Saving Consumers from Themselves

The trouble with Obama’s proposal for a Consumer Financial Protection Agency

When I first learned to drive as a teenager, my mother let me take the wheel on trips to the local grocery store. She was there in the passenger seat, arms flailing every time a squirrel or a piece of sagebrush came across the road, her left forearm pressing my chest back against the seat. It was instinct. She wanted to brace me for the impact of a crash. The only problem was that I needed both arms free to keep the van from crashing in the first place. While I appreciated my mother's concern, I hated the thought that she might protect me to death.

Which is the same attitude every American should have when it comes to the new consumer financial protection laws President Barack Obama and Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) want to impose on businesses.

Later this afternoon, President Obama is scheduled to give a White House speech reiterating his support for the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA). Obama first proposed the idea in June as a part of his grand plan to overhaul Wall Street regulations. But it has come under considerable attack recently for fear it would smother businesses and end up hurting consumers.

If created, the CFPA would be tasked with ensuring that consumers who use financial products like bank accounts, mortgages, and credit cards are protected from the evil corporations that are out to get their money. In a sense, it is a noble idea, stemming from the mind of a noble woman, Congressional Oversight Panel Chair Elizabeth Warren. But it's going to protect us to death.

In its current form, the CFPA will pile on burdensome new rules, restrict innovation, hurt small businesses, increase the cost of doing business, spawn a massive bureaucracy, and create severe conflicts between state and federal law. Frank's proposed version would even allow the new agency to write and enforce laws beyond the scope of existing legislative authority. There are good ways of reforming consumer protection. The Consumer Financial Protection Agency is not one of them.

Currently, consumers are protected by a layering of federal agencies, depending on the type of financial institution and its corresponding regulator. Much of the consumer protection at banks lies in the Federal Reserve, but the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Securities and Exchange Commission, along with other agencies in the alphabet soup of regulators, have mandates to watch out for consumers as well. By and large, this protection is supposed to prevent abuse, stop "predatory lending," ensure that banks give out the appropriate information, and stop companies from tricking consumers into buying something they don't want. In theory, that is all good stuff.

The free market needs a regulatory structure, there need to be rules to guide conduct, fraud and theft must be prevented. There's nothing inherently wrong with the government protecting consumers from actual destructive behavior. The problem is that the CFPA would try to protect consumers from themselves, at the expense of business.

Congress has already given in to this paternalistic urge by passing the credit card act in May 2009. That law tried to keep banks from charging high interest rates and fees, but instead has only served to restrict available credit, especially for low-income borrowers. The CFPA is looking to expand that disastrous initiative.

Congress approaches the issue as one of "systemic risk." From the point of view of the Democrats in the House Financial Services Committee (FSC)—the legislative body creating the CFPA—consumers need a single, all-knowing agency to protect them, one that has the power to scan the whole market and assess the dangers of different products. The Democrats argue that had a CFPA been in place, the dangers of subprime mortgages would have been spotted and regulators could have stopped the mortgages' hazardous growth.

In a way, it's a logical argument—but it only works if government agencies could be all-knowing.

The problem is that many people did see the danger in subprime mortgages, particularly their fragmentation into mortgage-backed securities, but it wasn't possible to know everything we know now in the heat of the moment back then. (Which is a reason no one acted.) Regulators are fallible, and there's nothing prudent about trusting a single, bureaucratic agency with managing the safety of the whole market.

Nevertheless, some positive strides have been made recently. Under pressure from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (USCC)—vehemently opposed to the idea of a CFPA—and Blue Dog Democrats, House FSC Chairman Frank has backed down from some of the more extreme aspects of the original Obama/Warren design.

The Obama/Warren plan would have required financial institutions to offer certain products, including "plain vanilla" versions of checking accounts, mortgages, or IRAs. The Obama/Warren CFPA would also have received the power to create simplified products and force firms to sell those in addition to—or in place of—their own financial products. Those deadly provisions are now out.

The original plan also called for forcing all financial institutions to make their products easier to understand. This is a component of the credit card bill, which limits fine print to allow consumers to understand their purchases in four minutes or less. While Frank is still pushing for increased disclosure, he has taken out the vague and dangerous "Reasonableness" clause, which left it up to the CFPA to determine what was the "reasonable way" to understand a given financial product.

Frank also issued a memo listing the types of institutions that won't be subjected to CFPA regulation, including lawyers, auto dealers, telecom companies, 401(K) providers, and real estate brokers. However, the financial products these companies offer will be subjected to regulatory oversight by the CFPA, a rather significant sleight of hand.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Xeones||

    It is a damn shame there's no alt text on that picture.

  • Rich||

    From the point of view of the Democrats in the House Financial Services Committee ... consumers need a single, all-knowing agency to protect them, one that has the power to scan the whole market and assess the dangers of different products.

    Sounds like "In God We Trust".

