What's up with the CFPB?

[Belsnickel]

So, I'm not sure how much everyone is following this. When the Director left to run for Governor in Ohio, he appointed Deputy Director English to serve as acting Director. Trump named Mulvaney as Acting Director. This threw everything into a weird limbo state on Monday when both claimed to be Acting Director.

English has brought a lawsuit, which the US District Court denied, that bars Mulvaney from serving as Acting Director. The argument is that under the agency's charter the Deputy Director serves as Acting Director when no Director is available, therefore there was no vacancy to be filled under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act that is what Trump is using to appoint Mulvaney. The act also states that it is to be used if no other legislation precludes it, yadda yadda. Long story short, their argument is that the Deputy is Acting until someone is nominated and approved through the Senate as a permanent Director. But, since Mulvaney has already gone through the confirmation process for his OMB role, it makes the argument a more difficult one to win.

I have a feeling that this fight will be taken further because lots of people see Mulvaney, who has stated his disdain for the regulatory agency, as a threat to it, so this will likely move to the Circuit Court of Appeals because supporters of CFPB see this as a fight for the life of the agency, itself.

I hadn't seen anything about this, and I didn't know how much anyone on here knew about it, or if this was one of those things that us more nerdy government types followed and no one else cared.

[*bfine32*]

(11-29-2017, 10:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I'm not sure how much everyone is following this. When the Director left to run for Governor in Ohio, he appointed Deputy Director English to serve as acting Director. Trump named Mulvaney as Acting Director. This threw everything into a weird limbo state on Monday when both claimed to be Acting Director.

English has brought a lawsuit, which the US District Court denied, that bars Mulvaney from serving as Acting Director. The argument is that under the agency's charter the Deputy Director serves as Acting Director when no Director is available, therefore there was no vacancy to be filled under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act that is what Trump is using to appoint Mulvaney. The act also states that it is to be used if no other legislation precludes it, yadda yadda. Long story short, their argument is that the Deputy is Acting until someone is nominated and approved through the Senate as a permanent Director. But, since Mulvaney has already gone through the confirmation process for his OMB role, it makes the argument a more difficult one to win.

I have a feeling that this fight will be taken further because lots of people see Mulvaney, who has stated his disdain for the regulatory agency, as a threat to it, so this will likely move to the Circuit Court of Appeals because supporters of CFPB see this as a fight for the life of the agency, itself.

I hadn't seen anything about this, and I didn't know how much anyone on here knew about it, or if this was one of those things that us more nerdy government types followed and no one else cared.

I'm going to put myself in the "no one else cared" category. I actually had to goggle CFPB. I really have no opinion on the appointment(s); however, my view is that the bureau is a waste of taxpayer money.  

[GMDino]

(11-29-2017, 10:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I'm not sure how much everyone is following this. When the Director left to run for Governor in Ohio, he appointed Deputy Director English to serve as acting Director. Trump named Mulvaney as Acting Director. This threw everything into a weird limbo state on Monday when both claimed to be Acting Director.

English has brought a lawsuit, which the US District Court denied, that bars Mulvaney from serving as Acting Director. The argument is that under the agency's charter the Deputy Director serves as Acting Director when no Director is available, therefore there was no vacancy to be filled under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act that is what Trump is using to appoint Mulvaney. The act also states that it is to be used if no other legislation precludes it, yadda yadda. Long story short, their argument is that the Deputy is Acting until someone is nominated and approved through the Senate as a permanent Director. But, since Mulvaney has already gone through the confirmation process for his OMB role, it makes the argument a more difficult one to win.

I have a feeling that this fight will be taken further because lots of people see Mulvaney, who has stated his disdain for the regulatory agency, as a threat to it, so this will likely move to the Circuit Court of Appeals because supporters of CFPB see this as a fight for the life of the agency, itself.

I hadn't seen anything about this, and I didn't know how much anyone on here knew about it, or if this was one of those things that us more nerdy government types followed and no one else cared.

Probably just my inherent lack of trust in all things the Trump Way™, but why did he move to fill THIS position so quickly when there are SO many others he has even nominated anyone for?

That make we suspicious.

Otherwise I've been following this in the background this week.

[Bengalzona]

(11-29-2017, 10:42 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I'm not sure how much everyone is following this. When the Director left to run for Governor in Ohio, he appointed Deputy Director English to serve as acting Director. Trump named Mulvaney as Acting Director. This threw everything into a weird limbo state on Monday when both claimed to be Acting Director.

