Ask The White House: Please Submit Your Questions About The Consumer Financial Protection Agency
Consumerist is going to interview the White House once again. This time, Consumerist readers get a chance to get answers about the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
Ahead of President Obama's 2pm address, senior economic adviser Austan Goolsbee released a video this morning making the case for shifting the consumer protection power from seven different agencies and putting them into one, one that is streamlined, clear, and accountable, the CFPA.
From pushing bad mortgages to unclear language to payday lender shenanigans to credit card companies setting the due date at 9am so that if mail happens to come after lunch that day you get a late fee, companies have gotten away with playing fast and loose, says Goolsbee. What we had before, wasn't working, and it contributed to our recent economic collapse.
But what powers will the CFPA have? What is the very first initiative it would take? Is this better government, or simply bigger government?
Watch his video and leave your questions in the comments, or email them to tips@consumerist.com, subject line CFPA. Then, next Tuesday, we'll interview Diana Farrell, Deputy Director of the National Economic Council, get you some answers, and post the video. Deal?
RELATED: Ben & Meg Interview Obama Administration On Credit Card Reform
Post a comment
Comments:
What actual legal and regulatory authority would this Agency have? And how would a ~pro-business~ administration gut this agency's power later down the road (ie CPSC)?
Ooooh, another agency to fund and allow people to get Federal salaries and pensions that are more than typical in the private market. And another group of people to be lobbied by high paid pro-business lobbiests...
Can they roll the usury laws back to say 1970 before the credit card industy got boutique laws passed to help that industry grow?
I'm just gonna go ahead and post this on any and every topic having anything to do with the federal government; to remind everyone of just what we're dealing with here.
Is there any proposed oversight of the credit bureaus? Your credit report and score affect so many aspects of your life and right now, the onus is on you to correct any mistakes, even if the mistakes weren't your fault. I've been trying for over a year to get a medical collections charge removed from my report and the bill was never IN collections! I have proof, I've faxed, certified mailed and spent countless hours on the phone trying to get this removed. Every time I've been successful, it pops back up on the report.
So, I guess my question is, will the credit bureaus have someone to be accountable to?
My Question to Diana Farrell:
"I agree with the need to reform the current financial regulatory system. Besides the high level plan of consolidating consumer protection power into one agency, what actions do you believe hold the most promise of achieving this reform quickly, effectively, and with minimum cost and effort?"
I'm confused by how the separation of powers and Federalism impacts this. (I'm a fan of the concept of the CFPA, by the way).
If the Executive says, say, Payday Loans over [x] rate is bad, then is this a law or a recommendation? What power would such a CFPA statement have on say, states' laws that allowed higher rates? At what point would Congress need to get involved to make it into a law? What if a different Executive department differed with such a finding?
And, what measures are you taking to ensure that the CFPA isn't captured by industry lobbyists, either now or after a new administration takes over?
Similarly, what measures are you taking to ensure that independent consumer groups have a strong voice in your organization?
How will you ensure that the board is fluid enough that new people with fresh perspectives are represented?
And, would the CFPA also examine systemic risks in the consumer finance sector? For instance, the same securitization that impacted home mortgages also occurs with credit card debt. Would the CFPA have the authority to evaluate such programs that look good on paper yet pose hazards when implemented? And if so, at what stage would the CFPA get involved, in light of the fact that the person that tries taking away the punch bowl when the party's raging faces open hostility?
@Quill2006: And I'm sure the various senators will gladly reduce the influence they have for each of their committees.
If increased regulation would have prevented an economic crisis, didn't the Bush administration do more than enough?
[www.mercatus.org]
@MooseOfReason: If Republicans like Chris Cox are running things, no manner of cunning regulation and oversight can keep us from peril.
See: "Heck of a job, Brownie" & New Orleans.
> If you vote in people who think that government is always the problem, they'll work hard to not disappoint you. <
What will direct the agencies goals? Will be be a complaint based system like the AG office or something else?
Will the directives issued have an effect like a judicial precedent or will it simply enforce existing laws?
Does the agency just get to decide something does not feel right and take action?
Will this office punish specific companies or impose regulations on industries?
What is the limit of power the agency has? Can it just fine a company out of existence?
The best thing I can recommend for this process is a consumer feedback system. So that when a threshold of complaints is reached an investigation is launched. At the conclusion of the investigation action may be taken. We need to avoid little napoleons with susceptibility to industry manipulations.
@Crabby Cakes: An extension to Crabby Cakes' question might be: What kind of reforms can we expect to see being made at the credit reporting agencies?
Can this panel enforce laws intended to be used on large, overbearing corporations (like Walmart or Chase) on small businesses like the local hardware store or pizzeria?
If not, please provide adequate evidence that supports that it "cannot at all" and not, for example: "can, but won't because it's not in the spirit of the panel."
If the new agency can write "RULES" that carry the weight of law I'm opposed. We have lawmakers to write laws, I don't want them written in the back rooms of a new government agency.
If they are there to ensure that properly passed LEGISLATION is enforced that's not all bad. But, isn't that what an Attorney General is supposed to do? Hmmm. I guess we don't need a new agency after all.











I would think that if they managed to consolidate 7 offices into 1, that would be smaller government! Of course, the likelihood of the government shrinking is pretty low.
My question: what's to keep the new agency from ending up like the variety of agencies that were supposed to provide oversight of the financial industry: packed full of people whose only concern seemed to be to ignore any problems with the financial industry? Quite a few of our protective regulatory bodies seem to not be regulating much of anything. How will the CFPA be any different?