In case you were wondering if the CFPB was out of control….

From The Hill:

The deputy director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Sunday night sued President Trump and Office of Management Budget Director Mick Mulvaney for control of the agency.

And…

English’s complaint claims that she is the rightful acting director of the CFPB, and that the court should bar Mulvaney from taking the post. English claims that the provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act that lay out the CFPB’s line of succession supersedes the Federal Vacancies Act, which Trump used to nominate Mulvaney.

Read it here.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Agency Deputy Director is suing the President, claiming that he doesn’t have the right to appoint a new director upon vacancy.

In case you were wondering if the agency was out of control, and trying to set itself up as an unelected fourth branch of government…

16 thoughts on “In case you were wondering if the CFPB was out of control….”

  1. The CFPB is the worst agency in the whole stinkin’ federal government. Who do they think they are? Consumer protection should be left to the industry, and if consumers do not like it they can always go somewhere else.

    1. But where does a consumer go, when all of the banks close due to a financial collapse from a lack of regulation?

      Well, to answer that question, I guess we could have all gone to Wells Fargo back in 2008, since they were the most financially solvent at that time…. Boy, that would have been a good idea, huh?

  2. Current federal law states that the assistant director immediately becomes temporary director upon resignation of the director. This law also states that the President can nominate a new director to be approved by the Congress due to a director vacancy. No where in the law does it say that the President can just pick a new director without congressional approval. The CFPB is not “an unelected fourth branch of government,” rather a director is nominated by the President and not appointed by the President, then that “nomination” must be approved by the Congress…. They call that an example of “Checks and Balances” and a cornerstone of the integrity of the three branches of our federal government.

    http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/25/politics/white-house-cfpb-mulvaney/index.html

    1. Except that the President, the Justice Department, and the general counsel of the CFPB itself all agree that the President *does* have that authority under the Vacancies Act. The legal question is what controls the director succession at CFPB – Article X of Dodd-Frank or the Vacancies Act?

      Oh, and BTW,a federal court has already ruled (in 2016) that the leadership structure of the CFPB is unconstitutional due to its unaccountability to either the executive branch or the legislative branch.

      1. First of all, your second paragraph is a question of constitutionality that is not germane to the issue of vacancy itself.

        Secondly, If you suggest that the Vacancies Act has supremacy over Dodd-Frank, then why the concern that the CFPB is unconstitutional in the context of a vacancy.

        As far as the 2016 ruling, what does that have to do with a vacancy, whether you take the White House or the Elizabeth Warren position on this matter?

  3. EC,

    Do realize the CFPB’s powers have nothing to do with improving the solvency of the banking system or prevention of a meltdown? Nothing. NADA. Zilch.

    In fact, the regulations and corresponding costs imposed on the banks via the CFPB have actually made the banking system weaker for two primary reasons:

    1) Diversion of prime financial assets out of the banking system to avoid the regulations and costs. Money is the most fungible of all assets.

    2) The costs imposed on the remaining assets incentivize banks to have more leverage and/or take bigger risks on its liabilities.

    The regulations to which you refer from Dudd-Frankenstien are in the hands of the FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve and Treasury Department (plus a few others in minor ways like SEC).

    1. But my first post is in the context of a world suggested by “nonymouse.” I was following his logic.

      In the second comment, where?

  4. He proposed getting rid of CFPB and you said if we got rid of CFPB: “when all of the banks close due to a financial collapse from a lack of regulation”

    CFPB has absolutely no role to play to prevent collapse. Zero. And getting rid of it would have absolutely no impact on increasing the odds of collapse. In fact, it is more likely to lessen the odds.

    1. But “He” is suggesting a complete libertarian world, when it comes to banking, and whether the CFPB deals with solvency or not, “His” world takes us into unchartered waters of no regulation, I would allege….. Would you not agree that the banks are regulated to hopefully prevent future collapses regardless of which laws one may claim are the true regulatory laws on that matter….. Can one make a libertarian point as only a part-time or partial libertarian?

      And as far as your comment that the “CFPB has absolutely no role to play to prevent collapse.” Well, I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt on that one, or living in your world for a moment. Because whether you like the CFPB or not, the legislative intent of the law was to protect consumers and in so doing you are protecting the banks from themselves and thus making them more solvent, I will allege.

      1. Federal solvency regulations of banks has failed in all respects. So long as Congress continues to push social agendas via encouraging lending to certain activities, it will continue to fail. Every credit crisis since WWII was the direct result of government, not private sector, action. South American debt, S&L’s, the farm crisis and the mortgage crisis were all the direct result of government policy.

        Dodd-Frank is just latest catastrophe in the making. We have over 2,000 community banks fewer than 20 years ago as the costs of compliance force them to merge or die. The unholy Trinity of the CFPB, the OCC and the Fed have completely disregarded the safe harbor rules in D/F and enforced the rules equally whether it’s Bank of America or Bank of Pukwana. Sen Rounds has even introduced legislation to force the Feds to follow their own law.

        D/F is rapidly concentrating economic power into the hands of a few huge institutions. It’s no accident. The Left’s dirty secret has always been that they love huge institutions. It’s easier to force a social agenda on a national institution than it is on 10,000 local businesses.

        Congress needs to ignore the noise about succession at CFPB and focus on repealing the entire unconstitutional mess.

  5. EC,

    Paragraph #1: You sure read a lot into his words. He said get rid of CFPB (not the OCC, not the Federal Reserve, not the FDIC) and he specifically said in context “consumer protection.”

    Paragraph #2: Again, your “allege” has no basis in reality. There is not a single informed person knowledgeable about the industry who “alleged” the prior “collapses” or any future collapses will be prevented or hindered from anything in which CFPB is empowered to regulate. So, allege what you will and people who have facts and knowledge will reinforce your “allege” is nonsense.

    Unless of course, you assert the CFPB has some extra-legislative powers to go beyond what the Courts have already said is their legal purview. Which is another issue: CFPB is a nationalization of the banks. Is that what you are saying? Be careful with your answer.

    1. Troy, I think we all flirt with libertarian ideas and values, but the reason I claim to not be a card carrying libertarian is because those who often expound libertarian values on a given topic often want their cake and eat it too. They want the status quo without the rules as if the rules have no value.

      As far as your “allege” concerns. well, it is just common sense that if you allow a predatory atmosphere to exist, like in banking, then it spreads like a cancer as greed, which eventually brings down even the predator. Too much of a good thing (In the eyes of the banks potentially) is not a good thing even for the predator over time….

      And as far as your “nationalization” concern, hasn’t the mere existence of the Fed already instituted that reality, whether you agree or not with the “nationalization” or the existence of the Fed or not?

Comments are closed.