iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

GOP, Warning Of A 'New EPA', Oppose Independent CFPA

First Posted: 03/18/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:05 PM ET

Bennett

Senate Republicans are determined to prevent the creation of an independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency because they consider it as threatening as their current arch-nemesis regulator: the Environmental Protection Agency.

Consumer advocates, meanwhile, say the CFPA must have strong, independent authority to craft and enforce rules. Anything less, they argue, would be too much of a concession to banks that have gotten enough already.

"From the Republican point of view, the idea of a separate agency is still anathema," said Sen. Robert Bennett of Utah, a senior Republican on the banking committee. An independent agency, he said, can go too far in the direction of tight regulation without taking into account the effect of the rules it creates on business and the economy. He said he's seen it happen before.

"Can you say EPA?" he asked, lifting his eyebrows. The Republican Party has regretted for years that President Richard Nixon made the EPA independent.

There's been some movement: Republicans who once pushed for total elimination of the CFPA are now ready to back a compromise solution that would make the CFPA subservient to a larger financial regulatory agency, whose leadership could modify or eliminate any protections deemed hurtful to business.

"That doesn't mean we're opposed to consumer protection, but a single agency whose sole purpose is consumer protection would be really bad news," Bennett said. "I've served in the executive branch. I know what happens when the culture around a single mission takes over an agency. Republicans say that consumer protection has to be tied to regulation so the regulator who's involved with regulation and consumer protection doesn't go overboard in one direction or the other."

Supporters see the CFPA's independence as essential. "For reform groups, this effort will not be successful without a stand-alone consumer agency. Putting consumer protection into a new, larger banking agency takes the failed structure of the Fed and the other existing banking agencies and consolidates it. These regulators repeatedly prioritized banks' business practices over consumers' financial security, and this proposal is a recipe for more of the same," said Graham Steele, policy counsel with Public Citizen's Congress Watch.

Rep. Brad Miller (D-N.C.), who championed the CFPA in the House, where it passed as an independent agency, said that he wants an agency much stronger than the EPA.

"I don't want the CFPA to be 'another EPA' either," he said. "I want the CFPA to be a tough, independent watchdog for consumers. My worst nightmare is a CFPA headed by some embarrassing yes man like [Bush administration EPA administrator] Stephen Johnson. How much more slavish to polluters did Republicans want the EPA to be? We have no idea how many Americans have cancer or children have birth defects because polluters ran the EPA for the last decade."

When Senate banking committee Chairman Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) crafted his original financial reform package last year, ranking Republican Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) made complete removal of the CFPA a condition for participating in negotiations, people involved in the talks tell HuffPost.

Dodd rejected the conditions and crafted a package without GOP support, introducing it in November.

With Dodd moving forward, the GOP relented and agreed to come to the table. "That was several weeks ago," Dodd said of the GOP line in the sand, saying that negotiations are now progressing smoothly.

But Dodd, people close to the negotiations say, is concerned that a strong, independent CFPA might not be able to get the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster.

Backers of consumer protection, meanwhile, are itching for the fight, daring lawmakers to stand on the side of the financial industry.

The CFPA is such a high priority to both parties that Dodd tasked himself with working out a compromise with Shelby, while delegating much of the rest of the negotiations to bipartisan pairs of lower-ranking lawmakers.

"I think it's a question [for Republicans] of 'What does it look like now?' more than 'Can we have it at all?'" says Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), a senior member of the committee. "They don't like it as a separate agency, for sure."

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), a senior committee member, said that "how to protect consumers, whether to have a stand-alone agency, the powers of that agency, that's one of the big issues."

Currently, the Federal Reserve is technically tasked with consumer protection -- but its primary purpose is to protect the safety of the financial industry. Consumer protection, said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), a freshman committee member, has been "somewhere in the basement".

Republicans argue that consumers lose out if regulation is too tight and as a result, businesses close and jobs are lost. Democrats counter that a business that can't operate without wrecking the environment or ripping off consumers isn't worth saving.

Merkley and other committee members also argue that defrauding consumers can itself lead to systemic risk. When homeowners who've been hoodwinked into mortgages with skyrocketing and hidden monthly costs default, it's the banks -- and the banking system -- holding the loans that suffer.

Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that if Democrats want financial reform to pass in 2010 they'll have to abandon the Democrats-only approach taken by Dodd late last year. Asked about the prospects for passing reform, Kyl told HuffPost, "For some kind of financial reform, probably not too bad. But for what they've been talking about in [the] banking [committee], not too good."

Before leaving for the Christmas recess, the committee announced bipartisan progress had been made and members on both sides of the aisle spoke optimistically. "Contrary to what you see happening on the floor as it relates to healthcare, I think we leave here as a committee on a high note, hoping that we're going to have the opportunity to do something that is very bipartisan and will stand the test of time," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

Corker has been teamed with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) and charged with reaching bipartisan agreement on a way to resolve large failed institutions. The duo has reported more progress back to the committee than any other pair, said a person familiar with the negotiations.