  • ||

    Does anyone in politics even care about Constitutional law anymore? Saving you from yourself? That's so stupid, I can do whatever I want to myself.

    You know, I love free will, but it is so hard to believe in it when there are so many dumbfucks out there who would just fuck us all over.

  • ||

    Caption:

    "Yes, I know Professor Krugman."

  • Kroneborge||

    The biggest problem IMO, is the state thing. We should be making it simpler for businesses to comply. Just like it should be simpler for a consumer to know what they are getting into.

    That being said, unless you change the incentive structure it won't matter. If you reward a mortgage broker for the amount of shitty mortgages he can sell, guess what he's going to sell?

    Also, why the fuck do we have so many damm agencies. Like we really need one for thrifts, one for banks etc. I say yes, combine and simplify.

    Finally, people had more than enough information to see the crises coming. There were many people that pointed it out publically, and repeatedly.

  • ||

    "And he said he just want to put the tip in and I said what do you mean by tip and then he did this with his fingers and I said OK."

  • ||

    0
  • ||

    ... the CFPA will pile on burdensome new rules, restrict innovation, hurt small businesses, increase the cost of doing business, spawn a massive bureaucracy, and create severe conflicts between state and federal law.


    IOW, touches all the bases.
    ___________________________________________________________________
    The Squirrel (praised be his name) magnaminously grants me Preview and like the sinner I am, I ignored it in my previous. But he is a merciful Squirrel who forgives my transgressions when I repent.

  • Attorney||

    I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by Cass Sunstein and Elizabeth Warren.

  • ||

    Couldn't agree more, considerably more democratic and at least my voice is heard.

  • ||

    Rarely has there ever been a picture so desperately in need of a caption.

  • creech||

    But this wins votes. And when the banks seek their lost profits by raising other fees to their customers, the customers will blame the big greedy banks, not the government.

  • mr simple||

    What's wrong with a committee outside of the legislative body that isn't accountable to voters making laws that they know couldn't get through a body actually accountable to the governed if it's to protect people? I don't see how that could be bad. Aren't these the right people in charge?
    And who are you to question the president, Randazzo? Do you have a Nobel prize? Racist.

  • ||

    "Look, just because he's half black...."

  • prolefeed||

    Currently, consumers are protected by a layering of federal agencies, depending on the type of financial institution and its corresponding regulator.

    "protected"? Link? Change it to "fucked over" and then I'll agree.

    Putting the word "Protection" in an Orwellian title doesn't mean that's what they'll do, just as putting the word "security" in "Homeland Security" doesn't mean that's what the fucking TSA is doing to you in airports.

  • ||

    mr simple says, in part: "What's wrong with a committee outside of the legislative body that isn't accountable to voters making laws that they know couldn't get through a body actually accountable to the governed if it's to protect people? I don't see how that could be bad. Aren't these the right people in charge?"

    Precisely. And it need not be justified by being written in order to protect people. The rubrics of "punishing the evil-doers" as well as "smiting the illiberal capitalists" and "making income distribution more equitable" and let's not forget "tax the rich". All good! Yes, indeedy! When the imagination of the excuse-makers falters, use this: "We won the election!" Never fails.

  • BakedPenguin||

    caption - "The Obama Administration: Helping Americans make do with less"

  • ||

    the CFPA will pile on burdensome new rules, restrict innovation, hurt small businesses, increase the cost of doing business, spawn a massive bureaucracy, and create severe conflicts between state and federal law.

    Bugs, or features? Only your Congressscum knows for sure!

  • Jeff P||

    "I'm crushing you're head..."

  • srjim2000||

    I wonder how mom reacted to being mentioned in the article.

    Did she point the finger back at Anthony?

    Did she blame her own mother (the previous administration)?

    Did ACORN buy her the car?

    Maybe, she even won the Nobel Peace Prize !?

    Mmm, mmm, mmm,
    Anthony Randazzo's mommy. . .

    Inquiring minds want to know!

    Loved the reasoning Anthony, and I hope mom can take a joke ;)

  • ||

    The biggest problem of the CFPA is that Obama envisions using it to step up pressure on banks to make risky, low-income loans under the Community Reinvestment Act, which helped spawn the mortgage crisis, and which punishes banks for failing to engage in geographic affirmative action in lending.

    The white paper explaining Obama's proposals denigrates existing law, under which the Community Reinvestment Act is enforced not by zealouts, but by neutral agencies that balance its goals against the competing goal of bank safety and soundness, reducing those agencies' obsession with pressuring banks to make risky low-income loans.

    I explain this, with links to Obama's proposals and the white paper, at The Examiner, and at Openmarket.org.

  • J_B||

    Congress has already given in to this paternalistic urge by passing the credit card act in May 2009. That law tried to keep banks from charging high interest rates and fees, but instead has only served to restrict available credit, especially for low-income borrowers.

    This behavior was clearly not pre-approved by the left and is henceforth declared illegal and racist.

  • abercrombie milano||

    My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement