No RAT (Like Mick Mulvaney) Should Be Put In Charge Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was launched with great fanfare back in 2012 when President Obama finally had to act on behalf of consumers who'd too often been taken to the cleaners by assorted financial rats.  The biggest scam of all, of course, was the use of credit default swaps and their role in the 2008 financial meltdown.  These were basically financial bets - say on losses to be had by this or that bank, mortgage company, pension source - and were buried in dozens of financial instruments, especially collateralized mortgage obligations or CMOs.

In one FORTUNE article, ‘The $55 TRILLION Question', October, 2009, p. 135).Frank Partnoy- an economics professor and Morgan Stanley derivatives salesman was quoted thusly:

"The big problem is there are so many public companies- banks and corporations, and no one really knows how much exposure they have to CDS (credit default swap) contracts."

Since most CDS contracts were made "on the fly" in no formal mode, and often by word of mouth on cell phones (ibid.) no one even knew where all the $55 trillion of this toxic waste was buried. As another hedge fund operator (Chris Wolf) quoted in the article put it:

"This has become essentially the dark matter of the financial universe"

When the stuff was located, as banks etc. had to come clean (finally) it nearly brought down the entire financial system via a vast credit seizure.  In the wake of this debacle, President Barack Obama knew he had to act and approved of the  Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - the original brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

At the time Obama named Richard Cordray, a respected former attorney general of Ohio, to be the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, after giving up hope for a confirmation vote in the Senate. The appointment meant the agency would be able to oversee a vast swath of lending companies and others accused at times of preying on consumers with shady practices.

In political terms, some media outlets portrayed Obama's move as "unapologetically brazen, the equivalent of a haymaker at Republicans in the Senate who had blocked his nominee". But in more sober and rational terms, Obama simply responded in kind to the fierce opposition and GOP obstructionism which had paralyzed many facets of his administration since he came to office.

The first move of the new  CFPB head, and one long overdue, was to demand simplified language for credit card and financial forms  (e.g. loans) . Hitherto, the language had been so dense and replete with mumbo-jumbo escape and conditional clauses that most Ph.D.s  in linguistics or English couldn't make sense out of it. In fact, had the Repukes  truly been for the little guys that they claim, they'd have applauded such simplification instead of trying to retain it.

But as we know Repukes are in the pockets of Business, whores to corporations and hyper-rich fatcats like the Koch brothers.   They view the "little guy"  basically as a collection of stupid pawns to be sacrificed when and where they see fit - to feed the extras to the rich.

That is exactly why the generic Repuke hates the CFPB.

Consumer groups hailed Obama's decision but as one might expect, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce balked and warned it was so legally shaky that the consumer bureau's work may be compromised. Of course, this is palpable horse manure. It isn't legally "shaky" at all, except in the minds of those who would screw consumers.

Flash forward now to the current impasse with Cordray having left but who promoted his assistant Leandra English  to interim director of the CFPB  on Friday. Trump, a.k.a. Dotard, countered by naming the Mick Mulvaney - already director of the Office of Management and Budget.  Recall Mulvaney is an incorrigible sleaze bag and rat who pushed for a despicable Donnie  Dotard budget back in March to cut programs such as "Meals on Wheels".   

The program is often the only lifeline many  oldsters and disabled vets have to getting decent nutrition because they're no longer mobile or able to drive.  The Meals on Wheels personnel also provide regular social  contact for people who may otherwise see no one for days or even weeks. As one WaPo writer noted at the time, one year's benefit from 'Meals on Wheels' for a senior is equivalent to his spending one day in the hospital.

Mulvaney at the same time also insisted on scrapping the School Meals program, claimng  "there is no demonstrable evidence school meals programs actually work". In fact, there is ample evidence, including here in Colo. where many kids depend on those meals to get them through the day's classes, so they aren't distracted by hunger. Of, course, the POS Mulvaney probably never had to go through a day's hunger at his posh elementary school.

But this is the rat the Mega -Rat Dotard has now appointed as head of the CFPB.   The stage was set for conflict  yesterday, when Leandra English and Mulvaney duly sent rival emails to the CFPB’s 1,600 employees, the Washington Post reported. First, English wrote: “I hope that everyone had a great Thanksgiving. With Thanksgiving in mind, I wanted to take a moment to share my gratitude to all of you for your service.”  She signed off the message with the title “Acting Director.”

But it was Mulvaney, carrying a paper bag of doughnuts for staff, who entered the Director’s office at CFPB headquarters. He fired back: “It has come to my attention that Ms. English has reached out to many of you this morning via email in an attempt to exercise certain duties of the acting director. This is unfortunate but, in the atmosphere of the day, probably not unexpected. Please disregard any instructions you receive from Ms. English in her presumed capacity as acting director.”

The White House and congressional Republicans expressed confidence in Dotard's "authority" based on a 1998 federal law.   But recognizing the illegitimacy of the whole operation Leandra English filed suit on Sunday night in the US district court for the District of Columbia, asking for a declaratory judgment and a temporary restraining order.  If law has any more meaning in Trump's Amerikka  she  ought to get that restraining order. Even better, tossing Mulvaney into the ape or rat cage he really belongs.

