Republican Senator Summons Soviet Russia Comparison For Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

After Republicans blocked the confirmation of Richard Cordray as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, North Carolina’s Sen. Lindsey Graham is explaining that he just doesn’t want a Soviet dictator like Joseph Stalin to have so much control. Ostensibly in this comparison, Cordray is Stalin? We’re not quite sure.

On NBC’s Meet the Press, Graham says the CPFB is like “something out of a Stalinist era,” since no board is monitoring it, reports CNN.

“The reason Republicans don’t want to vote for it is we want a board, not one person, making all the regulatory decisions, and there’s no oversight under this person,” said Graham. “He gets a check from the Federal Reserve — we want it under the Congress so we can oversee the overseer.”

The CPFB was created to be an independent agency, so it wouldn’t have to ask for money from Congress every year or be involved with other banking regulators. While Democrats were the ones responsible for creating the CPFB as part of Wall Street Reform, Republicans voted for it as well.

Now, though, they think it’s too powerful. Because clearly, what we all really need is a weak agency protecting consumers (Note: if we sarcasm fonts existed, we’d use one here).

Previously: White House: GOP Efforts To Block Confirmation Of CPFB Director Will Hurt Consumers

Consumer bureau “Stalinistic” — Republican senator [CNNMoney]


Edit Your Comment

  1. FrugalFreak says:

    “”The reason Republicans don’t want to vote for it is we want a board”

    So you want to be able to input your buddies and influence eh? If that happens, What would get done that is Pro-Consumer?

    • George4478 says:

      I guess, following that logic, that the Democrats don’t want a board which means they want their guy in the sole position of power.

      • FrugalFreak says:

        I’d be happy with an independent or bipartisan leader as long as politics or financial industry can’t touch or undercut them. If you open that door, Do You expect the lobby influenced guy at the door not to come in make changes that promote what the industry wants? They want right to diminish any affect on business that pads the pockets and campaigns.

      • dolemite says:

        Well, to be fair…when your party holds complete domination over the House, Senate, and Presidency for almost 2 terms, (the period right before our financial system completely explodes due to lack of regulation and oversight)….well, some would say you kind of forfeit any right to “regulate” that system for at least a short period afterwards. Especially when your potential presidential nominees are ALL running on deregulating the companies that started the mess, before they are even regulated again!

        • Bsamm09 says:

          Well, if every candidate that runs o deregulation wins, shouldn’t they try to deregulate then? That’s what the voters wanted.

          • Kuri says:

            In all fairness, in the past few years, and by that I mean as little as a week after the current president took office, there’s a reason some people shouldn’t vote.

  2. BobOki says:

    The super committe answers to who again? Hell, the Republicans answer to who? Really, do ANYONE in our current govt answer to anyone!?

    Abolish both parties, worthless trash they are.

    • P_Smith says:

      Or form a third party.

      Countries with three or more major political parties and have minority governments most of the time don’t have as many problems with lobbyists, corruption and bribery that the US does. That’s true of Canada, the UK, Germany, France, Australia, Sweden and many others.

  3. Nothing says:

    Didn’t they do the same thing with Internet Censorship?. They compared it to China and were essentially like ” Well China is doing it and it seems to work just fine. “

    Now I’m confused if I read that here or on Reddit…

  4. Cat says:

    “we want it under the Congress, bent over, so we can screw them”

  5. girl comatose says:

    Not that I want to claim him as one of us, but.. he’s from South Carolina, not North Carolina.

    • kiltedbrandon says:

      I was hoping nobody would correct that, least of all one of us. Let the worst carolinians reject him if they want to. I like seeing his name not associated with the great state of SC, personally.

    • gc3160thtuk says you got your humor in my sarcasm and you say you got your sarcasm in my humor says:

      OMG I was just about to make the same the same correction about it being SC not NC and not wanting to claim him though when I saw your post. LOL. GMTA.

  6. George4478 says:

    >>Now, though, they think it’s too powerful. Because clearly, what we all really need is a weak agency protecting consumers

    Those are the only 2 options? Too powerful or weak? “Less powerful” doesn’t exist in your world? “Powerful enough to do the job” is a foolish thought?

    C’mon. The desired changes have been listed again and again — tell us why you think those are wrong, don’t just ignore them with sarcasm commentary.

  7. Parade of Horribles says:

    In Soviet America, banks regulate the government!

  8. kataisa says:

    When Americans finally wake up and realize that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans serve the people but instead serve Wall Street and their corporate interests, only then will this country finally see the real hope and change they so badly wanted. Hate to break it to the kool-aid drinkers but your hero Obama is just as bad as all the others, if not more so (e.g. TSA).

    George Carlin was talking about the top 1% controlling the USA/Congress long before the spoiled rich white Occupy slackers ever had a clue. And guess what? Those oh-so-smart-in-their-own-minds Occupiers who claim to represent the 99% will vote for the status quo again anyway, keeping the top 1% firmly in charge. Idiots.

  9. dolemite says:

    “What the hell? This guy is getting stuff done! Regulating, slapping fines…quick, someone put him on a committee with 5 Republicans so we can grind this thing to a halt!”

  10. jbandsma says:

    Linsey Graham is from SOUTH Carolina, not North. (Although we dearly wish he would move…off planet would be best)

  11. TuxthePenguin says:

    Consumerist, lets look at a future scenario. The CFPB gets its director and he does his job. Granted, no one can override him, but its okay because its someone you approve of.

