Regulation

The Most Potent Federal Regulatory Agency Will Answer Solely to Donald Trump

And the potential for Trump to abuse the power of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is huuge.

|

Sipa USA/Newscom

When Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2011, the new regulatory agency was something of a technocratic ideal.

The bureau was given broad powers over American financial institutions, and it was designed to operate differently from all the other boards, commissions, and agencies dotting the federal landscape. With a single director unaccountable to Congress or the president and a $600 million annual budget that came directly out of the Federal Reserve (and therefore wasn't subject to congressional control), the CFPB was supposed to be a truly "independent" regulatory agency that would be able to operate outside of political influence to guide America's banks away from the threat of another economic collapse.

It could do whatever its director believed was necessary to prevent "unfair, deceptive, or abusive acts and practices" by banks.

The CFPB was unaccountable to Congress and the president—but not the courts.

A federal appeals court ruling in October changed the fundamental structure of the CFPB and will allow future presidents to have direct control over the agency that has direct control over wide swaths of the country's banking and financial sectors. Regulatory agencies headed by a single executive must be directly accountable to the president, the court observed, while independent agencies authorized by Congress—like the SEC and the FCC—must have a multi-member commission at the helm.

Practically, that means that Trump might be able to replace the director of the CFPB, Richard Cordray, before his term officially ends in 2018.

More importantly, it means Trump will be able to use the CFPB's powers for his own ends, if he wants, because the person who gets to determine whether a banking practice is unfair, deceptive, or abusive will now serve at the whims of the president.

"An objective rendering of the evidence suggests that the executive office at times uses the regulatory process to reward special interest groups by accelerating sought-after rules that prove useful to the president's political purposes while delaying rules that are less popular with interest groups," wrote Adam Smith, a professor of economics at Johnson & Wales University, and Bruce Yandle, dean emeritus at Clemson University's College of Business, in a joint op-ed this week.

Arguably, there's nothing Trump grasps about the presidency so well as he understands the power of transactional politics. He understands the importance of negotiating from a position of power and of using leverage against his opponents, both in business and politics.

For Trump, that makes the CFPB a potentially giant lever.

"It's important to remember that the CFPB can write rules that reduce the wealth of individual industries — payday lenders for example — while improving the well-being of commercial banks that offer overdraft protection service, a close substitute for payday loan customers," Smith and Yandle conclude. "If a president is more beholden to the latter group, then the CFPB can be nudged to serve the president's purposes. Or vice versa."

To be clear, it's not the federal court ruling that handed this power to Trump. The architects of the CFPB did that. October's ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals simply dealt with the troublesome legal structure of the bureau and brought it into accord with the rest of the federal regulatory state.

Still, that ruling turned a very powerful, supposedly independent (the CFPB was never really independent, no matter what it's designers' intentions were) regulatory agency into a very powerful extension of the Oval Office.

As I wrote at the time, the court ruling "potentially creates a bunch of new problems. Most obvious is the potential for turning a powerful regulatory agency into a political pawn that can be wielded by future presidential administrations. That seems to undercut the very idea behind the creation of the CFBP—that it would be independent of political influence. Now, it will quite literally be subjected to political influence."

That was before Donald Trump was president-elect. Now, the newly restructured CFPB is another example (along with mass surveillance, extrajudicial drone killings, and "pen and phone" executive action in the face of congressional resistance) of expanded executive power being passed to Trump from the Obama administration.

NEXT: Facial Recognition? There's an App for That, and U.S. Law Enforcement Has Been Helping Private Companies Use It

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.

  1. Get rid of it. Put it out of business. Sunset the damn thing. Nothing says a government agency must go on forever.

    1. getting rid of it is a wonderful idea and a great way to start to reduce the size of the federal government . Sell of their luxury offices too .