English has brought a lawsuit, which the US District Court denied, that bars Mulvaney from serving as Acting Director. The argument is that under the agency's charter the Deputy Director serves as Acting Director when no Director is available, therefore there was no vacancy to be filled under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act that is what Trump is using to appoint Mulvaney. The act also states that it is to be used if no other legislation precludes it, yadda yadda. Long story short, their argument is that the Deputy is Acting until someone is nominated and approved through the Senate as a permanent Director. But, since Mulvaney has already gone through the confirmation process for his OMB role, it makes the argument a more difficult one to win.

I have a feeling that this fight will be taken further because lots of people see Mulvaney, who has stated his disdain for the regulatory agency, as a threat to it, so this will likely move to the Circuit Court of Appeals because supporters of CFPB see this as a fight for the life of the agency, itself.

I hadn't seen anything about this, and I didn't know how much anyone on here knew about it, or if this was one of those things that us more nerdy government types followed and no one else cared.

Unfortunately, most people don't know what the CFPB is or what it does. Therefore, their level of caring is limited to "Trump did it. Therefore, it is A) Great!, or B) Horrible! (check only one please)."

Frankly, I am at the point of not caring. What will be will be. Since the majority feel that regulations are not necessary, then they deserve the world that they create and the things that happen to them as a result.

[Goalpost]

The Trump Administration’s charge that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was promoting a partisan agenda may not be entirely wrong, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets Web site analysis of political donations made by CFPB employees.
 
The Washington Examiner is reporting that Open Secrets determined that CFPB workers made political donations to 593 Democratic candidates but only one Republican since 2012. The majority of donations went to Hillary Clinton for her failed 2016 presidential campaign, followed by $19,988 to President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election. Elizabeth Warren, who is credited as creator of the agency, received $13,190 from CFPB staff to help fund here 2012 election campaign to become a senator from Massachusetts. And Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) absorbed $1,129 in his bid for the 2016 Democratic nomination.
 
On the GOP side, the lone Republican to receive a donation from a CFPB employee was Mitt Romney, who took in $1,000 for his 2012 presidential bid. Overall, CFPB employees gave $114,859.61 to various Democrats and Democratic committees.

...the donations from this organization certainly only heads one way....

[Vlad]

(11-29-2017, 11:25 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Unfortunately, most people don't know what the CFPB is or what it does.

Nothing but a money laundering scheme set up by democrats in order to fund liberal causes under the guise of consumer protection.

I'll let Rush explain it in detail:

RUSH: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is another little liberal enclave that was established by liberal Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren, that was set up as an agency that was unaccountable to anyone. It even had a budget that was unaccountable to the U.S. budget. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd set this thing up and Elizabeth Warren was the real driver of this particular organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I went through yesterday a number of descriptions of what it is and how it was set up, but let me just boil it down to the bare essence.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was an independent agency set up in violation of Article 2 of the United States Constitution, which allowed the Democrats to have oversight over the financial industry in America, lending institutions, banks, and you name it. And they were under the guise of protecting consumers.
But that’s not what this organization did. What this organization did was launder money. It was nothing more than a money-laundering scheme. And it had another purpose. The fines that it levied for anti-consumer policies and anti-consumer behavior at these banks, what do you think they did with the money? The CFPB was a pass-through, and the fine money was given to Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women, or take your pick of any left-wing activist group.

This was an independent agency set up to be able to legally get money from the financial industry and then turn around and give it to left-wing activist groups. And that’s what they were doing with it. And that’s why they are so desperate to hold on to it. The point is, it’s unconstitutional, and that’s the only thing that matters.
You know, the left is caught here. Because as the controversy has arisen over should it be Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s guy that runs this, or should it remain Richard Cordray, he was the director. And the way this thing was set up, the director gets to name his successor. Congress cannot pass a law like this. That’s unconstitutional. The thing wouldn’t survive five minutes at the Supreme Court.
The left knows it. Political pressure being brought to bear, and the way they’re doing that is trying to discuss the importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and what it does and why it’s necessary and what happened before it existed and the great things that have happened — none of that matters. Whatever it’s doing doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not the Congress can establish an agency like this that is unaccountable to anybody, that violates Article 2 of the Constitution.

There’s something called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act which allows the president, who runs the executive branch, to appoint successors to people in federal agencies under the executive branch umbrella leaving. This thing was set up to be an independent agency accountable to no one. Its very existence is unconstitutional. The left knows it. That’s why they’re hell-bent, Cordray named this Leandra English to succeed him.
They want to keep this totally under Democrat liberal control so they can continue to use it to launder money and to be as a pass-through. And, by the way, it’s not the only organization doing this. Remember the scandal that was discovered, the Obama administration on many of the DOJ fines against culprits, that money was being sent to left-wing activist groups. It’s no different, folks, in practice, from Obama’s stimulus. Obama announces a stimulus of basically $800 billion, ostensibly to build roads and bridges. But that didn’t happen, did it? Where’d the money go?

