Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Under Trump, Elizabeth Warren Suddenly Discovers the Downside of Unaccountable Federal Agencies

Maybe don't give the other side the rope to hang you with.

Sen. Elizabeth WarrenBill Clark/CQ Roll Call/NewscomIf Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren had taken a page out of Virginia Delegate Nick Freitas' book, she might not be in the pickle she is today.

Warren is spitting mad at Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Management and Budget director who does double duty heading up an agency whose creation Warren championed: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The CFPB's previous director was an ideological ally of Warren. Since Mulvaney took over, Warren has ripped the agency's decisions. Warren said Mulvaney is giving "the middle finger" to consumers, and she railed at Mulvaney's indifferent response to the 10 (!) letters she has sent him demanding answers to more than 100 questions.

The other day she tweeted that she is giving Mulvaney "one last chance." Yet as The Wall Street Journal points out, she has only herself to blame for her apparent impotence.

Time and again during debate over the CFPB, conservatives and libertarians warned that its powers were too great and that its accountability to the other branches of government was too limited. But that was just the way Warren and other supporters wanted things. Neither Congress nor other political forces could influence an unaccountable regulatory agency. Now Warren finds herself thwarted by the very lack of oversight she championed.

Be careful what you wish for.

Freitas, who is running for the Republican nomination for Senate in Virginia, made this very point on Saturday in his debate against Corey Stewart, the bombastic chairman of the Prince William Board of Supervisors.

Asked whether the federal government should punish local officials who defy federal immigration laws, Stewart said yes: "Prosecute any local or state official who declares themselves [sic] a sanctuary city," he said.

Freitas took a different view: "If we ever, God forbid, had a Hillary Clinton presidency, and they passed federal gun bans, when a sheriff ... refuses to enforce it the federal government is going to go in and put that person in jail."

Freitas draws out an important point: When you think about what you want government to do, put specifics aside and focus on the more general principle.

Philosopher John Rawls famously invented a mechanism for doing just that: the "veil of ignorance": If you are designing the rules for a society, you should assume that you know nothing about your place in that society. If your race, age, physical abilities, mental prowess, and so forth are all a complete mystery, then you are likely to design a political-economic system that is fair to all. Just in case you wind up at the bottom of the social pile.

Having a president who makes policy through signing statements, his "pen and phone," and other forms of executive action, for example, seems brilliant when the opposing party controls Congress. It seems less so when the opposing party controls the White House.

Should intelligence agencies keep tabs on Islamists who might pose a threat of domestic terrorism? Then don't be surprised if a different administration turns the focus to right-wing militias.

California lawmakers have passed sanctuary legislation protecting illegal immigrants from deportation. Stewart—who, in an ironic twist, spent much of last year cheerleading for neo-Confederate causes—thinks they should be arrested for it. But as Freitas points out, that could set a precedent Stewart might one day regret.

Speaking of California: The Supreme Court will soon decide a case about that state's abortion-notice law. The law requires anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers to post notices that the state offers contraception and abortion at little or no charge. Abortion-rights activists say this is necessary for consumer protection.

But while giving the government the power to compel speech might sound good to abortion supporters in liberal California, they might not like to see that power exercised elsewhere. Imagine Mississippi forcing clinics to post signs bearing the anti-abortion slogan "Abortion stops a beating heart" and advising women where they can find adoption services.

Circuit courts already have split on another form of compelled speech: Forcing doctors who perform abortions to conduct an ultrasound, display the results to the patient, and offer to let her hear the fetal heartbeat. Conservatives who don't like the California law tend to favor this sort of compelled speech—and liberals who find compelling speech by a doctor offensive are much less troubled at the thought of compelling bakers to make wedding cakes for gay couples.

It is not enough simply to think you might not always hold the reins of power. It's also prudent to wonder what your enemies would get up to if they held them—because someday, they will.

Photo Credit: Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call/Newscom

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.

  • Thrackmoor||

    Something about the road to hell and how it is paved...

    Serves her right.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    That would be paved with good intentions [Samuel Johnson]; but I'm not sure I see any good intentions here.

  • Thrackmoor||

    WHAT?!?! She must have had purity in her heart! /sarc

  • Flinch||

    It is epic seeing congress whine in response to the powers they ceded to the executive branch. You can't build a superstate and hope to exercise real oversight with any expectation of success. Kind of reminds me of the politburo mess prior to the soviet union imploding. There is such a thing as 'too big to succeed'.
    But Warren isn't begging for any type of correction to restore balance to separation of powers, she's just mental because its not her party that has the reins of too much power. Faux-a-hontas fronting a fraud once again - tigers do not change their stripes.