  2. Was there a problem with it while Obama was at the levers to power?

    1. Come on Paul. It is totally different now that Trump is taking power. I mean it is not like Obama misused the IRS and FBI to go after his political enemies or anything or didn’t have DOJ go after banks who did business with gun stores and pay day lenders. We are talking about Trump here. I mean he is vulgar and says mean things. This is a big fucking deal now that he is in charge.

      1. It is really starting to get on my nerves. I have stopped arguing as it does no good. Nothing said makes any difference so I am defaulting to “Fuck you. You don’t have to like it, you just have to eat it.”

        1. Part of me thinks that Trump stepping on a few Prog faces might be the only thing that gets them to realize they can’t do that to everyone else without consequences.

          1. Except will they learn that? I’m not so sure. And I do worry that Trump might just we wiling to create a few precedents that the proggies will leverage later on to do so.

            1. That is the question. And it is probably wishful thinking to think they will.

            2. The lesson they will learn is to never, ever let anyone else near the levers of power. Hold onto them like grim death, By Any Means Necessary – rioting, election fraud, abuse of the Deep State – Any. Means. Necessary.

              1. Stalin harder.

              2. I am pretty sure they long ago learned that lesson RC. So that isn’t going to change anything.

              3. ^

                Total war with no compromise served them in the past. If they can regroup and this is a temporary setback, all will be well.

            3. No. The only thing they’ll learn is that they need to work harder not to elect Republican presidents.

            4. Progressives may not learn. But 100 years of Progressive Power has demonstrated that verbal persuasion is futile with them.

              And why shouldn’t it be futile?

              If a mugger robs you, and the most you ever do to him is take your wallet back, there is no incentive for him to ever stop trying to mug you. He’ll stop mugging you when you make him *pay a cost* for doing so.

              It’s time for the Progressives to *pay* that cost.

              Either they learn, or they don’t.
              If they do, great, we might actually get a free society out of it.
              If they don’t, I’d rather be ruled by Republithugs than Democriminals.

          2. Me today, you tomorrow. Wasn’t there a titanium law about that or something?

            1. Ferrous Regulation, I think?

            2. Not an Iron Law.

              Republicans have played by the Rule of Law for 100 years while Progressives incrementally and relentlessly subverted the Rule of Law to collect power.

              Now the boot is on the other foot, with a Republican who might kick some Progressive ass with it.

              I’d prefer peaceful Rule of Law. Not an option with today’s Progressives. Maybe in 4 years. Or 8. Until then, I hope Trump works that boot hard to “convince” them of the evils of State power.

        2. Maybe you people should first READ THE GODDAMN ARTICLES. Then complain.

      2. +1 Joe Biden

    2. Quick scan of relevant tag says, yes, it was a problem. Though oddly, it would seem Elizabeth Warren was the one Reason focused on.

    3. What about Bush? Isn’t everything his fault?

      1. Yes, both of them.

    4. A federal appeals court ruling in October changed the fundamental structure of the CFPB and will allow future presidents to have direct control over the agency

      Considering the power structure just changed from unaccountable bureaucrat dickwad to President right before the election and the democrats have had a sad for a month now, it’s probably safe to assume Obama hasn’t had time to find ways to utilize those levers of power on this particular department.

      1. It is much easier to reflexively defend The SuperDuperBusinessGeniusMasterTroll.

        1. I don’t think Paul’s comment was a defense of Trump so much as a swipe at reason.

    5. Actually, I think reason has been pretty consistently against the CFPB since its inception.

  3. Um, I thought that was one of those things that was supposed to go away.

    1. Some things seem to go away for a while, then mysteriously come back.

      1. Don’t bury them in the old Indian cemetary.

        1. +1 changeling

    2. Just like the TVA and welfare.

  4. Poor Elizabeth Warren. I actually kinda feel sorry for her. She must be ready to kill herself. Don’t do it Lizzy, we need your shrill tweets to lull us to sleep at night.

  5. “the potential for Trump to abuse the power of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is huge.”

    Someone remind me what Trump said he wanted to do about regulations?