The money went to unions. The money went to states and teachers and union members to keep them employed during the Great Recession. The reason for that is, those people need to be employed in order to pay union dues. Union dues are collected from what they make and are sent in a circuitous route back to the Democrat Party in the form of campaign donations. So the stimulus was a substitute for Obama walking over to the Treasury and writing a check for $800 billion to the Democrat National Committee.
Instead, you go through the motions of setting up this gigantic economic stimulus designed to fix roads and bridges and build schools, but you don’t do that. You give the lion’s share of the money to unions, which are then gonna give a percentage of that money right back to the Democrat Party. Same thing here with this phony baloney agency.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: And lest you doubt me on this, the Obama era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been a Democrat Party donor bank. The bureaucrats working at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have written checks to liberals at a rate of 593 for every one Republican.
“Research of donor records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics revealed that Hillary Rodham Clinton was the dominant recipient of tens of thousands of dollars from CFPB workers, followed by President Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who had a huge role in creating the agency.”
She’s the number three recipient of donor funds! “Overall, employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have donated $114,859.61 to various Democrats and Democratic committees.”
That does not include the fines that the CPFB has incurred and levied against institutions, and that money is then given to left-wing activist groups. The whole thing’s a sham, folks, under the guise of protecting consumers from evil corporations who want to ruin them.

---

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2017, 11:18 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I'm going to put myself in the "no one else cared" category. I actually had to goggle CFPB. I really have no opinion on the appointment(s); however, my view is that the bureau is a waste of taxpayer money.  

Well, it's not funded through tax revenue as the budget is not controlled through Congress. As an independent regulatory agency, its funding comes from elsewhere to avoid it being used as a political football. Specifically, its money comes from th eFederal Reserve System, which receives its operational funding through interest it charges and through transactional fees.

(11-29-2017, 11:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: Probably just my inherent lack of trust in all things the Trump Way™, but why did he move to fill THIS position so quickly when there are SO many others he has even nominated anyone for?

That make we suspicious.

Otherwise I've been following this in the background this week.

It's because they want to tear it apart. The agency is all about educating and protections consumers from financial institutions, and these financial institutions are who some elected officials would rather be protecting.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2017, 11:51 AM)Vlad Wrote: Nothing but a money laundering scheme set up by democrats in order to fund liberal causes under the guise of consumer protection.

I'll let Rush explain it in detail:

RUSH: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This is another little liberal enclave that was established by liberal Democrats, including Elizabeth Warren, that was set up as an agency that was unaccountable to anyone. It even had a budget that was unaccountable to the U.S. budget. Barney Frank and Chris Dodd set this thing up and Elizabeth Warren was the real driver of this particular organization, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

I went through yesterday a number of descriptions of what it is and how it was set up, but let me just boil it down to the bare essence.
The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was an independent agency set up in violation of Article 2 of the United States Constitution, which allowed the Democrats to have oversight over the financial industry in America, lending institutions, banks, and you name it. And they were under the guise of protecting consumers.
But that’s not what this organization did. What this organization did was launder money. It was nothing more than a money-laundering scheme. And it had another purpose. The fines that it levied for anti-consumer policies and anti-consumer behavior at these banks, what do you think they did with the money? The CFPB was a pass-through, and the fine money was given to Planned Parenthood, the National Organization for Women, or take your pick of any left-wing activist group.

This was an independent agency set up to be able to legally get money from the financial industry and then turn around and give it to left-wing activist groups. And that’s what they were doing with it. And that’s why they are so desperate to hold on to it. The point is, it’s unconstitutional, and that’s the only thing that matters.
You know, the left is caught here. Because as the controversy has arisen over should it be Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s guy that runs this, or should it remain Richard Cordray, he was the director. And the way this thing was set up, the director gets to name his successor. Congress cannot pass a law like this. That’s unconstitutional. The thing wouldn’t survive five minutes at the Supreme Court.
The left knows it. Political pressure being brought to bear, and the way they’re doing that is trying to discuss the importance of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and what it does and why it’s necessary and what happened before it existed and the great things that have happened — none of that matters. Whatever it’s doing doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is whether or not the Congress can establish an agency like this that is unaccountable to anybody, that violates Article 2 of the Constitution.

