Rounds, Colleagues Reintroduce Bill to Eliminate Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Pat Powers

Rounds, Colleagues Reintroduce Bill to Eliminate Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

WASHINGTON– U.S. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, today joined Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Mike Lee (R-Utah), Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ben Sasse (R-Neb.), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to reintroduce legislation that would eliminate the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. Read the full text of the bill here.

“The CFPB is an unaccountable regulatory agency created under Dodd-Frank with broad authorities to impose burdensome new rules on the American people – with no oversight from Congress,” said Rounds. “While we’re pleased to see the current administration rein-in the CFPB’s unchecked powers and bring much-needed accountability to the agency, until it is completely dismantled, it remains a threat to hardworking families. Abolishing the CFPB is one step we can take to ease the regulatory burdens of Dodd-Frank; I’m pleased to work with Sen. Cruz on this important legislation.”

###

 

42 thoughts on “Rounds, Colleagues Reintroduce Bill to Eliminate Consumer Financial Protection Bureau”

  1. Yes, let’s return to 2007… subprime mortgages, abusive fees, predatory credit, and harassing debt collections. Good for who, now? Oh, yeah. Banks. Hardworking families are not banks.

    1. The CFPB was created in 2011, not 2007. Somehow it has been kept out of the reach of the normal Congressional appropriations process. They get their money from the Federal Reserve. They also seem to think they are out of reach of the Executive Branch and the Federal Agencies Vacancy Reform Act, given the flapdoodle over who was in charge of it: English, appointed by outgoing boss Cordray, or Mulvaney, appointed by Trump.

      At the time some of us wondered why the government needed a new agency; what was wrong with the old ones? If they weren’t doing their jobs, why weren’t the people working in the old agencies fired? Because it’s just easier to create new agencies to do what the old agencies are supposed to do?
      That’s how the whole federal bureaucracy got so bloated in the first place: when somebody didn’t do his job, they kept him on the payroll and hired somebody else to do what he wasn’t doing. Now we create whole agencies to do this.

      The fact that the whole thing was the work of Elizabeth Warren and Barack Obama, two politicians totally dedicated to redistribution of wealth schemes, was additional cause for concern.

      Get rid of it.

    2. Ike,

      Let’s discuss Bill Clinton, the Community Reinvestment Act, and ACORN which directly led to the crisis.

      1. Yeah, no. Hedge funds and derivatives caused a demand for mortgages and created the housing bubble. How many ‘welfare queens’ are highly invested in such vehicles?

        1. The banks sold the bad loans as investment grade. They would have never made the bad loans in the first place if not for Clinton. The facts back me up Ike.

          1. It started way earlier than Clinton. The Credit Recovery Act is from 1977. In 1989, FIRREA strengthened the CRA by forcing banks to publicize lending records. It also prohibited banks from participating if they didn’t meet the CRA requirements. The banks were never made to give out subprime loans. It didn’t require banks to lower lending standards. Repackaging loans as securities, interest-only lending, and mark-to-market accounting led to the banks losing their shirt as the the bubble collapsed.

  2. Definitely not good and the wrong direction. Consumers and communities will continue to be taken advantage of with a sole focus being profits regardless of the societal costs. 2020 is coming and there will be hell to pay and this will just add fuel to the losses of seats by Republicans nationally. Just hope it does not swing too far to the left.

    1. No, consumers will have to go back to dealing with the Federal Trade Commission, the Federal Reserve Sustem, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, The National Credit Union Administration, the FDIC, or their state’s Attorney General Consumer Protection Division. Or in the case of outright fraud, call the cops.
      You have to be really really young to believe that prior to 2011 nobody was protecting innocent people from scams.

      1. The CFPB was created because those organizations failed to protect the American people from the overreach of banks that caused the largest recession since the Great Depression. You, of course, seem to blame Federal Agencies and not the banks for this happening. And, in an absolutely brutal swing of the ol’ irony stick, you complain about the lack of oversight on the CFPB rather than the financial institutions whose risky instruments created out of nowhere caused millions of foreclosures and greater than 10% unemployment. Government bad! Market good!

        1. Incorrect.

          You ready to discuss Bill Clinton, the Community Reinvestment Act, and Acorn?

          I bet you are incapable of discussing the facts.

          1. You presented no facts, just a claim. Present some and we can talk about it.

            1. Is Google to complicated for you to use?

              Here are the facts. Clinton made banks give loans to people who couldn’t pay them back.

              Go ahead and try to prove me wrong.

              1. “made banks”? Deregulation allowed banks to get fiddly in the markets. Those markets figured out a way to package mortgages into investment vehicles. Banks got greedy, we got screwed.

                1. Yes Ike they made them. It’s all in black and white on paper and the internet.

                  1. It’s literally not. The CRA does not require banks to make unsafe loans, full stop.

                    2. They most certainly do NOT. A CRA rating is simply an inducement, not a mandate.

                      There is no credible evidence the CRA caused the Great Recession. None. Zero. The FED has specifically refuted that exact point:

                      “Our own experience with CRA over more than 30 years and recent analysis of available data, including data on subprime loan performance, runs counter to the charge that CRA was at the root of, or otherwise contributed in any substantive way to, the current mortgage difficulties”
                      -Ben Bernanke

                      https://www.menendez.senate.gov/news-and-events/press/fed-chairman-bernanke-confirms-to-menendez-that-community-reinvestment-act-is-not-to-blame-for-foreclosure-crisis

                  1. Your link takes us to an editorial/opinion piece. If I write an article saying your mother drives a pickle wagon, can I then link back to it as proof that she does?