    *Yes, I know. Switching this power from one hand to another does not solve the problem of the power existing in the first place. When you are trying to decide how much power government should have imagine the most depraved person possible with that power because sooner or later the most depraved person possible will have that power.

    1. The CFPB was a horrible organization before Trump came along. Reason is just beclowning itself when it pretends that well its really bad now that that Trump guy is in charge.

      1. It almost sounds like a ‘right people in charge’ argument, that is to say not an argument but a team endorsement.

      2. it pretends that well its really bad now that that Trump guy is in charge

        Could you site the passage where they argue that point? Because I’ve read the article several times, and I just can’t find it. I do find things like:

        “It’s important to remember that the CFPB can write rules that reduce the wealth of individual industries ? payday lenders for example ? while improving the well-being of commercial banks that offer overdraft protection service, a close substitute for payday loan customers,” Smith and Yandle conclude. “If a president is more beholden to the latter group, then the CFPB can be nudged to serve the president’s purposes. Or vice versa.”

        Now, the newly restructured CFPB is another example (along with mass surveillance, extrajudicial drone killings, and “pen and phone” executive action in the face of congressional resistance) of expanded executive power being passed to Trump from the Obama administration.

        1. If it being bad has nothing to do with Trump, then why mention him at all?

          1. Because he is going to be in charge of it soon?

            Is “But Obama started it!” going to be the new “but Bush!”?

            1. Yes. There are times when reason writers seem to be extra worried about Trump. I don’t think the CFPB is one of them.

          2. Perhaps because the biggest fans of the CPFB are the people who shit their pants more copiously than the common man when contemplating a Trump presidency?

            If we turn them against the CPFB, then it will be ended more easily than if they retain their faith and pride in this technocratic terror they’ve constructed.

          3. Because Trump is bad and clearly many of Reason’s staff voted for Hillary.

            1. They admitted as much (cocktail party invitations have costs).

              I hope they use those donations to buy a lot of diapers. It’s going to be a bad four years for pants.

              1. You are joking, right? If I recall correctly, exactly one member of the Reason staff said she might vote for Hillary. And it’s the one that no one likes anyway.

                1. There was one solid Hillary vote and four Gary Johnson votes that said they might vote Hillary depending on how close the race is. Look at the article again.

                  1. Nope. Read it again and you are wrong.

                    I still count one maybe for Hillary among actual Reason staff. One definite for Hillary from Chapman, who everyone hates even more than Dalmia and who doesn’t work for Reason, and vague maybes from Cathy Young and Dave Barry, who also don’t work for Reason.

                    1. Fair enough. I guess I just counted the other two who aren’t staff.

                      My comment about this being a bad four years for pants, though, is still funny. You got to give me that.

                    2. But a great four years for pants makers! Time to invest!

        2. Now the leftists understand their folly. Maybe.

      3. I think the idea is that Obama wasn’t as in charge of it as Trump will be for most of its existence:

        A federal appeals court ruling in October changed the fundamental structure of the CFPB and will allow future presidents to have direct control over the agency that has direct control over wide swaths of the country’s banking and financial sectors

        Here is some of what Reason published on the subject. I don’t see much there to support the notion that they thought that the CFPB was OK with the right people in charge.

        1. It seems to be a complaint that power is passing from one set of hands to another, another set of hands to said plainly he wanted to repeal Dodd-Frank. Not the right hands?

          1. I’ll believe it when I see it.

            But my default assumption is that the next president will pretty much never give up powers handed to him by his predecessor.

        2. Trumpkins gonna Trumpkin, don’t make them take a breath and calm down, they find that very triggering.

  6. Wasn’t Trump going to repeal Dodd-Frank?

    1. Let’s hope he still intends to.

    2. I’m pretty sure congress has to do that.

      1. You’re thinking about normal presidents and the separation of powers. You still live in a pre 11/9 world.

  7. The CFPB’s debut coincided with my last few months of working on the law firm side of the foreclosure industry, and it was amazing to watch how fast all but the biggest players got out of the mortgage servicing market because of the insane regulatory compliance costs. Who says giant sclerotic banks can’t move with a quickness when they need to?