  • ||

    Oh yeah...this is reason #3 of why I can excuse so much Trump tomfoolery...

    1) Neil Gorsuch
    2) Deregulation
    3) Mick Mulvaney as CFPB chief

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Let us hope, in addition to jurists like Willet and Ho, that list continues to grow. My personal favorite wet dream these days is complete shut down of the Department of Education [hey, I'm not a teenager any more!].

  • Longtobefree||

    Absolutely!
    Not in the constitution, complete waste of money, sends letters overriding the constitution protections, etc.
    Let treasury deal with the existing loans, stop guaranteeing loans, and let the states figure out what to do on their own. Damn near balances the budget all by itself.

  • Wizard4169||

    The DoEd has an annual budget of $68 billion, so even if it were completely eliminated and none of its functions were transferred to other departments, it would barely make a dent in our exploding deficit.

    I'd still like to see it killed with fire, since it seems to do more harm than good and lacks any constitutional basis.

  • cgr2727||

    She's not happy with the responses to her letters? Maybe she should send smoke signals instead.

  • Bongo Supreme||

    Maybe the ceremonial rain dance of her people?

  • Brian||

    I swear to god these people cannot stop making their beds and bitching about them.

  • Bedonkedonk||

    Exactly.
    Pretty simple concept: Don't fire the arrow that will return against you.

  • Eidde||

    She's Cherokee, not an Australian Aborigine, she can't be expected to know about boomerangs.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Warren's political career is certainly veiled in ignorance, just not the way Rawls recommended.

  • Mark22||

    The other day she tweeted that she is giving Mulvaney "one last chance."

    Does that mean she will STFU then?

  • cgr2727||

    The word "shrill" was made for people like her.

  • Flinch||

    Nah, the hildebeast has that wrapped up. Warren is somewhere between her and Feinstein in delivery. That's an odd place to be: getting wound up and comatosed simultaneously. But, she's weird enough to do it.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    For Warren, its all just smoke signals and mirrors.

  • Kivlor||

    For Warren, its all just smoke signals and teepees.

    fixed that for ya

  • loveconstitution1789||

    even better.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Nah. "Smoke signals and mirrors" was an adequate riff on a common saying. Changing "mirrors" to "teepees" just turns it into a random mishmash of lazy references to Indian stuff.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    And this sort of dialogue is exactly what keeps me coming back here.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    If Warren was claiming a dubious Irish heritage, you wouldn't change "smoke and mirrors" to "potatoes and alcoholism," would you? Come on!

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    The irish do.

  • Marcus Aurelius||

    +1 truth about the famine

  • BYODB||

    Um...Warren is pretty Progressive so I don't think she'll ever really understand this concept. Their goal is literally to install unaccountable people in unaccountable organizations because they don't actually believe that the common man can or should have any control over their own destiny.


    She's not mad about unaccountability, she's mad that the Democrats didn't win the White House. Her party is so mad about it that it's common knowledge that they are interested in impeachment or some other method to remove the sitting President. You know, because it was the wrong person not because the office is too powerful.


    Progressivism is the mortal enemy of Libertarianism.

  • SoCal Deathmarch||

    "Progressivism is the mortal enemy of Libertarianism."

    Oh yeah? Then how do you explain Progressive Libertarians, Socialist Libertarians, and Shikha Dalmia?

  • BYODB||

    Brain damage.

  • Rigelsen||

    They may look vaguely like unicorns, but they're really just donkeys with pine cones strapped to their foreheads. (You may prefer a less civilized term for donkeys.)

  • Longtobefree||

    Why don't they send donkeys to college?
    Nobody likes a smart ass.

  • FlameCCT||

    Ouch!

  • Bongo Supreme||

    Confusion of terms.

  • Sevo||

    Liars.

  • Jay Dubya||

    Exactly how is Dalmia a progressive/socialist again? Other than her reiterating the Reagan-era party line on immigration (which coincided entirely with the thought of every libertarian economist on the issue), or herself being an immigrant. I've seen an immense amount of poison directed at Dalmia from the comments, but I've yet to see any complaints of her writing that arent based entirely on statist (see immigration above) or partisan (for criticizing some conservative talking point of the day) nonsense.