There’s something called the Federal Vacancies Reform Act which allows the president, who runs the executive branch, to appoint successors to people in federal agencies under the executive branch umbrella leaving. This thing was set up to be an independent agency accountable to no one. Its very existence is unconstitutional. The left knows it. That’s why they’re hell-bent, Cordray named this Leandra English to succeed him.
They want to keep this totally under Democrat liberal control so they can continue to use it to launder money and to be as a pass-through. And, by the way, it’s not the only organization doing this. Remember the scandal that was discovered, the Obama administration on many of the DOJ fines against culprits, that money was being sent to left-wing activist groups. It’s no different, folks, in practice, from Obama’s stimulus. Obama announces a stimulus of basically $800 billion, ostensibly to build roads and bridges. But that didn’t happen, did it? Where’d the money go?

The money went to unions. The money went to states and teachers and union members to keep them employed during the Great Recession. The reason for that is, those people need to be employed in order to pay union dues. Union dues are collected from what they make and are sent in a circuitous route back to the Democrat Party in the form of campaign donations. So the stimulus was a substitute for Obama walking over to the Treasury and writing a check for $800 billion to the Democrat National Committee.
Instead, you go through the motions of setting up this gigantic economic stimulus designed to fix roads and bridges and build schools, but you don’t do that. You give the lion’s share of the money to unions, which are then gonna give a percentage of that money right back to the Democrat Party. Same thing here with this phony baloney agency.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: And lest you doubt me on this, the Obama era Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been a Democrat Party donor bank. The bureaucrats working at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have written checks to liberals at a rate of 593 for every one Republican.
“Research of donor records maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics revealed that Hillary Rodham Clinton was the dominant recipient of tens of thousands of dollars from CFPB workers, followed by President Obama and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who had a huge role in creating the agency.”
She’s the number three recipient of donor funds! “Overall, employees at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau have donated $114,859.61 to various Democrats and Democratic committees.”
That does not include the fines that the CPFB has incurred and levied against institutions, and that money is then given to left-wing activist groups. The whole thing’s a sham, folks, under the guise of protecting consumers from evil corporations who want to ruin them.

---

I see claims of money laundering, but nothing to back it up. I see claims of it being unconstitutional, but if so based on that argument, that would make a lot of agencies unconstitutional. Other than that, this is just a lot of hot air.

[*bfine32*]

(11-29-2017, 11:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Well, it's not funded through tax revenue as the budget is not controlled through Congress. As an independent regulatory agency, its funding comes from elsewhere to avoid it being used as a political football. Specifically, its money comes from th eFederal Reserve System, which receives its operational funding through interest it charges and through transactional fees.

So are taxpayers paying for this federal program or not? 

To be honest when I first gave my response I had no idea that this was even a partisan issue. Just seemed like a government program doing something that each consumer should be doing for themselves.

If it leaned partisan at all I would have thought it would lean right as they are they are painted uneducated and would need the government to help them make wise financial decisions

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2017, 11:45 AM)Goalpost Wrote: The Trump Administration’s charge that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was promoting a partisan agenda may not be entirely wrong, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets Web site analysis of political donations made by CFPB employees.
 
The Washington Examiner is reporting that Open Secrets determined that CFPB workers made political donations to 593 Democratic candidates but only one Republican since 2012. The majority of donations went to Hillary Clinton for her failed 2016 presidential campaign, followed by $19,988 to President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election. Elizabeth Warren, who is credited as creator of the agency, received $13,190 from CFPB staff to help fund here 2012 election campaign to become a senator from Massachusetts. And Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) absorbed $1,129 in his bid for the 2016 Democratic nomination.
 
On the GOP side, the lone Republican to receive a donation from a CFPB employee was Mitt Romney, who took in $1,000 for his 2012 presidential bid. Overall, CFPB employees gave $114,859.61 to various Democrats and Democratic committees.

...the donations from this organization certainly only heads one way....

Bureaucrats tend to lean left, more and more so these days. There has been an environment fostered on the right (and that includes the neo-liberal Democrats) that has been poison to the idea of public service. I'd love to see more balance among our ranks, but there has been a culture that government is bad and the result has been difficulty staffing positions, and those that do staff them are going to be more liberal.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2017, 12:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So are taxpayers paying for this federal program or not? 

Technically speaking, taxpayers pay for everything in the country in the public and private sectors, but they aren't paying for the CFPB with taxes.

[*bfine32*]

(11-29-2017, 12:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Technically speaking, taxpayers pay for everything in the country in the public and private sectors, but they aren't paying for the CFPB with taxes.

That's why I didn't say waste of tax dollars. But never mind you found what you thought was important to point out in the post. 