    1. ^This. That was probably the point all along. Cronyism and campaign contributions FTW.

  8. Knowing Trump, I could see him hammering the CFPB just to shut Lizzy Warren the fuck up. Oh, dare to dream.

    1. I am wondering what he has up his sleeve by hammering Boeing. There is something going on there. And why the fuck does an airplane cost 4 billion dollars? I could start my own airline with that.

      1. I don’t think it is about Boeing. I think it is about showing the public that unlike every other President he isn’t going to treat their money as is private petty cash stash. The contrast between Obama jetting around the world on vacation at tax payer expense for the last 8 years and Trump saying “why the hell do I need a new airplane” is pretty stark and something the voters are going to notice even if the media doesn’t.

        1. Obama symbolically cancelled a Marine One upgrade early in his presidency for the same reason. Its really good optics. No one is going to believe that 300 Boeing workers are gonna be out of a job building a fancy 747 for $4B.

          1. yea but the left is again freaking out that Trump is doing something even though Obama also did the same thing but it was good when Obama did it, Trump is just a stupid copycater

        2. I think it is about showing the public that unlike every other President he isn’t going to treat their money as is private petty cash stash.

          Bingo.

          Taking no salary. Protesting that his “company car” is too expensive. Lots of Andrew Jackson stuff going on.

          Trump has his victory rallies. Andrew Jackson did a little victory tour on his way to the White House too.

          I wonder if Trump will add some Jackson type touches to the Inauguration. Taco Bowls for everybody!

      2. Well of course. Google gives me these headlines:

        For Clinton and Boeing, a beneficial relationship

        FLASHBACK: Hillary Clinton Made Shameless Pitch for Boeing to Putin’s Russia

        Clinton Helped Boeing and Boeing paid off the Clinton Foundation

        All Top 10 Corporate Tax Dodgers Donate to Hillary Clinton

        I am too lazy to go on. I think everyone gets the picture. Boeing gets to sell airplanes at wildly inflated costs to the US, to Iran and to Russia. Clinton sells the office.

      3. OK, according to Wikipedia the cost of a 747-8F is $352MM. Assuming that is base price for a cargo configuration.

  9. http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2…..e-consent/

    Social Justice Warriors rewrite Baby its Cold Outside to make it less rapey. I really think they don’t understand the song. They are all aspy retards.

    1. They’re not aspy. Aspies don’t really care about that shit.

      1. Okay. Autistic maybe? What is the technical term for people who are unable to process sophisticated social cues and abstract concepts like irony and double entendre besides stupid?

        1. It’s the focus on the social cues (to their own) that makes them not autistic. The social cues are all they care about.

          They’re just retards.

        2. I know aspy kids. They couldn’t care less about social signals, which is all these idiots care about. More holier socially just than thou.

          1. Aspies like myself make the perfect libertarians, not SJWs. Our entire nature in life is ignoring social signals, while SJWs obsess over them. SJWs and Aspies couldn’t be more polar opposite of each other.

        3. I think the words you are looking for are “Borderline Personality Disorder”. There is a lot of it going around.

          1. Sometimes it’s not really Borderline.

        4. “Politics is the mind-killer.”

        5. stupid. That’s the term. Well, stupid and unhappy might be most accurate.

          …as the kids say, “mom! its just a song!”

        6. What is the technical term for people who are unable to process sophisticated social cues and abstract concepts like irony and double entendre besides stupid?

          They aren’t unable to process the cues. They are just unwilling to let any part of Western Civilization stand un-molested.

          PS: The technical term is ‘totalitarian’.

        7. They’re church ladies, bro.

          1. Hmmm… I wonder who thinks pressuring a womyn to put out without enthusiastic consent is okay? Could it be… Privilege!?

        8. Redneck?

    2. Jesus Christ.

      You never figure out if she gets to go home. You never figure out if there was something in her drink.

      Yeah, there was alcohol in the drink. Do they think that they were writing slick lines about roofies or something in the 50s for popular songs?

      And cajoling someone into staying is now rape? Or did I miss the line about “just the tip” in there somewhere?

      1. And how sexist and insulting to women is it to think the woman in that song is not totally in control of the situation and could and would walk out the door if she in fact wasn’t interested in staying? They completely miss the subtext of the song. I can’t figure out if they really are that stupid and unable to pick up on subtext or they are lying and pretending they can’t.

        1. It’s not that they can’t pick up the subtext.

          It’s that they want to prevent other people from seeing the subtext.

          It’s a sort of cultural version of newspeak, where people can’t conceive of doing the behaviors they want to stamp out – in this case, men pursuing women.

          1. That makes sense. God these people are fucking evil and terrifying.

            1. I really think they want power, and terrorizing those they wish to dominate is a primary method of forcing them to submit. They also want to isolate them by suppressing the sorts of conversations that would allow their victims to find like-minded people to band together with.

        2. A whole lot of the recent consent stuff is deeply sexist. Apparently a woman can’t be expected to say “no” when she doesn’t like what is happening. Must be powerless in the face of a man’s powers of persuasion, I guess.

        3. I just got a ten day ban from ‘Bleeding Cool’ for ‘misogyny and body shaming’. All because I said that Amy Schumer is ideally suited to play ‘The Thing’ in the next ‘Fantastic Four’ film. As she requires little makeup, CGI, or prosthetics. The site is run by a bunch of SJW faggot cookies.

      2. Well that song was covered by a black guy, so you know it has to be ultra-rapey for a white gal like Lydia.

      3. The young twats today just don’t realize there was a time when a lady was not allowed to say yes. So elaborate games had to be played to get to a mutually beneficial result.

      4. 40s, actually; it really became public in the film Neptune’s Daughter.

        Indeed, Red Skelton and Betty Garrett do a version that reverses the genders.

    3. They consider a man begging a woman for sex to be “rape”. It’s “psychological pressure” or some such.

      That’s really funny when you remember that the same retards insist that women can be Navy SEALS.

      1. They can if they can do the job, so NOT.

  10. …a truly “independent” regulatory agency that would be able to operate outside of political influence to guide America’s banks away from the threat of another economic collapse.

    Except that last part has nothing to do with their mandate. Safety and soundness was never part of their purview. The CFPB was created solely for the purpose of creating “fairness” in financial products. It was tasked from day one with politicizing banks’ product offerings.

    1. I seem to recall Obama responding to calls for him to acknowledge the Laffer curve by saying “This (taxes) isnt about revenue, it’s about fairness”

      That is a truly horrifying statement from a sitting president.

      1. “You didn’t build that.”

        1. We all did, indirectly.

      2. Yeah, it really is depressing to see how much they were willing to restrict freedom (and consequently undermine economic growth) in the name of giving themselves more power to decree “fairness”.

      3. Obama should be jailed for Communism.

      4. I seem to recall Obama responding to calls for him to acknowledge the Laffer curve by saying “This (taxes) isnt about revenue, it’s about fairness”

        It was about his desire to increase capital gains taxes.

  11. I’m depressed and it’s all your fault.

    I am a depressed person, but depressed is a verb. I consider my depression to be the result of social positions and the inevitable history of colonization, of racism, of fat stigma, discrimination and antagonism. I am on antidepressants, but they can only reprogram my brain chemistry and not my social-material reality. They cannot reprogram the ones I love to give me the care I need. They cannot alter the experiences of devaluation, deprioritization and disinvestment that others’ perceptions of and interactions with my body?and by extension, me?produce.