  • Jay Dubya||

    It continues to baffle me how Reason staffers enumerating basic libertarian principles in op-eds or commentary (e.g. State direction of labor markets is counterproductive & destructive) are targeted for ceaseless invective. It wasn't *that* long ago that H&R had witty, civil arguments & discussion, though it seems like an age since I've seen a thread devoted to anything but the tribal sniping that has become "american political thought". I began reading Reason because as a libertarian I found political coverage from major news outlets biased & myopic. Why come here, if all places, to beat a drum that is much more appropriate to, say, Breitbart or MSNBC?

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    They can not seem to conceive of any one but one of theirs running what they create. That adage that what you empower a government to do unto others will inevitably be done unto you just doesn't seem to occur to them.

  • Mark22||

    They can not seem to conceive of any one but one of theirs running what they create.

    They most certainly can conceive of it: that's why they want to exile, imprison or kill anybody who disagrees with them.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Their goal is literally to install unaccountable people in unaccountable organizations because they don't actually believe that the common man can or should have any control over their own destiny.

    See Tony, downthread.

  • BYODB||

    Indeed, it's pretty much a case study isn't it.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    "Progressivism is the mortal enemy of Libertarianism."

    Oh, hell; Progressivism is the mortal enemy of PROGRESSIVISM. They mount the barricades, march on the Enemies of the People, cheer for the Revolution....and the next day the thugs and psychopaths that took over the Revolution the minute it looked like it would succeed start liquidating potential troublemakers, which includes just about 100% of the Progressives.

  • BYODB||

    You can't perfect man without killing a whole shit load of them. It happens every time.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Haven't you been paying attention? You can't perfect man at all. You must expunge it.

  • BYODB||

    I can only presume that expunging mankind is pretty much the end goal. Especially for the watermelon greenies.

  • Brandybuck||

    Warren demanded a system that would only work when the "right" people are in charge. She is now complaining that the "right" people are not in charge. Fuck her. She assumed there would be no change ever again. The breakage, if there is any, is entirely of her making.

  • Hunthjof||

    Well remember they tried to ensure it would be always run by their people. They set the agency up believing the Agency would appoint it's director and since the first was a progressive that meant that they would likely appoint another. But when Trump used the law to make sure that didn't happen all hell broke loose.

  • Hunthjof||

    Well remember they tried to ensure it would be always run by their people. They set the agency up believing the Agency would appoint it's director and since the first was a progressive that meant that they would likely appoint another. But when Trump used the law to make sure that didn't happen all hell broke loose.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Yes, the board they tried to make their side's perpetual fiefdom. It is actually more accountable than she woujld have had it.

  • Tamfang||

    She's hardly unique in that, is she? It seems to be an old old Democratic routine: "Here, folks, have a shiny new program. To keep it from hurting you, you'll need to make sure that no Republican is elected ever again. You can do that, can't you? Sure you can."

  • Unicorn Abattoir||

    Scalped by your own tomahawk. That's gotta suck.

  • BYODB||

    I think you win the thread...?

  • Mcgoo95||

    Second..

  • Hunthjof||

    During the last admin there were stories run that literally said that Bush having certain powers but Obama having them was fine cause he was their cat.

  • $park¥ leftist poser||

    It's also prudent to wonder what your enemies would get up to if they held them—because someday, they will.

    NEVER!!!!!

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    Posted this earlier but it bears repeating:

    They can not seem to conceive of any one but one of theirs running what they create. That adage that what you empower a government to do unto others will inevitably be done unto you just doesn't seem to occur to them.

  • Tony||

    How utterly fascinating for a libertarian publication to bring up Rawls's veil of ignorance. Would any of you choose a libertarian society if you could by chance be born disabled, poor, and orphaned?

  • BYODB||

    No one wants to be disabled or orphaned, but notably if you're poor a libertarian society is best at social mobility. That's just a fact, so it's amusing to watch you emote about it.

    A better question might be would you want to be born in a socialist country. The reason is because the disabled are killed when they have no use to the state. It's a magnified version of the free rider problem, don't you know.

  • Tony||

    a libertarian society is best at social mobility. That's just a fact

    Citation needed.

  • BYODB||

    Look at western style democracies vs. literally anything else dumbass, or did you sleep through Political Science?

  • Tony||

    Which among those are libertarian, again? All those western-style democracies that have each evolved strong social safety nets?

    A libertarian society is defined by its lack of a safety net far more than it is defined by any promises of social mobility.

  • ||

    lack of a publicly funded and operated safety net

    FTFY

  • Citizen X - #6||

    Tony would never stoop to help out a fellow human being, and so doesn't believe anyone else would either.

  • Tony||

    Magical self-congratulations on top of magical self-congratulations. Is there anything this completely 100% theoretical society can't do?