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2017, 12:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: That's why I didn't say waste of tax dollars. But never mind you found what you thought was important to point out in the post. 

I know you tried to play a semantics game on this, I'm not fooled. The initial statement of it being a waste of "taxpayer money" was intended to imply that it shouldn't be something the government funds with the budget based on tax revenue. Why else use the term? When it was explained that was not the case you tried to make the case for a broader concept of it. I play the semantics game like this, too, you can't bullshit a bullshitter.

[*bfine32*]

(11-29-2017, 12:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I know you tried to play a semantics game on this, I'm not fooled. The initial statement of it being a waste of "taxpayer money" was intended to imply that it shouldn't be something the government funds with the budget based on tax revenue. Why else use the term? When it was explained that was not the case you tried to make the case for a broader concept of it. I play the semantics game like this, too, you can't bullshit a bullshitter.

My apologies I did not realize this organization was privately funded. 

With this new information I withdraw my claim on waste of taxpayer's money.

[Benton]

(11-29-2017, 11:45 AM)Goalpost Wrote: The Trump Administration’s charge that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was promoting a partisan agenda may not be entirely wrong, according to the Center for Responsive Politics’ Open Secrets Web site analysis of political donations made by CFPB employees.
 
The Washington Examiner is reporting that Open Secrets determined that CFPB workers made political donations to 593 Democratic candidates but only one Republican since 2012. The majority of donations went to Hillary Clinton for her failed 2016 presidential campaign, followed by $19,988 to President Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election. Elizabeth Warren, who is credited as creator of the agency, received $13,190 from CFPB staff to help fund here 2012 election campaign to become a senator from Massachusetts. And Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) absorbed $1,129 in his bid for the 2016 Democratic nomination.
 
On the GOP side, the lone Republican to receive a donation from a CFPB employee was Mitt Romney, who took in $1,000 for his 2012 presidential bid. Overall, CFPB employees gave $114,859.61 to various Democrats and Democratic committees.

...the donations from this organization certainly only heads one way....

I’d say that is understandable. Outside of congress and the military, republicans tend to deregulate to the point of not working. Postal system, transportation, education, mental health. I imagine the people who work for the cpfb believe in their cause, so they probably wouldn’t donate to candidates likely to derail it.

[Belsnickel]

(11-29-2017, 12:17 PM)Benton Wrote: I’d say that is understandable. Outside of congress and the military, republicans tend to deregulate to the point of not working. Postal system, transportation, education, mental health. I imagine the people who work for the cpfb believe in their cause, so they probably wouldn’t donate to candidates likely to derail it.

Pretty much. Contrary to the belief some people hold, most people that work in government do so because they believe in the mission. The unfortunate situation is that this is a "leftist" belief these days.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

The fact this agency helps unemployed veterans with financial planning seems like a good reason draft dodgers like Trump with his Immaculate Bone Spur and Limbaugh with his ass pimple wouldn't see a need for this agency.

[Benton]

(11-29-2017, 12:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Pretty much. Contrary to the belief some people hold, most people that work in government do so because they believe in the mission. The unfortunate situation is that this is a "leftist" belief these days.

The bulk of people (outside of some understandable departments like transportation) working in state and federal government believe in the goal of their job. Some of the most passionate, dedicated people I’ve met are in ag and ed departments at the state and federal level. People who could make two or three times as much in the private sector, but want to help further their agency.

But anyway, I’m derailing. Sorry about that.

To the op, I imagine the agency will quietly fade into the background like many over the next couple years. It’ll take something catastrophic before people say “hey, maybe we need some guidance here, like a neutral agency.” And then BAM some genius in Congress will come up with the CDPB.

[Goalpost]

[quote='Belsnickel' pid='475153' dateline='1511968826']

Pretty much. Contrary to the belief some people hold, most people that work in government do so because they believe in the mission.
[/quote

Understood and respect that. But.. I think their mission should be what the mission statement of what the agency is for. I work in a corporate environment and my company’s mission statement supersedes my personal beliefs. It is apolitical. Basically inarguable. I have a hard time believing that a 593 to 1 is in congruence with a mission statement that...impartiality isn’t happening. And it doesn’t help when somebody says I’m going to sue to protect this instead of trying to bargain some.

[treee]

There are entire enterprises whose sole function is to prey on the financially illiterate in the U.S. I'd say that warrants an active protection. On one, I understand the general disdain for federally appointed, rather than elected, positions in the government. But you won't hear nuanced arguments coming from the talking heads on the right about the agency. Maybe if they came up with solutions instead of trying to dismantle everything, people would take them more seriously.