Meanwhile, committee Republicans are asking Dodd to keep a slow pace. "I think if Chairman Dodd is patient and continues to work across the aisle, it is definitely possible to get a bipartisan bill," said Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.). "It happened with credit cards and I would have guessed at the time that was going to be very, very difficult to get done."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

 
 
  • Comments
  • 5,297
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (89 total)
03:10 PM on 01/31/2010
very nice share. anyone like the new plan
03:11 PM on 01/31/2010
and also will anyone think the new plan will work or not?
http://www.buykamagra.com/
03:12 PM on 01/21/2010
What could possibly be worse for our citizen's than an Independent Consumer Financial Protection Agency?

Oh the horrors!

Oh the hypocrisy of the GOP!
04:33 PM on 01/06/2010
The GOP seems to always warn of harm to your lifestyle (financial, don't even think they care about your social life) when any legislation is proposed that might actually improve your situation. I did some research on the history of environmentalism and every time a significant work or study was released saying corporate pollution was harmful to the environment and humanity the industry (why even bother to call the Republicans any more than corporate lobbyists anymore? many Democrats as well) would warn that the economy would be hurt by tree hugging communist kooks. Now, after decades of the same boorish tactics (research the New Deal Era, you'll see the mouthpieces at thier finest) we come along to yet another corporate personhood enabled depression (at least a terrible recession, we'll be lucky to escape the former). What happens when anyone proposes legislation that could POSSIBLY serve to aid "We the People" instead of "We, the Corporations" this time? right, it's "bad for business", "harmful to the economy", and if independent will be run by "kooks who take protecting the consumer as too literal". The times may change but Conservatives never do. Oh if only history would repeat itself again and they'd get destroyed for another decade for hitching thier wagons to fascism...wait, this article proves they never unhitched to begin with haha.

Corporate personhood needs to be abolished if we're to ever make human progress without it being destroyed by greedmeisters running immortal living pieces of paper, also.
12:15 PM on 01/06/2010
If the republicans don't like it then it must be something good.... This is the new mentality that is being showed to us. It may very well be true.
http://www.electroniccigarettesinc.com
09:39 AM on 01/06/2010
Yes, let's all bend over for the R's.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
satanlite
Liberal blogger
06:53 AM on 01/06/2010
Republicans prove once again they are the enemies of the people. First, they are economic terrorists willing to allow business free reign to figure out any angle whatsoever to lighten each Americans heavy burden of extra cash. Then they fight tooth and nail to prevent any meaningful increase in wages and benefits for the average working man/woman. Now they want to make an overseeing agency that can nullify any regulations that could protect Americans from bad products under the guise of "bad for business", which in effect means whatever they want it to mean at the moment.

Republicans are terrorists in our borders in our offices and in our shools and neighborhoods. They need to be called out and treated as such.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Donns
05:16 AM on 01/06/2010
Goodness we couldn't have an agency that actually tried to protect those outside the Washington Beltway, mostly known as 'we the people." Such an agency might actually try to force the corporations that have bought and paid for our elected leaders to actually try to do business in a moral mannor. That cannot be allowed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
ThermoChemist
"Forewarned Is Forearmed"
01:57 AM on 01/06/2010
The Party of No is using the EPA as an example? Are they serious?

[1] This is lame and is of absolutely no concern for them. Through legislation, or outright refusal to adhere to rules in place, they simply disregard what they will, whenever they will..!

Examples:

JAN. 2001
- Bush suspends implementation of most of Clinton's late-term
executive orders regarding the environment (forests; arsenic, etc.)
- U.S. EPA lifts air-pollution standards for California power plants.

March 2001
- Bush reverses campaign pledge; will not order mandatory reductions of CO2 emissions from the nation's electrical plants.
- EPA delays new rules regulating hard-rock mining; cancels the implementation of the arsenic rule

April 2001
- Bush abandons plans to invest $100 million per year in rainforest conservation.

December 2001. The White House grants initial approval to a set of administrative rules that would weaken the Clean Air Act by allowing coal-burning plants to bypass "new source" pollution standards when upgrading their facilities.

[2] Number of Environmental Litigation cases decreased substantially [2004]

WASHINGTON, DC, October 14, 2004 (ENS) - The Bush administration has not vigorously enforced the nation's key environmental laws and has allowed polluters to escape litigation over alleged violations, according to a former top enforcement official at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The review of publicly available data "shows that civil lawsuits for violation of anti-pollution laws have declined more than 75 percent" during GWB years.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Bacygirl
01:22 AM on 01/06/2010
What would our country look like without these negative, lying, obstructionist, anti-American cave dwellers? The 21st Century Republicans represent a world view, a human perspective where everything is valued in dollars and cents. Your life, your health, your rights, your well being are always subordinate to the powers that Republicans serve.