  • BYODB||

    Nothing more hilarious than watching someone make the explicit case that humanity can't be trusted, therefore the humans in charge must have complete and unaccountable power. The obvious downside to that seems utterly lost on you.

    Sometimes I forget just how incredibly stupid you really are Tony. It seems almost impossible for someone to be that dumb without it being satire, but I guess Poe's Law applies.

  • Tony||

    Humans are in charge no matter what type of society we have. You just want the humans in charge to have almost no accountability and indeed a mandate to do as little for the people as possible.

  • Citizen X - #6||

    a mandate to do as little forto the people as possible

    Fixed for honesty, a concept i'm sure you've heard about though never participated in willingly.

  • Tony||

    Including provide a social safety net for the poor and disabled.

    If you can't admit that your form of society would simply leave many such people to die on the street, then you're a liar without the balls of your conviction.

  • BYODB||


    If you can't admit that your form of society would simply leave many such people to die on the street, then you're a liar without the balls of your conviction.

    Of course many people would die, in the street or otherwise. Just like they would in a socialist society. The difference is that in a more libertarian society they are choosing whereas in a socialist society they are lined up and shot.

    Libertarians want to increase individual freedom and autonomy to achieve what they can, socialism wants to decrease individual freedom and autonomy to achieve what they are told to achieve.

    That is just how it works out buddy. There ain't no perfect, but we're on opposite ends of what's desirable.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    I think venezuela turned out pretty well, don't you?

  • stuartl||

    Best weight loss program since the Holoc....oops I mean South Sudan

  • BYODB||

    That's close to correct, but it's also a misunderstanding on your part since you're borderline retarded and eternally misunderstand the difference between government and society. It's a common ailment among socialist retards.

    The government isn't society. You should make that a mantra, it might make you learn a thing or three.

  • Tony||

    Government is the tool society uses to accomplish large tasks. Such as maintaining a social safety net. Or having cops and courts to protect your property claims. Or whatever.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Or settling the jewish question once and for all. Will of the people, right?

  • Tony||

    Nobody ever said government can't do bad things.

    I'm responding to the claim that a libertarian government will be paradise on earth. (If only we could try it guys c'mon!)

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Europe has a great welfare state. Why haven't they solved poverty? And you haven't been paying attention. It's socialism that we just haven't properly tried yet.

    You are the one making the strawman argument that a libertarian society woild be paradise. Thr honest argument, which you are physically incapable of making, is that it would be better than what we have now.

  • Tony||

    They have solved poverty. At least to a certain extent.

    Why wasn't poverty already solved when markets were free and there was no safety net? That is the ridiculous claim you're making, is it not?

  • BYODB||

    There is no such thing as 'solving' poverty outside of shooting all the poor people. You know, the socialist answer I've pointed out to you so many times? So I guess in that regard, maybe socialism solves poverty better from a certain point of view.

  • BYODB||

    Except that in Progressivism and Socialism, government is society and society is government. It's not a tool in those situations. You're confusing Lenin and Marx for Locke, again.

  • Sevo||

    "Tony would never stoop to help out a fellow human being, and so doesn't believe anyone else would either."

    Precisely.
    Greed-filled lefties grab anything they can and figure every one else is as bereft of principles and morals as they are. When one is around, make sure you keep your hand on your wallet.
    Scumbags.

  • BYODB||

    Non-libertarian influenced cultures are generally stratified and in many instances are actually caste-based, idiot. That is the opposite of social mobility, but perhaps you're just so stupid that you don't even know what 'social mobility' means.

    And, that very publically funded social safety net is one of the very thing's that's helping to bring a caste based society here to America.

  • esteve7||

    Tony - I was born disabled, and I was in your fucking leftist paradise, I would have either been aborted or died in the hospital, like so many babies in Venezuela, so go fuck yourself.

  • Tony||

    I have never once described Venezuela as my preferred form of society, and you know that, so you're being a dishonest fuckhead, so you go fuck yourself how about.

  • esteve7||

    That is where your ideology ends Tony. Every single time.

  • FlameCCT||

    Progressivism is just Communism with better propaganda.
    Progressive Plantation (Marxist Utopia) with Elitist Master & Uncle Tom Overseers controlling the Proletariat Serfs.

  • Bongo Supreme||

    Tony, you're such a doll. Gonna ignore that second point, I see.

  • BYODB||

    Tony isn't a great debater.

  • Tony||

    It's not worthy of a response.

    I don't know what sort of moldy basements you people all live in, but the world is not in fact divided between free libertarian paradises and Stalinism.

