it has cheered wronged consumers, collecting $12 billion in penalties and recoveries on their behalf.

With the legal skirmish quieted, Trump is close to placing a permanent leader at the agency, a senior administration official told POLITICO. The president’s short list of candidates includes House Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-Texas), George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki, and former acting Comptroller of the Currency Keith Noreika. All are fierce critics of the bureau, which they have accused of overstepping its authority and running roughshod over industry.

We Got a Vast, Unaccountable, Unconstitutional Agency Because Elizabeth Warren Compared Mortgages to Toasters

"Clearly, it is time for a new model of financial regulation, one focused primarily on consumer safety rather than corporate profitability," she says. Clearly. "Financial products should be subject to the same routine safety screening that now governs the sale of every toaster, washing machine, and child's car seat sold on the American market."

While the CPSC has run amok from its original purpose (it now regulates drawstrings), at least it is still funded by Congress. But Warren envisioned a far more powerful agency than that—a "new regulatory regime" with little to no congressional oversight, and the ability to set its own budget funded by the Federal Reserve.

Warren was happy that the CFPB would be "free of legislative micromanaging" so federal bureaucrats could "develop nuanced regulatory responses."

She wanted a powerful agency completely protected from the people. And it makes sense: If she thinks you're too stupid to buy a toaster, how could Warren trust the American people's judgment when it comes to electing the president of the United States, who then could change who leads the CFPB?

That's why Warren and her pupils are now arguing that the president has no say in who leads her unaccountable, and unconstitutional, agency.

Because she knows better. "No one expects every customer to become an engineer to buy a toaster that doesn't burst into flames, or analyze complex diagrams to buy an infant car seat that doesn't collapse on impact," Warren explains. "By the same reasoning, no customer should be forced to read the fine print in 30-plus-page credit card contracts to determine whether the company claims it can seize property paid for with the credit card or raise the interest rate by more than 20 points if the customer gets into a dispute with the water company."


expecting our resident financial mouth piece to chime in and lecture us on how the CFPB is so great for the country / consumers

 

[PsyOps]

In the interest of reducing the size of government, this agency should be shut down.

 

[Hijinx]

In the interest of reducing the size of government, this agency should be shut down.

This one and Homeland Security, and the TSA just for starters.

 

[PsyOps]

This one and Homeland Security, and the TSA just for starters.

Well, certainly, but when Trump was confronted with this situation to appoint someone to the CFPB, I would have thought his first question would have been "what the heck is this, and why does it even exist? We need to get rid of this." But, being just another big government guy, I guess it's not all that surprising.

 

[Hijinx]

Well, certainly, but when Trump was confronted with this situation to appoint someone to the CFPB, I would have thought his first question would have been "what the heck is this, and why does it even exist? We need to get rid of this." But, being just another big government guy, I guess it's not all that surprising.

What he thought and what he could do , may be two different things.
I don't believe he could EO Lizzie Warrens personal pet agency out of existence.
But perhaps he can work from the inside of it to keep down the damage.

 

[Starman]

In the interest of reducing the size of government, this agency should be shut down.

That really can’t be done without modifying or repealing Dodd-Frank. Now if you think that should be modified or repealed perhaps there is a discussion to be had there.

But shutting down the CFPB won’t do much to ease the burden you feel by “Big Government”. The agency is not funded by Congressional appropriations, i.e., tax dollars; it is funded by the Fed.

How do you feel the burden of the CFPB in your life? What could you accomplish but for this four letter agency in your way?

 

[GURPS]

How do you feel the burden of the CFPB in your life?

for one, quit strong arming financial institutes over bull #### claims and giving the money to favored Progressive Groups

 

[PsyOps]

That really can’t be done without modifying or repealing Dodd-Frank. Now if you think that should be modified or repealed perhaps there is a discussion to be had there.

But shutting down the CFPB won’t do much to ease the burden you feel by “Big Government”. The agency is not funded by Congressional appropriations, i.e., tax dollars; it is funded by the Fed.

How do you feel the burden of the CFPB in your life? What could you accomplish but for this four letter agency in your way?

I've never been a fan of Dodd-Frank. Do away with the whole damn thing, and all of the agencies thereof.

The only "burden" I can claim any of these agencies have on my life is my taxes going to waste. Any opportunity to reduce the size of government should be taken. The opposing question, from yours, that should be asked is - what benefit is there to me from these agencies?