    1. but depressed is a verb

      Actually it’s an adjective. Yes, one would expect it to be a participle of the verb “to depress”, but it seems to have grown up to be an adjective in its own right.

      1. Yep.

        -ed and -ing adjectives that are identical to verbal forms

        depressed, depressing
        surprised, surprising
        worried, worrying
        bored, boring
        interested, interesting
        frightened, frightening
        etc.

        Hooray.

    2. That is some extra crispy gibberish right there.

      1. Not original recipe gibberish?

        1. There were only 4–maybe 5–of the secret herbs and spices.

        2. +1 Colonel Sanders

    3. Sweet fucknuts, the world would be a better place without some people.

      1. Imagine someone like that with any authority.

      2. This person is sane compared to some.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..2962f17854

        “How I How I Ended Up In A Psych Ward On Election Night
        A top Hillary fundraiser’s fall”

        No it is not a joke. It is real

        1. Good lord

        2. They let him out? That’s pretty fucked up. People can’t even get adequate mental care now that Trump is President.

      3. some = most

    4. Someone needs to tell this guy that antidepressants do not cure stupidity.

    5. Can Self-Love Ensure My Survival Under Capitalism?

      *SNORT*

    6. If I read that correctly, he is blaming capitalism for not getting any nookie, and he believes that a socialist state would supply him with all the young nubile boys he desires. Does that sum it up?

      1. Raul and Germany agree.

  12. “More importantly, it means Trump will be able to use the CFPB’s powers for his own ends, if he wants.”

    It was created by Dodd-Frank.

    My understanding is that Trump has promised to repeal Dodd-Frank.

    1. C’mon Ken hop on the crazy train. It doesnt matter what he said. It doesnt matter what he does.

      1. So far he hasn’t done anything. And since when do we give any credence to stuff politicians say?

        1. When’s the DOJ going to go after Hillary again, after all?

    2. He also promised to prosecute Hillary for her illegal server activities.

  13. Oh, come on. Rule of Men is where it’s at. Don’t you want the trains to get to the camps on time?

  14. Some people better pray he doesn’t alter the deal to go after universities and their debt slavery schemes

    1. If he really wants to damage the PC culture the universities are the true heart of darkness and that is where he will have to go. I bet the whole thing falls apart like a house of cards.

      1. Brett’s plan: Spend more than 5% of your endowment on tuition each year, or charge no tuition, or be responsible for up to 100% of your administrative and “life-style” capital improvement and maintenance budget in defaulted student loans by former students.

        1. My plan: apply doddfranks Net Tangible Benefit standard to student loans. Basically most “studies” degrees would give borrowers an escape hatch with universities on the hook. Eventually they’ll run out of cash to throw away.

          1. I dunno what that is, but rendering bullshit degrees a luxury reserved for the leisure class would be a legacy worth remembering. Just remember, it’s much easier to destroy than (re)build. Works in our favor for once.

            1. What that means is that a gender studies graduate with $100k debt who can’t find a job can default on their loan and the federal government then proceeds to take that money from the university that granted him his useless degree.

  15. In other Trump news, it just hit the press that Trump divested himself from all his stock holdings–in every company–back in June.

    “President-elect Donald Trump sold all of his stockholdings in June, a transition spokesman said, removing himself from positions in numerous U.S. companies.

    The revelation came on Tuesday from Jason Miller, a spokesman for Mr. Trump, during a phone call with reporters. He was asked about Mr. Trump’s past holdings in Boeing Co., a company the president-elect had criticized earlier in the day for what he alleged were high costs for the next Air Force One.

    “The President-elect sold all of his stock back in June,” Mr. Miller said. He subsequently clarified he was referring broadly to all of Mr. Trump’s stock, not Boeing specifically.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/do…..1481046045

    I’m not a Trump fan–although I could become one if he repeals ObamaCare and Dodd-Frank. But for a lot of other people, no matter what the question is, hating Trump is always the answer.