  • BYODB||

    You seem to confuse a western democracy for what Europe is today. Spoiler alert: That's not what is meant by a western society, although admittedly the definition has widened to include things that are arguably not western. It's a scale, and places like Europe barely fit into that definition these days.

    Their trend is clearly in the other direction, yet you cite them as if it has meaning.

    The public social safety net is not an artifact of western democracies. That's a fact, yet you cite it as if it's meaningful. Just because you're stupid doesn't mean everyone is.

    The fact you're now claiming there's no divide is hilarious. You are an idiot.

  • Brian||

    Hmmm, let me think about this...

    Do they need an abortion?

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Absolutely I would. Just because the state isn't compelling people to help me doesn't mean nobody is interested in helping me. I believe that a society of free people will opt into being charitable because they understand that not everyone is responsible for their own bad circumstances.

    Philanthropy wouldn't cease to exist in a libertarian world-it would likely thrive.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    Yes. It's all too easy to scoff at giving charity when the government already transfers so many taxes to people who don't appreciate it, or worse, who waste it. It's not particularly noble, but it's sure easy.

    Personal charity is much better at actually helping too, because it is personal and the receivers are embarrassed enough without adding the humiliation of wasting it.

  • Tony||

    Maybe, but if charity were sufficient to take care of all social problems, nobody would have needed to invent the welfare state in the first place. No matter how you put it, this is nothing but "It would all be great because I say so!"

    Without evidence your claims are worth absolutely nothing.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    20TT down the shitter foe the same poverty rate as when we began. So where's your data?

  • BYODB||


    Maybe, but if charity were sufficient to take care of all social problems, nobody would have needed to invent the welfare state in the first place.

    And yet welfare isn't sufficient to take care of all social problems either. I don't misunderstand and necessarily think you believe it's possible to take care of everyone, but welfare programs are unsustainable. We already know this, so what's your plan after society collapses under the weight of it's takers over it's producers?

  • Tony||

    My whole thing s to stop the takers from exploiting the producers.

    Oh you mean rich people being burdened by the needs of whiny poor people. Why don't you just say so?

  • BYODB||

    I had no idea economics was a zero sum game, you should call economics and tell it that it's been doing it wrong since forever.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Remember, kids, it's greedy to keep what you've earned through mutual exchange, but it's not greedy to steal if you really want it.

  • Tony||

    The problem with you people--maybe a core problem--is that you completely ignore the ways the wealthy tailor laws so that more money is directed to them. It gets lip service at most.

    The real problem is some destitute person maybe buying a steak with government money. That's the real social scourge.

    The problem is you are focused emotionally on a conception of theft that your little brains can comprehend while leaving the more esoteric forms of mass theft as just what smart businessmen do.

  • BYODB||

    You're an idiot. The entire idea behind limits on government power is specifically to limit the ability of the government to grant favors to preferred individuals or groups. RE: Rule of Law.

    If you think people here ignore that, it's because you're too stupid to understand what anyone says.

  • Tony||

    So until utopia arrives, continue shitting on poor people while the rich use government to enrich themselves. Gee what a convenient arrangement for them. All we have to do is achieve utopia.

  • A Thinking Mind||

    Waiting is generally better than doing something actively harmful. Granting more power to the government to decide which businesses are doing it right and which get punished is only exacerbating the problem of cronyism. We need to be working the opposite direction where government is much less involved in businesses so that people have a lot more options to work and find work.

    But then you might find someone victimized by having their flowers arranged by some lady who was never licensed. Think of the horror, think of the children.

  • BYODB||

    Hey, we small government nerds aren't the one's suggesting a situation where corporations and the government are the same entity retard.

    Also I should mention that one important feature of a Utopia is that they don't exist outside of Star Trek, dumbass.

  • Bongo Supreme||

    The problem with you is that you do not understand libertarianism and yet you constantly prattle on like you do. Libertarians are not in favor of more laws, especially laws that unfairly advantage some over others. That is corporate statism. You are blaming libertarians on something that comes from your side of the argument.

    We are for less government, not more.

  • Ride 'Em||

    People on welfare are not producers but are takers.

  • Mark22||

    The welfare state was invented for the very same motivations you display, Tony: greed, selfishness, envy, and resentment.

  • Mark22||

    Would any of you choose a libertarian society if you could by chance be born disabled, poor, and orphaned?

    Being born gay and poor (compared to the US) not only would I, I did, by emigrating to the US.

    The main thing that worries me is that people like you and Warren are hell-bent on turning the US into the kind of shithole I emigrated from.

