Home > Personal Finance > Are the Deregulators Trying to Destroy the Economy?

Comments 3 Comments
Advertiser Disclosure


[UPDATE: Some offers mentioned below have expired and/or are no longer available on our site. You can view the current offers from our partners in our credit card marketplace. DISCLOSURE: Cards from our partners are mentioned below.]

I understand that deregulators are committed to an ideology. We all need something to believe in, after all, and they believe in the power of markets to both create growth and self-regulate. That’s all very nice and looks good on paper, but given the past few years, that argument simply doesn’t pass the straight face test. I mean, let’s be real, deregulation nearly destroyed our economy as the past few years clearly demonstrate. But the deregulators aren’t giving up… and maybe they won’t until they’ve finished the job.

To quote Ronald Reagan, “There you go again.”

When the CARD Act was enacted, followed by the passage of the Dodd-Frank Act, I — along with almost every person who fogged a mirror in Washington — heard that the financial services industry was telling their constituent members, “Fear not, we have two more bites at the apple” – when the regulations are promulgated to flesh out the broad mandates of the laws and when budget time rolls around.

[Related: Are CARD Act Critics in Complete Denial?]

Well, they didn’t do so well at the first tranche of regulations, but I draw your attention to Section 1517 of the Continuing Resolution to fund government operations (also known as “Scream 5,” or the $60 billion budget slash fest).

The TGODs (the folks who wish to return to The Good Old Days) have slipped in a tiny provision that restricts the annual budget for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to $80 million in Fiscal 2011 (which ends in October). This is a reduction from $143 million and couldn’t come at a worse time for the regulator, or a better time for the regulated.

Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Brad Miller (D-NC) —(collectively “FHM”) — sent a letter to their colleagues saying that this “is a clear attempt to hamstring the new, independent agency as it hires staff and begins the critical work of providing clarity and security to the system of consumer finance.”

FHM went on to say, “This attempt is particularly concerning, because last year after an open process that included a rare, televised House-Senate conference, Congress agreed that in order for this new financial watchdog to be effective, it must be independent and adequately funded. By deriving its operating budget from the Federal Reserve, it would be insulated from the types of partisan fights on Capitol Hill in which we find ourselves today.”

President Obama signs the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, July 21, 2010.

Section 1517 seems to blatantly contradict both the letter and intent of the Financial Reform Act, which states that the CFPB’s funding be “derived from the Federal Reserve System pursuant to this subsection [and] shall NOT (emphasis added) be subject to review by the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and the Senate.”

[Related: The GOP’s Plans for Financial Reform]

Is it possible that the TGODs never got that memo? Is it more likely that the contributions from their friends in financial services have caused them to focus more on their bottom line than ours? Or, is it possible that they are in a frenzy to send the message that they are the Sweeny Todds of Constitution Avenue and that consumer protection is so … last year?

Rather than directly limiting the CFPB’s appropriation, Section 1517 merely seeks to prevent the Fed from disbursing the money to the CFPB. It’s an audacious maneuver, one that the big banks and their congressional compatriots are probably pretty proud of.  But make no mistake: undermining the CFPB is bad for the nation and its citizens, most of whom are barely treading water in this lifeless economy. Banks are too focused on the immediate bottom line and still, inconceivably, fail to see the big picture.

The Big Picture & Consumer Protections (cont.) »

Washington DC photo by lawgeek, via Flickr
Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson

Pages: 1 2

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • Pingback: Adam Levin: Holy Anniversary! Gotham, the CFPB and the Army of Darkness | Get Better Info()

  • Pingback: Consumer Financial Protection Bureau May See Significant Budget Slashes « Howtofixmycredit.com()

  • Jon

    dd, from 1996 to 2005, the US Gov’t had been increasing the target on the % of low income loans (read sub-prime) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac purchased. During that period, the target started at 42% and ended at 52%. These two Government Sponsored Enterprises account for something like half of all mortgages nationally. And depending on the year, they buy or guarantee well more than 50%.

    The way I see it, and the way a lot of other people see it, the USG basically CREATED a market for Sub-prime loans. So, would that need to be regulated? Sure. If you’re going to artificially create a market for sub-prime loans, they probably should regulated the crap out of it. Why wouldn’t banks/lenders grant a bunch of stupid loans, when there’s a built in buyer funded by the USG willing to buy it and take on the risk.

    But, my point is, if the market for sub-prime hadn’t been artificially created by the government in the first place, the sub-prime meltdown wouldn’t have happened.

    “end arguing with blinded partisan”… well, hello pot, meet kettle.

  • DD

    It can’t be successfully argued that government caused the meltdown unless the argument is government failed to properly monitor and regulate. /end arguing with blinded partisan

  • Jon

    Hmmm… “deregulation nearly destroyed our economy as the past few years clearly demonstrate”… I could be argued that government involvement in the lending industry in the first place is what nearly destroyed our economy. But hey, neat way to start an article, stating a premise as fact when there’s actually arguments on both sides of the issue. Let me try that… Adam Levin stands to make more money with more government regulation as this article clearly demonstrates. Yep, that was easy. Who needs to back anything up with facts when we can just say it’s “clearly demonstrated”.

Credit.com receives compensation for the financial products and services advertised on this site if our users apply for and sign up for any of them.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team