opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop
18 Dec 2014
Pottersville Goes Online

What is it that makes the holiday movie classic "It's a Wonderful Life" feel so ancient? It's the relationships,… Read More.

16 Dec 2014
Charity Versus Panhandling

I'm paying up at this discount store, and the nice woman at the cash register asks me something like, "Do you … Read More.

11 Dec 2014
Do You Vote What You Drink?

Did you know that Democrats drink more than Republicans? Or that they are likelier to choose clear liquors, … Read More.

Consumer Bureau Protects the Prudent, as Well


Let's set aside the back-and-forth over the recess appointment of Richard Cordray as chief watchdog at the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. President Obama named the former Ohio attorney general to lead the agency when the Senate was supposedly out of session, which he's allowed to do.

Republicans refuse to confirm him without changes that would render the bureau toothless. And they hold that the Senate wasn't out of session because they had someone whack the gavel every four days, calling the empty chamber to order. Democrats tried the same trick during the George W. Bush administration. The Constitution neglected to define "recess," so the courts will.

The bigger question is why Republicans oppose an agency that would stop financial companies from cheating and taking advantage of ordinary Americans, which happened to millions during the mortgage mania. They complain that the current setup leaves the bureau "unaccountable" to the American people, in part, because its funding comes automatically out of the Federal Reserve's budget rather than through the congressional appropriations process.

Unfortunately, the interests of the American people and individual members of Congress are not always one and the same. The funding mechanism was created precisely to remove the power of the purse from the industry's handmaidens in Congress. During 2007 and 2008, the height of Wall Street excess, conservatives cut the funding for the Securities and Exchange Commission, whose job it was to patrol the markets. They apparently want the ability to deny the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau the means to stand between the unscrupulous financial salesmen and their unsophisticated prey.

Sen. Richard Shelby, the Alabama Republican, further warned that the bureau "will directly affect every American household by limiting their choices when purchasing financial products, restricting the availability of credit to consumers" and so forth.

Limit consumer choice? Restrict the availability of credit? Jolly good, I say.

If taking poison off the shelves means limiting consumer choice, that's OK. And if some people can't get a loan under reasonable standards, so be it. And really, how does requiring that financial contracts be written in plain English challenge the sanctity of free markets?

There is a moral case for protecting ordinary folk from abusive or fraudulent financial products, but also a selfish one. We who were not foolish, lazy or reckless during the housing bubble also paid a price. When the slick operators' practices brought the financial markets to their knees, the taxpayers had to bail them out or face another Great Depression. They continue to suffer from the Great Recession that followed. (The operators, meanwhile, ran off with their sacks of upfront fees and the pickings from working-class pockets.)

We don't want that to happen again, do we? One may argue with reason that other factors also crushed the financial markets — government guarantees for risky mortgages, shoddy and corrupt work by the financial ratings agencies and a policy of low interest rates to keep the game going. But a well-built jetliner has any number of backups ready to keep the thing flying should one system malfunction.

Obviously, there's lots of money in letting Wall Street feed the little guys into the grinder. The financial, insurance and real estate industries have given Washington politicians $135 million in 2011-2012, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Republicans received 56.3 percent of that largesse, versus 37.7 percent going to Democrats.

While many of the contributors are fine, upstanding citizens, one still senses a monetary motive behind the Republican campaign to defang the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. In the end, the Republican position would seem more aimed at defending the cons than the Constitution.

To find out more about Froma Harrop, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at




1 Comments | Post Comment
What the author dosen't talk about in this atricle is the lack of accountablility of the CFPB. As it's set up, the organization has no boss and has no accountability to the people. Also, its convenient that right off the bat she dismisses Obamas unconstitutional appointment of these people. The system is supposed to be set up that no one has the power of a dictator, but obama keeps talking more and more power with fewer people saying so. This is just another example of how these 2 parties simply cannot work together.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Chris McCoy
Tue Jan 10, 2012 7:04 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right: comments policy
Froma Harrop
Dec. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 22 Dec 2014
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 20 Dec 2014
Jamie Stiehm
Jamie StiehmUpdated 19 Dec 2014

4 Nov 2010 The Democrats Did Good

16 Jun 2011 The Right Question for the Defense Budget

5 Apr 2011 God Versus Man on the Beach