  • Tony||

    And to the point: there is logic in having certain agencies sheltered from political whims. The actual lesson, as it always is, is don't ever put Republicans in charge of anything, because they will fuck it up.

    That goes for politically accountable jobs or judgeships or bureaucracies or anything in government, because they don't believe in governing and are incompetent and corrupt when attempting it. I

    t doesn't matter how the consumer protection agency is structured if you don't believe in protecting consumers in the first place.

  • BYODB||

    Political whims are shorthand for democracy, so are you saying you're not really a democrat? That's not surprising, actually, since you're clearly not a classical liberal nor do you really understand what one is.

    You're a Progressive. You claim to champion the 'little guy' while overtly shilling for those who want to keep them in chains.

  • Tony||

    I'm an anti-Republican. As it happens, Democrats are the only alternative to those ignorant plutocratic fundamentalist nihilists.

    We shield the judicial branch from political whims. We shield the constitution from them too. Some things are judged to best serve society when removed from strict democratic whims.

  • Brian||

    That's called "democracy in chains"

  • Brian||

    Electoral. College.

    * drops mic *

  • Tony||

    An example of one that is obsolete and faulty. Keep your mic. One day you might be as clever as you think you are.

  • Brian||

    This "democracy is the ultimate virtue, tyrant!" stuff seems to have a lot of special pleading exceptions. One minute it's fully embraced, and the next, completely discarded, only to be picked up again.

    One minute, the fed gov is democracy, and the next, it isn't.

    It's almost like it's complete bullshit excuses.

  • Tony||

    Or, perhaps it's like you can't understand the concept of nuance. Like, at all.

  • Brian||

    There's nothing nuanced about pulling whatever you find in your butt in the moment and throwing it at the wall, hoping it sticks.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.21.18 @ 2:06PM|#
    "Or, perhaps it's like you can't understand the concept of nuance."

    Perhaps your hypocrisy, later called "nuance" by you, has been noted, you pile of shit.

  • BYODB||

    You're...amazingly ignorant. How can one simultaneously be a nihilist and a fundamentalist?

    Your knowledge of philosophy is truly bottom shelf.

  • Tony||

    The world is hardly short on Christians who want to see the world burn.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Aren't yoi the one fantasizing aboit global warming? So confused...

  • BYODB||

    Wow, so you don't understand nihilism or Christianity. Amazing.

  • Tony||

    They call themselves Christians but act like nihilists. Or greedy soulless monsters, if you prefer to be more precise.

  • BYODB||

    So the belief in nothing is exactly the same as belief in something. Got it.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    If you make the median US income you are in the top 1% globally. Why aren't you giving away half of your income to the needy in africa, tony? Don't you care? Why are you so greedy?

  • Tony||

    Because I give at least half of my potential income away to billionaires in the form of labor and tax laws favorable to them, not to mention the social services I would be able to enjoy without their looting.

  • BYODB||

    You're a god damn idiot, your tax dollars go into the federal government which they then waste on a lot of things up to and including welfare programs that are bankrupting the nation.

    Oh, right, I forgot that not giving is taking from your point of view. American corporations had the higher tax rate in the civilized world, but somehow that wasn't enough even though tax breaks on businesses are just like tax increases on businesses; they influence price and labor.

  • Sevo||

    Tony|3.21.18 @ 1:27PM|#
    "I'm an anti-Republican."

    You're a hypocritical horses ass.

  • BYODB||

    How sad that you define yourself by your opposition, but it's hardly surprising that it reveals that you're driven by hate rather than any desire to achieve anything. As if your constant 'cousin fucking' comments aren't revelatory on their own.

  • Tony||

    It is sad that the Republican party has become such an ignorant destructive force that this is the best anyone can do.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    So you advocate for the party of plutocrats (billionaires support dems) and unelected bureaucracies because the only way to ensure the will of the people is to remove their choice in the matter.

    Never change, tony.

  • BYODB||

    Republicans might be destructive, but in comparison they're less so to the only other big-name option. Notably 'less destructive' isn't something I'm willing to vote for either.

  • Tony||

    Under no sane conception of the world could you possibly believe this. Go to Iraq and tell me that again.

  • BYODB||

    Sorry, you're probably too young to remember that the war with Iraq was completely bipartisan. You should be old enough to remember Hillary Clinton threatening to shoot down Russian warplanes over Syria though.

    I'm sure now is your cue to say that Bush had every American intelligence agency lie to congress or something (ironically forgiving Republicans in the process, idiot), even while you probably believe he was some stupid hick that cheated their way into Yale.