    Then Obama loses in 2011 and (insert scary Republican candidate here) takes over. Granted, he won’t be able to replace the director at first, but then that Republican wins reelection. Now that position comes up for an appointment and the newly nearly-filibuster-proof Republican majority in the Senate puts up the most anti-consumer person you can imagine. They’re able to peel of enough Democrats to get him through. Without any checks and balances, he goes ahead and undoes EVERYTHING the previous director did, Day 1.

    Sounds like a great idea, right?

    • dolemite says:

      Stop filling my head with logic. If we don’t react now, my torch will go out.

    • Solkanar512 says:

      Or we can look at other “boards” where the nominees are always deadlocked and congress filibusters the nomination of every single one so that the agency can no longer function.

      Brilliant plan there.

  12. Boiled for your sins says:

    Eh, we’re screwed either way. So, may I have that puppy?

  13. jsl4980 says:

    Having someone who agrees with you in a position of unchecked power sounds great, but you might want to consider the future when (4-8 years from now) a president with a completely opposite point of view is in power. They can appoint anyone to dictate the rules and they could over turn all the ‘good’ that the current/previous unchecked people in that office did. If you want to give the democrats/Obama this power you need to consider what it will be like when the next republican/George Bush is in office and suddenly has this new unchecked power.

    • TuxthePenguin says:

      That’s exactly my point.

    • OutPastPluto says:

      It’s a federal agency. It doesn’t have “unchecked power”. Claims to the otherwise are mindless hysteria meant to deceive the ignorant. It’s just like Republican claims about business taxation.

      It’s sad to contemplate the idea that Nixon was more of a champion of an effective EPA than the current crop of Republicans.

  14. PunditGuy says:

    > “The reason Republicans don’t want to vote for
    > it is we want a board, not one person, making all
    > the regulatory decisions, and there’s no oversight
    > under this person,” said Graham.

    Is the “it” the CPFB? I hate to break it to Graham, but that’s already law. Is “it” the idea that the CPFB has a director? That’s in the law. If they wanted a board, not a person, they already lost that fight. Alternatively, they’ve got to pass a new bill and get the president’s signature.

    A branch of Congress doesn’t get to un-make laws all by its lonesome.

    • stinerman says:

      That’s the interesting thing. They can. It’s called a filibuster and because of that, 41 senators can rule the day.

      If 41 Senators decide that they don’t like a particular law that has already been passed by a previous Congress and signed by the President, they can delay implementation by refusing to appoint anyone to head the body created by that law, basically rendering it toothless.

  15. Jonukas says:

    Um, sarcasm fonts do exist:

    So I expect you’ll edit that post to correct your error.

  16. Duke_Newcombe-Making children and adults as fat as pigs says:

    Would that there was a penalty for flawed Godwins-law like invocations of “Nazi” or “Soviet Russia” rhetoric.

  17. zantafio says:

    Yeah right, because when I hear about soviet Russia, oh yeah, the first thing that pops into my mind is “country with great consumer protection policies’….

  18. oldwiz65 says:

    The reason Republicans don’t want it is because they are receiving so much money in “campaign contributions” (which most countries would call bribes) from Wall Street and the bankers to prevent it from happening. The Republicans are owned by the 1% and any bill that threatens the 1% will never get passed by the Republicans.

  19. Bort says:

    Quite the sound bite, its like communism
    If i were a Democrat i would point out that if this is stalanist, why did republicans vote for it before changing their minds?

  20. Ixnayer says:

    For a site that is supposed to be an unbiased consumer site related to Consumer Reports, Their seems to be a lot of lib moderators(I would not use sarcasm font if it was available for that statement. I don’t want or need a CPFB. I know it would be an independent agency(sarcasm font on that statement). It would just be more government and a bigger waste of money. I’m a consumer and I can protect myself just fine.

  21. yankinwaoz says:

    Well Duh!
    A 5 person panel would require 5x as much in corporate donations from the congressional corporate sponsorship. And having it funded each year by congressional vote assures recurring revenue for the congressional votes.

    Its a money grab, pure and simple.

  22. srand says:

    I would prefer this article without the unnecessary dose of partisan vitriol. If the story is THAT bad then report it objectively let the facts speak for themselves. I have a hard time taking someone seriously if they can’t set the sarcasm and bias aside. IMHO that kind of stuff belongs here in the comments, not in the body of an article.

  23. P_Smith says:

    Graham is nothing more than a puppet invented by Wall Street.

    If he were a human being, he’d Wall Street’s bottom in a fisting scene.

  24. Kuri says:

    So how much was he paid to make this reference?

  25. RStormgull says:

    And that board should be made up of Bank of America, Chase, Goldman Sachs, Microsoft, Apple, and XFinity executives! Because these people know what Americans need and how to protect them!

  26. zibby says:

    Still virtually no MF Global coverage? Make a mountain out of some throwaway comment, but hundreds of millions of consumer dollars disappear and nary a peep? What could be the reason?

  27. dush says:

    I like the idea of a consumer protection bureau but putting it under the Federal Reserve is absolutely ridiculous.

  28. skakh says:

    Lindesy Graham, Caribou Palin, O’Donnell, Kantor, Boehner, Perry, Bachmann, Cain, on and on and on! How does the GOP consistently find such abjectly stupid people?

  29. DragonThermo says:

    Same thing can be said about the Supreme Court. Nine old farts in robes telling us what is Constitutional or not, whether it is in the Constitution or just a figment of their imagination? That’s an oligarchy!