"No man can serve two masters. He will love the one and hate the other." The Republicans love and serve a Corporate Master, as they have demonstrated time and time again. They cannot support the American citizen, the middle class, our rights as consumers, when they are bought and paid for Corporations and enslaved by their lusts for money and power.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
satanlite
Liberal blogger
06:54 AM on 01/06/2010
Republicans are economic terrorists.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ProfessorDuh
11:31 AM on 01/06/2010
Complete intellectual dishonesty is the hallmark of the modern Republican Party. They lle outright about everything they can get away with, for example simply doubling the cost estimate for health care reform and leading the elderly to believe that Democrats intend to euthanize them.
They dissemble when they cannot lle, for example renaming torture as "enhanced interrogation."
And they confuse when they cannot dissemble, for example branding the victims of racism as racists.
Leading neocons have made themselves a virtue of ly ing, claiming that the ignorant masses must be hoodwinked with simple-minded religion.
To be air, Republicans lle because they have to. If they revealed their real motives, they'd be out of office and, in many cases, right into prison.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:02 AM on 01/06/2010
The mentality of short term gain ignores long term damage and loss!
Conservatism used to stand for slow and steady responsibility!
The GOP now stands for Oligarchy and robber Barron corruption!
The Washington culture even on the democrats side is far too corrupted by these mentality's!
11:48 PM on 01/05/2010
I love anarchy and hate the police. I'm a business. For God's sake, I am a god. I should be above the law and never beholden to any rules, ethics, or responsibilities. I should be allowed to lie, cheat and steal with impunity. Those rule things, they're for for little people, who should not ever be allowed to harm me, or I will call the cops on them.

Why should I get this special treatment? Well first the SCOTUS says I am a person due all rights of person, but also not a person so you can't throw me in jail.

And if you allow me, a business, to do whatever is in my self-interest without any limits, this selfish behavior will some how magically and automatically rain wealth, prosperity, and joy on the whole earth, I promise, really, even though I don't give a s$%^ about any thing but maximizing my profits.

If you put the slightest limitation on my ability to run myself into the ground by seeking short term profits, I will scream like the wicked witch under water and plead "I'm melting". I'm so fragile, you should be nice to me, but if you are not, I will turn on you like the sociopath I am.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:57 AM on 01/06/2010
Exact in every way! person hood must end for corporations! it is a conflict of interest to allow these corporate entities to rule government in this way!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
satanlite
Liberal blogger
06:56 AM on 01/06/2010
Well said and fanned.
11:39 PM on 01/05/2010
I can't believe it's 2010 and we don't have mandatory financial education classes in our high schools.

Then again, when hordes of lawyers write credit card laws in print so tiny you need an electron microscope to read it, what would it help?

Any time a politician says you don't need protection, grab your wallet.
pup sydney
needs of regular folks, Italy; cancer;
10:53 PM on 01/05/2010
GOP: the melamime party
the lead is great for you party
the mercury fish is good fr you party
the antifreeze baby formal party
The mines do not need to be checked move along party
the southwest does not check the planes party
the organic "chinese food" party
the ketch up is fruit party
the no checks for mad cow disease party
The GOp wants to kill us and we are here being subtle? They are criminals because they know they are willingly killing people.
Thwh dems : yeah yeah we do everything as long as the gOP agrees party. ANother kind of criminal party, e part hat does nothing when we die because of GOP policies that are never revoked.
10:42 PM on 01/05/2010
What cracks me up is once financials safeguards in place, businesses do fine, except for the real slime, criminals. Good practical regulations make for a stable business environment, does not reward fraudster.

In California, the car insurers kicked and screamed and said they would leave the state if the passed insurance reform....but you know what they are still there and Cali's car insurance customers have gotten very little increases int their cost of insurance while other states costs have increased greatly.
And the insurance companies don't mind, nice, normal, predictable business environment, yes, they are not making super profits but they don't have competitors out doing them in bad practices that can cause them legal trouble if they match etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wulfbrande
American Liberal Patriot
10:01 PM on 01/05/2010
We are actually expecting GOP senators and Blue Dogs to help create something that actually could favor the common man over the financial industry?

The next time you pay a fraudulent fee or get ripped off by a financial institution, keep in mind you just made a political donation to these "representatives of the people," on behalf of the financial industry.
10:43 PM on 01/05/2010
Hey, I live in Mobile, AL and have been trying to talk some in sense in these bluedogs for the past 3 - 4 years. Most are my neighbors and they feel some sort of connection with Christ...As CRAZY as it sounds they honestly do. You know the ab0rt!ion and g@y marriage thing. As long as they shut the door on those issues they are satisfied!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Wulfbrande
American Liberal Patriot
10:58 PM on 01/05/2010
Haven't been to Mobile, but I have been to Luverne, AL.

You have my sympathies.
12:00 AM on 01/06/2010
So being connected to Christ makes you want to be a lap dog apologists for elite insider parasites and he calls you to fight the "death" tax, for tax cuts for the rich etc...I missed where the Gospels talk about the importance of de-regulation. I remember the Golden Rule thing, the sheep and the goats (those that did for the least of these will be in heaven, those who did not will be cast into fire), the camel thru the eye of needle thing...but never the favor the rich and fight for deregulation thing....