    Bush was a terrible President, but the amusing thing is that even a lot of Republicans didn't care for his shit. Who do you think spurred the creation of the tea party in the first place? Bush was a Republican in much the same way that Bernie Sanders is a Democrat.

  • Tony||

    Except Bush was a Republican and he led the party for 8 years as president.

    Jesus Christ the excuses you won't make.

  • Quo Usque Tandem||

    An agency should be structured to fulfill a specified role, as you comment in this instance to protect consumers; if Obama, Warren and company failed to do that in establishing the CFPB and it is now biting them on the ass, that is on them.

  • Longtobefree||

    Are ass bites covered by Obamacare? Asking for a friend.

  • Bongo Supreme||

    "There is logic in having certain agencies sheltered from political whims."

    You are an idiot. You are an idiot because you think that this is even possible. You are an idiot because you think unelected bureaucrats should ever be put in charge of anything, let alone a body which is completely shielded from oversight from any of the three branches of government, which can pilfer any amount of money it wants directly from the Federal Reserve on a whim.

    Most of all, you are an idiot for saying these beliefs out loud, and you are an idiot for continuing to come to a website that consistently enrages and stupefies you.

  • Tony||

    You're stupid because you let the cacophonous "rat" sound in "bureaucrat" and probably "Democrat" do your thinking for you rather than your cerebral cortex. Yes, I do want unelected bureaucrats overseeing nukes and water supplies and space rockets and not congressmen.

  • NotAnotherSkippy||

    Worked well at the VA and flint, michigan. And how can you argue with the results of public education?

  • Tony||

    This kind of pathetic rejoinder sounds like a death rattle of stupid, flawed philosophy.

  • Mark22||

    The actual lesson, as it always is, is don't ever put Republicans in charge of anything, because they will fuck it up.

    Tony, you're a poster boy for totalitarianism.

  • SezWhom||

    You'll have a hard time finding a politician, democrat or republican, who doesn't want more power. They are more alike than different, and in the long run, the parties are winning, and we are losing. They know what they're doing.

  • FlameCCT||

    In the words of the great philosopher, Forrest Gump:
    Progressive is as Progressive does! (regardless of party)

  • Happy Chandler||

    Would another structure have provided any more protection? Is Mulvaney less responsive to Congress than Devos, Carson, Tillerson (oops!) Etc?

    The problem is that people look at Wells Fargo signing people up for products without their knowledge, every bank foreclosing on homes with forged documents, and a myriad of scams in the past decade and concluding that "It's just too hard for banks to rip off consumers."

  • Sevo||

    "Is Mulvaney less responsive to Congress than Devos, Carson, Tillerson (oops!) Etc?"

    Uh, those people are not 'responsive to Congress'; they work in the executive branch.
    And your last paragraph is intended to make what point?

  • Bongo Supreme||

    The whole Bureau is unconstitutional. It has nothing to do with structure. It creates and enforces regulations with no oversight from any of the three branches of government.

    If you want regulation, it should be done by congress.

  • Whorton||

    I would submit to you Bongo, that our entire government is today, unconstitutional. And if Elizabeth Warren

    Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. The issue here is not whether we broke a few rules, or took a few liberties with our Constitution - we did. [winks at Elizabeth Warren] But you can't hold a whole progressive ideology responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole progressive system? And if the whole progressive system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Elizabeth - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but I for one am not going to stand here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!

  • Jimoxe||

    That comment just got you put on double secret probation.

  • Longtobefree||

    Not to mention the non-existent target list for drone pilot practice!

  • Eidde||

    "Circuit courts already have split on another form of compelled speech: Forcing doctors who perform abortions to conduct an ultrasound, display the results to the patient, and offer to let her hear the fetal heartbeat. Conservatives who don't like the California law tend to favor this sort of compelled speech—and liberals who find compelling speech by a doctor offensive are much less troubled at the thought of compelling bakers to make wedding cakes for gay couples."

    Nobody dies if a baker doesn't cater Adam and Steve's wedding. There's only a delay until they find a different baker.

    Even the Supreme Court admits the fetus is a *potential* life, which gives the state at least some regulatory authority. People with intelligence go even further than the Supreme Court and say that the fetus *is* alive - and a human being (what other species would it be).

    So it's a really forced comparison to equate showing a woman an ultrasound of the living human being she's thinking of killing, and saying that Adam and Steve can force a baker to make them a cake.

  • Jerryskids||

    Ha Ha Ha Ha

    And that's all I've got to say about that.

