J. Scott Applewhite, Associated Press
The options for creative Halloween costumes in Washington, D.C., are endless — who wouldn’t be scared to see Nancy Pelosi show up on their doorstep looking for handouts, or a Ted Cruz lookalike ranting about loafer-wearing lobbyists?
But the award for best disguise in D.C. this year won’t go to a trick-or-treater, but to the misnamed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. A recent report from the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Financial Regulatory Reform Initiative Task Force details the Jekyll and Hyde nature of this unaccountable bureaucracy — and why taxpayers have good reason to be scared.
When it comes to the bureau’s standard operating procedure, the Dr. Jekyll CFPB “operated in a transparent, open and iterative manner, repeatedly seeking input from all stakeholders throughout a process,” producing “generally positive” results. But the Mr. Hyde CFPB “made unilateral decisions, rolled out initiatives, rules, or processes as a result of a more closed, internal deliberation process,” producing results that were “far more likely to be problematic.”
The problem for businesses and consumers, though, is that unlike the classic musical, the Mr. Hyde CFPB is the norm, and Dr. Jekyll the exception.
A specific example cited in the report was the agency’s handling of hearings and meetings regarding payday lending: “By excluding the public from such meetings, and by providing inadequate notice for other hearings, the CFPB has limited the ability of both consumer groups and industry members to participate in the policymaking process.”
The agency’s approach in this instance was particularly harmful to low-income communities where access to credit is, in the words of one of the task force’s members, “enormously important.” Without taking into consideration the input from all parties involved — including consumers — the agency ran the risk of eliminating a financial product many low-income communities desperately need.
Another concern for consumers is the task force’s recommendation that the CFPB “take every step possible to ensure that no breach of data occurs,” extending to all data collected directly, as well as that collected by outside vendors. The fact that this is even a recommendation is cause for concern — was protecting consumers’ financial information not already on the list of things to do?
This concern is made all the worse knowing that the CFPB uses 11 different companies to purchase, collect, analyze and store consumer data. The bureau has also identified 12 operational areas in which third-party vendors may receive personally identifiable information about consumers.
Another example of the Mr. Hyde CFPB harming consumers comes in the area of auto lending, where recently the bureau has been seeking to eliminate dealer-negotiated car financing and replace it with a flat fee method of compensation. According to one analysis, such a move would eliminate a key source of price competition between auto dealers — the ability to vary interest rates — and ultimately result in restricting consumer choice.
The task force also made a number of recommendations regarding ways in which the CFPB can mitigate the regulatory burden it imposes on regulated entities, and ways it can lessen the tension between itself and the business community.
- Which states are best for tax payers?
- In our opinion: Western land standoff aside,...
- Jay Evensen: No more rent for inmates —...
- Doug Robinson: Horrific crimes show the thin...
- Letter: Right and wrong
- My view: Utah's agriculture industry needs...
- Kathleen Parker: Putin knows in geopolitical...
- Letter: Plenty of danger in e-cigarettes
- Letter: Right and wrong 93
- My view: Anti-science ruins the climate... 67
- Robert Bennett: Immigration reform... 64
- Letter: Science consensus is slow,... 49
- In our opinion: Confronted by power,... 40
- In our opinion: Western land standoff... 35
- Letter: Republican empathy too rare 28
- John Hoffmire: Why shouldn’t... 28