Who will be Fired/Resign Next In The Trump Administration

Wow, a right wing blog opining on consumer protection. Who'd a thunk? But as others have pointed out, can you list any abuses they have been guilty of? I posted a number of consumer protection benefits that the Agency was responsible for... curious how the Agency has hurt consumers?

 

I don't really want to take up Commodore's argument, but I think this is a terrible argument. If the structure and accountability are wrong (and unconstitutional), it doesn't matter if their **** smells like petunias. They might have angels running the show right now, but some devil will eventually be in charge which is why structure and accountability are so important. Asking for anecdotes of malfeasance is too thin a defense imo to this very fundamental complaint.

 

I believe this is true for the Fed and other agencies, no? The position is vacant and/or the Deputy Director or Deputy Secretary takes over until one is confirmed by the Senate, no? I don't think a President can appoint an acting Sec of State of Sec of Defense or anything like that while his nominees are waiting to be confirmed. Trump didn't appoint an acting Director of the FBI when Comey stepped down - the Deputy Director took over until a nominee is confirmed. Why is it different here? Or, if the Congress and President passed a law saying the agency can name it's own acting director, why is that a problem? The President can keep firing the acting one if they want, but I don't think they can just appoint one in the interim.

 

This still avoids the question. You said they are mad with power. What have they done that you think is excessive?

 

I think Commodore is taking up the Trump and Mick Mulvaney cause to weaken or eliminate completely the Agency. And again, given all of the protection and benefits of the Agency, I am challenging him to show reason why.

 

This was a good interview (of law professor Adam Levitin) on the subject I heard on the radio yesterday:

Here's the part I thought interesting:

What I take away here is that the autonomy of this CFPB Director is unique in the federal government. If I wanted to be charitable and not cynically chalk it up to partisan tricks, maybe I could say this was an attempt at innovating federal administration to cure past structural failures. But, it seems clear to me that this agency is remarkable in the autonomy it was given in Dodd-Frank. And maybe that's smart. As the prof points out, the Vacancies Act allows the president to install a de facto director without Senate confirmation by naming an Acting Director and then stalling on naming a permanent one. But, I really don't like the idea of one appointed bureaucrat naming his own successor like it was some sort of hereditary monarchy. If the Senate was controlled by a hostile Democratic party, liberal Acting Directors could name a long string of liberal Deputy Directors while the Senate stalled on confirming a new appointment; then Trump would never manage to get control of his own agency. That doesn't make sense.

 

without it, these corporate misdeeds, w the help of powerful lobbysts who have many politicians in their pocket,
would have been swept under the rug.

• Wells Fargo creating fictitious accounts using customers personal info
• Credit reporting agencies not disclosing the hacking of customers' personal info
• student lending abuses, such as exorbitant interest rate,
• pay day (predactory) lending
• Banks/Financial institutions short-changing depositors on earned interest.

congressional authorization is just an euphemism for political pressure / lobbyists; has it occurred to you that many members of elected body are beholden to powerful lobbysts.

some agencies, such as the CPA, the Fed and others, should be free of political pressure from the Congress, where many are beholden to powerful lobbyist.

free of political pressure, post the GWB-induced economic depression, the Fed was able to implement the QE program towards economic stability / recovery. imagine if the Fed was subject to the political pressure by the financial industry lobbysts.​

 

What you're essentially saying is that democracy doesn't work and our Constitutional separation of powers was dumb.

 

Given that Congress set it up and designed its funding source and leadership mechanisms and the executive branch had to approve it, how is that not democracy in action? We have lots of agencies that operate under different rules and get funding from different sources. The Fed, for example, was designed to be completely independent from congressional funding. I could be wrong, but I don't think the President can appoint an acting Federal Reserve Chairperson either.

 

Constitutional separation of powers is great. But the constitution isn't perfect and has plenty of flaws.

It wasn't written by God. It was written by human beings 300 years ago.

Much of the Constitution was written with the presence of good faith in mind. The executive branch has WAY TOO MUCH unilateral power, and is dangerous when lunatics like Donald Trump become president.

 

A court found the structure to be unconstitutional.

 

A part of a court found a portion of it to be unconstitutional (the "congressional authorization" funding part wasn't an issue). The decision is being appealed. If it's ultimately found to unconstitutional, it's structure will be changed or the organization will be dismantled.

That, again, seems like the Constitution at work.

 

Sorry, hadn't finished my thought.

What I was responding to was not the compatibility of the CFPB with American democracy, but the attitude expressed by @adoo that you can't trust Congress because of the influence of lobbyists. That we have to protect ourselves against our own elected representatives. There is some realpolitik truth to that but only because we are stupid about voting. When it comes to governance in theory at least, Congress is supposed to be our protection.

 

http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/27...pb-in-his-first-press-conference-as-director/

 

It's true. Everyone knows the sec and other regulatory bodies were captured before and during the collapse. That's why it was formed.

All Republicans could do was vote no on the first bailout but decided reducing human misery trumped principles.

The cfpb is fairly fresh in memory. I wouldn't mind revising it over time but I highly doubt much reform has been accomplished from the spirit of starting the agency

 

Still can't name an example of the agency overreach?

 

That is a frightening statement by Mulvaney but not in the way you intend it to be...

 

Looks like the money might be back on Tillerson.

 

Strange this suddenly pops up again after Tillerson snubs Trump's #1 daughter on her trip to India.