  • Paulpemb||

    "Time and again during debate over the CFPB, conservatives and libertarians warned that its powers were too great and that its accountability to the other branches of government was too limited. But that was just the way Warren and other supporters wanted things."

    And Elizabeth Warren wanted the head of the CFPB to have massive, unaccountable powers because the first proposed head of the CFPB was...Elizabeth Warren. Go figure.

  • esteve7||

    Leftists deserve Trump, they are so god damned arrogant that they think they will be in power forever, so they don't give two fucks about the constitution or checks and balances or anything. Yet they somehow discover that when something doesn't go their way.

    I remember seeing a PBS thing from the 80s, where they literally say 'you don't want the court to have all this power. What will happen one day when you get a very conservative supreme court?', and the fuckers literally can't stifle a laugh on TV. They don't care for the rules because they think they will be in power forever, and that nothing they come up with could ever been used against them.

    So Warren and her other leftist idiots arn't mad that the dep't is doing something it shouldn't be, they are just mad the wrong people are in charge of it. They can get fucked

  • Eidde||

    Perhaps to be fair, they consider the abuses of the other side simply another argument for why they should get back into power and undo all that the bad guys did.

  • Eidde||

    Half-measures like "put up with our enemies in power but have them limited" are simply not on the table - complete victory is the goal.

  • Whorton||

    AND a BIG thumbs up to esteve7, for an excellent analysis!

    Seriously, you hit the nail on the head with regards to "progressive" or leftist smugness. I am starting to find things I disagree with Trump on, but as long as he keeps the left perpetually apoplectic, (say that fast three times) he still has my support.

  • Flinch||

    CFPB... totally freakin useless. I used to understand my financial statements just fine, and all the information needed was at my fingertips. Now, there's a half page of "what if" fluff and taking up much needed space for what actually is going on. And I thought the TSA couldn't be topped after seeing what Chertoff birthed...
    Anyone working in the financial sector: please lobby your company to put all CFPB compliance fluff on the last section of statements, and restore your original formats.

  • JWatts||

    " Forcing doctors who perform abortions to conduct an ultrasound, display the results to the patient, and offer to let her hear the fetal heartbeat. Conservatives who don't like the California law tend to favor this sort of compelled speech—and liberals who find compelling speech by a doctor offensive are much less troubled at the thought of compelling bakers to make wedding cakes for gay couples."

    I think this is a really bad comparison.

    "compelled speech - protects an individual from being required to utter or otherwise express a thought with which they disagree."

    Forcing someone to bake a specific expressive cake for a gay couple is clearly compelled speech. Forcing a vendor to provide the nutritional information for a cake, may be onerous, but it's not compelled speech by my standards. Forcing a doctor to conduct an ultrasound for the patient to see may be onerous but it's not compelled speech.

    If you want to make the Libertarian case that it's an onerous burden on business, then make it, but don't try to stretch it to be a Free Speech issue when it's not.

  • Bongo Supreme||

    Your argument is that it's not compelled speech in your opinion. That isn't an argument at all, it has no substance. It is compelled speech because it's forcing the person to do something they may or may not have done otherwise. So is requiring nutritional facts. To be honest, I'm not sure how you could think requiring a business to put a particular label on a product ISN'T compelled speech, even if you think this particular compelled speech is for the greater good (which, I assume, is the real reason you're defending the ultrasound law).

    It has nothing to do with being an onerous burden on business.

  • Whorton||

    The good old law of unintended consequences. There is some sort of galactic "charma" in action here. I honestly don't think someone could have written a better story of how to destroy a good government.

    I am hoping a few states will "Opt out" and become abortion sanctuary states and totally prohibit abortion. Those famous words ring in my ear:

    "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"

  • Longtobefree||

    Wait. SHE'S giving HIM one last chance???
    What will she say when he cites her for consumer fraud based on her political speeches vs her political actions?
    What about her racial claims vs DNA?
    What then?

  • OtisAH||

    Except, the CFPB wasn't "unaccountable." It was walled off from precisely the sorts of political shenanigans Mulvaney performed to ensure that it would continue to work on behalf of consumers and not be subject to the whims of an administration who might not consider consumers as important as donors.

  • ||

    ....So which administration would that be? I haven't seen one in my lifetime.

  • Bongo Supreme||

    "Walled-off" from every one of the three branches of government. In other words, "unaccountable".

    You'll note that these attempts did not stop the CFPB from being used to further partisan goals, from the moment it was created. You're just mad that the other side has the power now. Just like Warren.

  • belkin router support||

    Your article helps to know more about The State of the Canadian, every people has their own perspective and their all have equal hides to speak their words!!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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