Home > 2011 > Personal Finance

The CFPB and Congress’ Need for an Adult Conversation

Advertiser Disclosure Comments 2 Comments

ElizabethWarren_SpeechtoCreditUnionNatlAssoc_CFPBThe Republicans, now in control of our House of Representatives, love to talk about having adult conversations about things, and so I can’t for the life of me figure out why, when it comes to consumer protection, certain members of the GOP insist on speaking to us all like we’re either too young or stupid to understand just how badly the American people have been hammered—both by the financial services industry and our elected and appointed representatives who clearly abdicated their responsibility to keep tabs on them. This absolute disconnect from the American consumer was on display last Wednesday when Elizabeth Warren testified before the House Financial Services Committee.

Warren, a special advisor to the president in charge of setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, possesses unparalleled bona fides when it comes advocating on behalf of average Americans who have been worked over by big banks and lenders (read this Newsweek article for some of the particulars). Yet many of the House Republicans on the committee questioned her almost as though she was the one responsible for destroying the economy.  As though they, the deregulators, are the real consumer protectors. As opposed to the person who’s actually been protecting consumers for the last couple decades.

To quote Will Ferrell: I feel like I’m taking crazy pills.

The hearing, in fact, featured a succession of Republicans questioning the legitimacy of the CFPB and, by extension, Warren.  Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.), opined that the CFPB is “the last thing that our lenders need.” Actually, sir, it’s the last thing they want, but it’s exactly what they need. And do you know who else needs it? The people in your district. It’s worth noting that prior to his election in 2008 the good Congressman was a bank vice president, and a loan officer.  I have no doubt that the gentleman from Missouri sincerely cares about the people in his district, but I can’t quite stomach a former banker objecting to the CFPB because it’s bad for banks. Frankly, it’s the laissez-faire philosophy he and his colleagues espouse that promoted the environment of financial illiteracy, predatory financial products and services, yield-hogging, Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford–to name a few–that almost took us all under.

[Article: Are the Deregulators Trying to Destroy the Economy?]

In addition to Rep. Luetkemeyer’s concern over the CPFB’s effects on banks, Committee Chair Shelley Moore Capito (R – WV) said that she felt the creation of the CFPB represented a new bureaucracy with “little congressional oversight.” Actually, Congress is the bureaucracy and other than that one brief shining moment when it enacted Dodd-Frank and the CARD Act, it doesn’t have a particularly great record of late on consumer protection.  While I understand the concern about oversight, consumer protection­—a sacred mission in my life—is too important to get stuck in the political quagmire.

Later, Rep. Robert Dold, (R-Ill.) characterized the CFPB as offering “theoretical consumer protection.” Seriously? For some, “consumer protection” is a punchline. For Warren it has been a guiding principle.  She has been screaming from the rooftops for years about the injuries and indignities visited upon American consumers by the financial institutions that both Democrats and Republicans were supposed to be monitoring. But precious few of you listened to her. And now you have the chutzpah to suggest that her brand of consumer protection is theoretical, implying that yours is real? Where were you these past several years when the financial services industry was shaking down the American consumer?

An Adult Conversation »

Image: CFPB video

Pages: 1 2

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

  • http://www.denvercommunity.coop Helen Gibson

    While I do not dispute that regulations need to be put into place to protect consumers, the regulatory burden now being experienced by financial institutions is quite heavy. I am both a financial counselor and credit union employee, so I see both sides of the issue on a regular basis. At some point, consumers also need to exercise their right to understand the products they are using and choose a financial institution that values their financial needs. I would like to think that many credit unions provide this for consumers who are willing to work with a smaller, local financial institution.

    • http://Credit.com Adam K. Levin


      If we look at 2009 and 2010 as the years when we finally made institutions more accountable to us, we need to understand that we have a responsibility to ourselves. Bigger, bolder, better positioned, more easily understandable notices and documents mean nothing if they are not read. Just as we seek out professionals to develop and protect our investment portfolios, we need to be the professional managers of our credit portfolios. That means we, as individuals, must properly create, nurture, manage and protect our credit. We must stop looking at credit as something that happens to us. We are not victims. Our credit profiles should be resumes and not rap sheets. We need to step up our financial literacy. Raising the bar for financial literacy should be a collaborative effort among business, government, media and consumers.

  • Pingback: Congress Quietly Charted A Path For The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau | Wordwide News Exposed()

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other articles on Credit.com News & Advice may also be offered through Credit.com product pages, and Credit.com will be compensated if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any of these cards or products. However, this relationship does not result in any preferential editorial treatment.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Our Owners

Credit.com is owned by Progrexion Holdings Inc. which is the owner and administrator of a number of business related to credit and credit repair, including CreditRepair.com, and eFolks. In addition, Progrexion also provides services to Lexington Law Firm as a third party provider. Despite being owned by Progrexion, it is not the role of the Credit.com editorial team to advocate the use of the company’s other services. In articles, reporters may mention credit repair as an option, for example, but we’ll also be sure to note the various alternatives to that service. Furthermore, you may see ads for credit repair services on Credit.com, but the editorial team isn’t responsible for the creation or implementation of those ads, anymore than reporters for the New York Times or Washington Post are responsible for the ads on their sites.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team