    He sold all his stocks in June.

    In June.

    June.

    J.

    1. Jeezus. That’s how it should be done. Do the right thing, quietlyand without making a big fucking deal about it, and in advance.

      ‘Well when I’m elected, I’m might put our foundation at arms length’.

      For the most part his picks for cabinet heads aren’t terrible and they break the mold of the same ole same ole insiders (the local paper is breathlessly reporting that they don’t have enough government experience, as if wallowing in shit was something to be proud of, instead of ashamed).

      1. ‘(the local paper is breathlessly reporting that they don’t have enough government experience, as if wallowing in shit was something to be proud of, instead of ashamed)’
        Excellent, give this man a drum roll.

    2. However, the Trump spokesman could not provide any documentation to prove this. It’s possible these were private sales, possibly to family members or friends, where Trump might retain influence.

      Or he might have been trying to raise some cash quickly for the campaign, I suppose.

  16. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..8e047ea7e0

    Huge Cobra Terrorizing apartment complex toilets. South Africa is worse than Florida. Just don’t go there.

    1. The euphemisms around here keeping getting more and more obscure.

    2. Where the fuck is GI Joe?

  17. Nothing says a government agency must go on forever.

    A quaint notion, if ever there was one.

  18. I consider my depression to be the result of social positions and the inevitable history of colonization, of racism, of fat stigma, discrimination and antagonism. I am on antidepressants, but they can only reprogram my brain chemistry and not my social-material reality.

    A pill cannot dislodge your head from your ass.

  19. I still can’t believe we’re not looking at President Elect Hillary right now.

    There’s an alternative universe out there where Hillary is President, and it must suck to be them.

    1. Even if everything else is the same, they are 4 billion dollars richer.

      1. They s/b we

  20. That was before Donald Trump was president-elect. Now, the newly restructured CFPB is another example (along with mass surveillance, extrajudicial drone killings, and “pen and phone” executive action in the face of congressional resistance) of expanded executive power being passed to Trump from the Obama administration.

    This is the another reason for Trump.

    Without a Republican who will actually fight back in kind against Progressives, they will never ever get off their worship of centralized power.

    Here’s hoping Trump puts the federal boot up their asses.

  21. The fix is easy = shut it down.

  22. President Trump should fire Richard Cordray, and every other staffer at the CFPB, as it is an unconstitutional organization, then turn of the lights and HVAC, and lock the doors.

  23. Cordray, liz warren, and every employee of the cfpb should be put on trial for subverting the US Constitution. That agency is about as legal as the Confederacy.

  24. And the potential for Trump to abuse the power of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is huuge.

    So was the potential for Hillary to abuse the power of the CFPB.

    Trump has said that he wants to rein it in and/or dismantle it, which is the best thing that can happen to that shitty institution. So far there is no reason to believe that he won’t do that.

  25. Could. Might. May be able to. Potential for abuse.

    Enough already. Lets wait to see what Trump WILL DO rather than waste everyone’s time on a whinge about what MIGHT happen.

    the Chinese MIGHT buy up all the gold and leave none for us…. MIGHT.

    Chicken Little is only correct if enough people believe the stupid bird.

  26. two days ago grey McLaren. P1 I bought afterearning 18,513 Dollars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a littleover.17k Dollars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly layouts..it’s realy thesimplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making overhourly.

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.homejobs7.com

  27. til I looked at the receipt four $6371, I didnt believe that…my… mom in-law could trully receiving money in there spare time at their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 15 months and as of now paid the morgage on their mini mansion and got a new Infiniti. navigate to this site

    ????????> http://www.homejobs7.com

  28. my friend’s ex-wife makes $79/hour on the internet. She has been unemployed for five months but last month her payment was $13079 just working on the internet for a few hours. check

    ==================================> http://www.homejobs7.com

  29. he’s more likely to kill the agency, it’s called draining the swamp.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.