Our Dems have done it again, compromised the crap out of a bill to gain one Republican vote.
CFPA, which would be the first federal regulatory agency devoted solely to consumer financial protection, passed the committee 39 to 29. All but one of the assembled committee Republicans and two Democrats voted against the consumer protection bill, despite a series of compromises that included exemptions for favored industries and limits on tougher state regulation.
You've got Goldman handing out tens of billions in bonuses, you can't get the votes? Why do I feel like we're being represented by the wrongly executed, Todd Willingham's, defense team.
Unlike health insurance reform, Obama laid a clear plan out for Congress to consider.
However, committee chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) made it clear, via his own amendments and his support for certain exemptions proposed by other committee members, that the agency's regulatory power extends only to lending activity, not other retail purchases on credit.
"We have restricted the CFPA from what the administration proposed," Frank said
uh...Thanks Barney. I'm sure the credit companies will be transformed into moral compasses and shining beacons of hope by the very notion that we ought trust them to do so.
And if they don't, well golly, we still have the Fed, and the other "regulators" right?
Rep. Michael Castle (R-Del.) acknowledged that existing regulators failed to protect consumers, but, he added, "I think they're ready to do that now."
"I think they're ready to do that now!!!" That's quite the rigorous...damn the word escapes me...my sarcasm can't wrap itself around such a stupid remark...you want to bank consumer protections on what "you think" the same federal regulators (translation: Wall Street placeholders), who have failed for the last 30 years to do their jobs due to inherent and explicit conflicts of interests.
Endorsement...that's the word I was looking for. Mike Castle's ringing endorsement:
"I think they're ready"
For the guillotine or the gallows, perhaps.
In case you missed it, Mike, here's Ben the Beard on Consumer Protections:
Bernanke, though, argued ... that while moving the effective date up to December "could benefit consumers by providing important protections earlier than scheduled (including protections against applying increased rates to existing credit card balances)," it could lead to problems for credit-card issuers. "Issuers must be afforded sufficient time for implementation to allow for an orderly transition and to avoid unintended consequences, compliance difficulties and potential liabilities."
WTF? You want this guy to protect the consumers? I wouldn't trust him to run the token machine at a Tijuana strip joint.
"Potential liabilities?" Isn't that an eternally, infinite list regardless of circumstances. What about the "potential assets" they could gain. Or "potential blessings" or "potentially referentially exponentially incidental and inconsequential excuses".
"Compliance Difficulties" - really? really? Since you gave them more time to comply, they've moved in exactly the opposite direction by engaging in the very abuses, the law will prevent. It would seem more time, is the last thing they need in order to get over their difficulties.
And WTF are the "unintended consequences" of not letting banks rape us? Ben sounds like Halliburton's Arbitration Pimp Mark Di Bernardo. Apparently, rape of the masses is a necessary and ancillary evil. Except, it's not really ancillary, it's quite pervasive and self perpetuating.
The bullies have us upside down by the ankles and Congress' idea of an appropriate intervention is to wait until our feet fall off.