opinion web
Conservative Opinion General Opinion
Froma Harrop
Froma Harrop
11 Feb 2016
Some Sage Advice for Hillary Clinton

I come not to rebuke Hillary Clinton, who remains by far the most capable presidential candidate. I come … Read More.

9 Feb 2016
Our Love-Hate Relationship With Valentine's Day

Valentine's Day is upon us. And to think we are still recuperating from Groundhog Day. That's February for you,… Read More.

4 Feb 2016
And the Oscar for Most Stunning Actress Goes to ...

We are here not to discuss the complex #OscarsSoWhite controversy but to address another sore point with … 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
Feb. `16
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 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 1 2 3 4 5
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
Mark Shields
Mark ShieldsUpdated 13 Feb 2016
Susan EstrichUpdated 12 Feb 2016
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 12 Feb 2016

6 May 2008 Cosby Is the Real Prophet, Not Wright

26 Jul 2011 What the Oslo Killer ‘Wanted' Doesn't Matter

1 Oct 2009 Fix Health Care Now, Remove Warts Later