                    1. Feel free to prove anything wrong in the link Ike.

                      This is the problem with Democrats. When it gets down to the facts and details they lose every time.

                    2. I just did – my link was the actual text of the Chairman of the Federal Reserve’s written testimony to the Senate Banking Committee… You know, actual on-the-record FACTS.

                      Your link was an OPINION written for a right-leaning news organization.

                      I’ll happily discuss facts, so I’ll patiently wait for you to actually supply some.

                    3. Ike,

                      You haven’t refuted anything in my Link.

                      Ben Bernanke also gave an opinion.

                      My link had actual facts, yours did not.

                      I have more links if you don’t know how to use Google.

                      It’s hilarious you used Ben Bernanke as a “fact”.

                      I used regulations and regulators.

                    4. Written testimony to the Senate Banking Committee is about as close to fact as you’ll get – unless you believe Mr. Bernanke committed perjury? Your opinion piece cites no sources – my piece IS the source.

                      Anyhoo, this all seems to be going nowhere.

                      Bless.

                    5. Written testimony with no facts to back it up is just opinion Ike.

                      There are Federal Regulations and Regulators that back up my facts and it is all in the Federal Record.

                      You have just presented opinions here with no facts to back them up. Why are you wasting our time?

              2. And once again, a dakotawarcollege user makes a claim and demands someone else prove it for them. Debate in good faith, bud.

                  1. Again, that isn’t how debates work. You make a claim, you bear the burden of proof. Provide some evidence. Or don’t do it, and I will just move on.

                    1. The evidence is on the internet and in the Federal Government archives. There is no debate. My facts are correct. I am not going to hold your hand and show you how to use Google. Intelligent people are laughing at you right now.

        2. That’s right:the agencies already in existence didn’t do their job, so the solution was to create a brand new agency. So what are the old ones doing?
          And one of the problems is that they have high staff turnover at the CFPB. They keep coming and going. Any chance it’s a revolving door with the other agencies as well as with the banks etc? Is it just the same swamp dwellers rotating through all those entities?

  3. Absolutely correct! Bunch of lousy dumbocrats unfairly attacking lending institutions like Wells Fargo. Good riddance.

    1. The same Wells Fargo that tried to make up for staggering losses from Wachovia’s subprime fiasco by signing customers up for services and fees they never agreed to? Private risk in that debacle lead to public bailouts. I guess welfare is only for corporations.

      1. Ike, American Express and Costco tried to saddle us with services and fees we never wanted; we didn’t need the CFPB to get that straightened out. If we hadn’t been able to do it ourselves we would have gone through the AG’s office of Consumer Protection.
        That’s what they are there for.

  4. In 2008 Hillary Clinton made a cafe campaign stop and a woman started telling her a sob story about how she was going to lose her house.
    She had obtained a mortgage she couldn’t afford by filing a fraudulent application in which she misrepresented her income.
    Of course she couldn’t keep up with the payments so she went wailing to Clinton, claiming to be the victim. The real victims were the investors who bought that mortgage and others like it. It was like that all over: the consumers were not the victims, they were the perpetrators. They didn’t deserve to be protected by a new government agency. The CFPB was created because people wanted to blame the banks because people lied on their mortgage applications.

    In what universe does that make sense?

    1. I dunno, Anne. You must inhabit a different universe than the rest of us though, because blaming the poor for the financial crisis means that up is down and black is white.

      1. I see reading comprehension isn’t your strong suit.

        Anne never mentioned anything about a poor person. She mentioned getting a mortgage for more than you can afford.

        Do I need to educate you on the difference?

        1. We can all read well enough between the lines of “couldn’t afford” and “lied on application”, and “whined to clinton”. Plausible deniability went out the window ages ago with you lot.

          1. So another person doesn’t understand the difference between poor and can’t afford.

            The school system has failed you.Odi

  5. Rounds knows he’s vulnerable to defeat in 2020 so going through the motions to avoid looking like one of the least effective members of Congress is really the best he can do. Has he paid his campaign debts off yet?

  6. rounds knows he’s gold plated and ironclad with regard to 2020, ready to convert that high senatorial approval ranking and solid 2014 win into a new victory next year. he has far outpaced the legislative productiveness and effectiveness of first-term senate members and continues to put south dakota and the nation first.

    1. Continues to put South Dakota and the nation first? You must not be familiar with his push for the H-1B and H-2B visa programs.

      He and many other Senators asked the Department of Homeland Security to increase the use of outsourcing visas so that additional foreign workers could enter the United States and hold jobs in American companies — rather than hiring U.S. workers.

      Next time he holds a tele-townhall ask about the visa programs he supports and the level of corruption surrounding them… you’ll never get through.

Comments are closed.