 

[GURPS]

[TWITTER]https://twitter.com/NancyPelosi/status/935659689290948608?[/TWITTER]


The tweet smacks of Game of Thrones or the restoration of Charles II to the British throne. Nancy Pelosi would throw out the Usurper Mulvaney and make way for the rightful heir, Leanne English, First of Her Name, Queen of the Andals and the First Bureaucrats.

Unfortunately for Pelosi, English isn’t the rightful acting director of the agency, as a federal court found last night. She was installed inappropriately by the outgoing partisan hack director, Richard Cordray, and replaced by Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney, at the legal behest of the President of the United States.

But Democrats don’t think the Constitution applies to Democrats. So long as they can maintain power through whatever means necessary, they’re happy to do so. Fortunately, the revolution is over, and the English lost.



FAKE NEWS: Pelosi Unleashes Bizarre Tweet Defending 'The Rightful Acting Director of CFPB'

 

[GregV814]

does this lady and Justice Kagan share a duplex in fashionable Dupont Circle?????

 

[Hijinx]

does this lady and Justice Kagan share a duplex in fashionable Dupont Circle?????

OOOOOH, Can't wait for the answer to that one.

By the way that is a picture of the puppet and her puppetairs.

 

[Lurk]

Well, certainly, but when Trump was confronted with this situation to appoint someone to the CFPB, I would have thought his first question would have been "what the heck is this, and why does it even exist? We need to get rid of this." But, being just another big government guy, I guess it's not all that surprising.

. . .and since the Bureau is created by law, the President does not have the authority to over reach and eliminate it. That would take an act of Congress.

 

[Starman]

I've never been a fan of Dodd-Frank. Do away with the whole damn thing, and all of the agencies thereof.

The only "burden" I can claim any of these agencies have on my life is my taxes going to waste. Any opportunity to reduce the size of government should be taken. The opposing question, from yours, that should be asked is - what benefit is there to me from these agencies?

Dodd-Frank has some demonstrably good and bad regulations, the CFPB having on balance objectively made things better for consumers.

I’m just trying to understand how the CFPB in particular is the embodiment of “big government” given that we as taxpayers don’t fund it. What has been the negative ramifications on your life? How are you less free because of this agency?

 

[PsyOps]

I’m just trying to understand how the CFPB in particular is the embodiment of “big government” given that we as taxpayers don’t fund it. What has been the negative ramifications on your life? How are you less free because of this agency?

The CFPB gets its funds from the treasury. Where do you think they get their money? Every penny that goes into the federal government comes from the taxpayers. And I never suggested the CFPB is the "embodiment of big government”. They are only a piece of the bloated government pie. Conservatives should (at every opportunity) demand our reps to find ways to reduce the size and scope of government. On nearly all accounts that I've read and heard, the CFPB was nothing more than a strong-arm of the liberal left; and with no oversight and accountability at all.

The more I read your comments, the more I get that you like to distort people's comments just to be right.

 

[Starman]

The CFPB gets its funds from the treasury. Where do you think they get their money? Every penny that goes into the federal government comes from the taxpayers.

Until you understand how CFPB is funded there’s no point in continuing. Let me give you a hint: you are incorrect.

 

[PsyOps]

. . .and since the Bureau is created by law, the President does not have the authority to over reach and eliminate it. That would take an act of Congress.

If you read my post more carefully you'll notice I wrote "we" not "I".

 

[GURPS]

https://pjmedia.com/trending/politico-blames-consumer-financial-protection-bureau-fiasco-democrats/



You see, as it stands, whoever is in charge of the CFPB wields a great deal of power over regulating financial products available to consumers. Republicans tried to push the Obama administration to adopt a less-centralized approach, arguing that one unelected person shouldn't have that kind of authority over any particular industry.

They had a point -- a Constitutional one. Democrats were envisioning the CFPB as a fourth branch of government.

The Democrats wanted control. They wanted to make sure the CFPB was always theirs. It's like when Harry Reid and Senate Democrats gutted the filibuster rule. There was no reason to allow Republicans or anyone else to have a say. After all, didn't President Obama famously say that elections have consequences?

The problem with that, however, is that when you lay the groundwork for completely shutting out the opposition, you're giving your opposition the tools to do the same when it's their turn.

Our American political system is incredibly stable on the whole, but what isn't stable is the party in power. Just because you have control today, it doesn't mean you have a permanent majority by any stretch of the imagination. Your opposition will be in the driver's seat sooner or later.