baltimoresun.com
Attorney General Douglas Gansler is outraged that Republicans who lost the fight to create a consumer financial protection agency are now blocking the president's outstanding nominee to run it
By Douglas F. Gansler
2:35 PM EST, December 13, 2011
|
"Balanced." "Fair-minded." Showing "great personal integrity."
These are some of the terms a bipartisan group of 37 state attorneys
general used to describe former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray,
President Barack Obama's nominee for director of the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB). Add to that list "good public servant," the
phrase Ohio Republican Sen. Robert Portman used to describe him just
days ago.
Sounds like a radical, doesn't he?
If he's not,
how else do we explain last week's move by 45 members of the U.S. Senate
to block his appointment to that post? After all, by blocking Mr.
Cordray's appointment, that vocal minority prevented an already enacted
law — the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — from being
fully carried out, essentially using 45 Senate votes to nullify
legislation that passed by significant majorities in both houses of
Congress (237 in the House and 60 in the Senate), representing the will
of many millions of Americans.
But the Senate minority's vote is
not about Mr. Cordray. Rather, it seems to be an attempt to undo the
legislative process and protect the financial service industry from
additional oversight under the guise of a disagreement about the way the
CFPB is structured. Sen. Richard Shelby, an Alabama Republican, said
Mr. Cordray's nomination was "dead on arrival," explaining that he and
his colleagues "will not confirm any nominee" until changes are made in
the CFPB. Sen. Lindsey Graham, in defending his vote to block Mr.
Cordray's appointment, likened the CFPB to "something out of the
Stalinist era" — apparently because it is too independent from Congress.
It
appears that the only way around this obstructionism may be for
President Obama to make a recess appointment so Mr. Cordray can get to
work for the American people.
Of course, the time to debate the
structure of the CFPB was back in 2010, when the Consumer Protection Act
came up for debate. At the time, many senators vigorously opposed the
act, but they lost. When the debate ended and votes were counted, the
act passed and the president signed it into law. That's how democracy
works. So whether they think the CFPB is a bad idea is irrelevant; the
CFPB is no longer an idea. It is an up-and-running government agency.
And, like any agency, it needs a leader — someone who can make tough
decisions, provide vision and be accountable for the agency's
performance. (Ideally, that someone would be balanced, fair-minded and
have great personal integrity, like Richard Cordray.) Voting against Mr.
Cordray does not makes the CFPB cease to exist; it only prevents it
from benefiting from his leadership.
More importantly, members of
the Senate minority seem to think that it is more important to try to
protect the financial services industry from effective regulation than
it is to protect Americans from financial services abuse. If so, they
have the needs of the American people exactly backward. With nearly a
quarter of U.S. homeowners underwater on their mortgages, Americans are
much more concerned about the financial services industry's lack of
accountability to the people than they are about the nuances of how the
agency created to protect consumers is structured. The unchecked status
quo is what threw so many American consumers into financial crisis in
the first place, and they cannot afford to be swindled again. They want
government to fight to end the financial services status quo, not fight
to keep it.
We state attorneys general know this to be true. When
state attorneys general held Countrywide Financial accountable for
abusing poor and minority homebuyers, American consumers did not demand
less government action; they cheered. The same thing happened when state
attorneys general held bad banks and shady debt settlement companies
accountable for unfair practices. Now the federal government has an
excellent opportunity to expand protections for American consumers, an
opportunity created by a law that was itself cheered on by consumers.
Clearly, when it comes to the previously unpoliced financial services
industry, consumers are demanding a new sheriff in town — not no sheriff
in town.
Nonetheless, even though the people have spoken out
against the status quo and demanded more government oversight, 45
members of the Senate don't like what they have said, and those members
are willing to circumvent the traditional democratic process to advance
their own agenda, even if that means keeping well-qualified people like
Richard Cordray from assuming positions of authority. In short, a small
minority of government officials is thwarting the democratic will of the
people so that they can continue to dictate regulatory policy.
Nothing at all Stalinist about that.
Douglas F. Gansler is attorney general of Maryland and president-elect of the National Association of Attorneys General. His email is oag@oag.state.md.us.
Copyright © 2012, The Baltimore Sun
No comments:
Post a Comment