Action Alert: Stop The CFPA Gutting

Idaho Rep. Walt Minnick (D) is trying to abort the the Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CPFA). If you care about this agency getting established, call your Reps now (call1-877-445-1317 to get connected directly to your Reps office) and tell them to oppose the Minnick amendment to the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2009”, H.R. 4173 that would strip out the provision creating the CFPA. UPDATE: The amendment was rejected, 222 to 208.

TALKING POINTS:

  • Meaningful financial reform must make the marketplace safer for everyday American consumers.
  • CFPA will ensure fairness and safety for American consumers.
  • Existing bank regulators failed to design and enforce fair rules on credit, and the results were devastating for American consumers —credit card tricks and traps that cost consumers billions of dollars, and abusive mortgages that cost families their homes.
  • The financial crisis demonstrates that unchecked abuse not only hurts individual borrowers, but also undermines the whole financial system.

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. dwohio says:

    Walt Minnick of the 1st cong. dist. Idaho. “Blue Dog” Democrat

    http://minnick.house.gov/

    Not sure who is squeezing his g’nads on this issue.

  2. PSUSkier says:

    …Why would you come out against such an agency? Isn’t that a means of political seppukoo?

    • admiral_stabbin says:

      From what I gather, it’s the banking industry regulation part of the bill that seems to be dooming it.

    • Fineous K. Douchenstein says:

      Easy answer: Someone is paying him to oppose it.

      Something I learned a while back was that political figures really don’t care that they might be going up against something that is rightfully worthwhile and decent. What is cared about is how much you’re getting slipped into your pockets, and if it’s enough, you’ll say anything, even if it’s the opposite of what you personally believe.

    • ARP says:

      Not at all. The banks probably give him more than enough money so that he never has to actually defend his position. He can flood the media with attack ads and diversions.

      Also, among some circles, opposing anything the current administration/congress does is very fashionable, even when its a good thing. So even though he’s a blue dog, he (wrongfully)thinks that Teabaggers are going to support him later for his actions.

    • ecwis says:

      Some people don’t want any more government agencies. There are plenty of existing agencies that could do this job. Why create another meaningless agency? I don’t think the agency would actually do their job.

      Congress was warned about the potential crisis by McCain and other Senators but the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee did nothing about it. Why would the new CFP agency be any different?

    • Wachusett says:

      I don’t think it’s an unreasonable to oppose it as you’re implying; there are good reasons to be against forming the agency.

      There will be new expenses associated with it; it wil cost money to operate, and the added cost of complying with a new agency will increase the price consumers pay for regulated services and products.

      I’m not convinced that the results will be good enough to justify the costs. But that doesn’t mean that I want consumers to be harmed, either.

    • darklighter says:

      30 senators voted against Franken’s anti-rape amendment. This is nothing next to that.

  3. Shaftoe says:

    Done and Done

  4. Tim says:

    Come on, nobody does old-fashioned “Action Alerts” anymore. It’s all about the astroturfing.

  5. bitslammer says:

    Ummmmm…he’s from Idaho NOT Ohio.

  6. Sugarless says:

    Done and passed along.

  7. ShreeThunderbird says:

    I would, but, unfortunately, my representative to Congress is Walt Minnick who replaced the infamous Bill Sali. How would you like to have a U.S. Senator names Mike “Crap-o”?

  8. faultolerant says:

    Sorry guys….the CFPA does NOT “ensure fairness and safety” for anyone….it’s just more government exerting more influence in our lives. While bank regulators may be corrupt, adding more laws (on top of tens-of-thousands of pages of laws) only distorts markets further.

    Despite your foaming-at-the-mouth support for this government-power-grab, I’ve called and emailed my congress-critters to tell them that not all of us want to hide behind government’s skirts. More government is never the answer – more market-influence (undistorted by lawyers and other bottom-feeders) is.

    So, while I think you might get what you agitate for, I’ll guarantee the unintended consequences won’t be what want. Too bad that hyper-statism runs rampant.

  9. _hi_ says:

    Didn’t Bush, oops I mean Obama, say he was for less government?