Let us note here for the sake of clarity, that the CFPB was created as an act of moral authority and initiative  on behalf of millions of citizens besieged by all manner of finance (loan, banking, credit card) sharks. Up to now, the CFPB has spared citizens more than $12 b in fraudulent hits that would have been extracted from their hides had the agency not existed.  Does Mick Mulvaney car about any of this? Hell no! NO more than he cared in March about seniors not getting food from 'Meals on "Wheels' or hungry kids getting fed via the School Meals program.

Let's also be mindful of the fact that on Nov. 16 Mulvaney actually stated:

"I don't like the fact that CFPB exists, I will be perfectly honest with you."

Now, if he hates the fact the very existence of the agency he is supposed to lead, then it follows that he has NO moral authority to lead it. One cannot at the same time be against an agency's very existence and also head it. At least not in any moral capacity.   That would be like Adolf Hitler appointing Himmler in charge of the Theresienstadt  camp and Himmler saying:  "I don't like the fact that Jews exist, I will be perfectly honest with you."

Would you really expect Himmler to attend to the needs of the Jews in that camp? Or, would he more likely dispatch them to the nearest gas chambers at Auschwitz?  I defy anyone to convince me Mulvaney's motives are any different with respect to the life, activities and influence of the CFPB!

Mulvaney, therefore, is just a large rat "guarding" the vulnerable eggs in a henhouse. In this case, instead of eggs the latter is full of citizen safeguards in respect of finance. Also, appointed by the illegitimate Dotard (himself a treasonous Russian backed rat) Mulvaney has no legal authority either.  That is my take and you are free to disagree with it if you will - but there it is.  And I don't give one damn what any judge rules.

Barney Frank, the retired Massachusetts Democrat who was one of the authors of the law that created the CFPB, told CNN on Monday that Trump and Republicans were seeking to weaken the agency in an administrative fashion, rather than legislative, because it was popular for its work standing up to banks, mortgage companies, loan companies and debt collectors on behalf of ordinary Americans.
The CPFB, he said, was “fighting the big interests on the battlefield every day”.

Dem Senator Dick Durbin perhaps put it best in terms of Mulvaney, Wall Street and the CFPB:

"Wall Street hates it like the devil hates holy water,” Durbin said. “And they’re trying to put an end to it.”

And those of us who've studied the Malleus Malleficarum know that the "Devil" needs  demons to do his dirty work for him. That, of course, is where Mick Mulvaney comes in - keeping our analogies straight.

See also:

https://newrepublic.com/minutes/141394/meet-mick-mulvaney-trump-goon-wants-poor-kids-go-hungry

Another GOP Stealth Bill Moves Toward Passage - While We're Distracted By The Senate Health Bill

You have to hand it to the Machiavellian Repukes who love to make legislative moves of a dastardly nature, and now more covertly than ever before.  This is especially true with the cynically named 'Better Care Reconciliation Act. of 2017.'   which has now been scored by the CBO.  Let's also note that  the Director of the Congressional Budget Office is  Keith Hall - a card carrying Republican - not a Dem!  This is important to reference as assorted 'pukes try to blast Hall's report as "inaccurate" or "incomplete".

What the CBO scoring found is that an estimated 22 million Americans would lose their health insurance under the "Better Care" Act the Senate GOP is trying to foist on the country.  Worse, no fewer than 15 million would lose out next year alone. How would this occur, by what processes? As noted on p. 8, the biggest attrition would arrive by massive increase in deductibles for low income people.   Thus, a deductible soaring to $10,000 a year for a low income family would mean they simply wouldn't purchase health insurance, hence they'd be left out in the cold - with the only option to go to ERs.

The other aspect concerns the soaring premiums which the CBO report estimates will spike as much as 74 percent.  While the "individual market" premiums would average about "20 percent lower" this is precisely because these markets would be composed almost entirely of the young and healthy who'd make few annual health visits or exact much cost.  Meanwhile, older Americans - say 64 years of age and earning $56 k/yr. - would see their premiums go to $16,000 year from $4,400 currently under the ACA formula.

The 74 % premium  increase figure outside the individual market is based on an 'apples to apples' comparison between what ACA covered citizens have now and what they'd get under "Trump Care".  To fix ideas, if ACA insured folks (say for a family of 4)  are currently paying a $500 a month premium they'd pay $870 if the GOP "Better Care" scam passes.   This spike would also clear many off health care rolls, which is exactly what the GOP's free market denizens hope for.

Left unreferenced amidst all the distraction with the "Better Care"  bill is how another disastrous GOP stealth regulatory bill is working its way toward manifestation. This "Financial Choice Act" - so called-  would give Trump the automatic power to fire the heads of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency.  The former keeps oversight over the behavior of players in the financial market place to ensure they don't screw you, overcharge you for services or unload Ponzi schemes masquerading as proper investments. The latter oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which oversees housing matters to ensure consumers aren't buying bogus mortgages, overpaying in interest or processing charges and generally ensuring that realtors, sellers are abiding by the laws.

This "Financial Choice Act" - unknown to most - also gives congress the power over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's budget,  which means lawmakers could defund the agency entirely.  In other words, it would literally give Trump and the GOP congress absolute power to wreck consumers' credit and financial stability - by leaving them open to all manner of shyster exploitation with zero protections.  (The CFPB has cracked down on debt collectors, the credit card industry, payday lenders, for profit colleges, banks and mortgage lenders)

For reference, in the past six years the CFPB has provided nearly $12 billion in relief for more than 29 million consumers - many victims of financial or credit card scams. Trump and the GOP may sympathize with the plight of possible future shyster victims, but the bottom line is that they don't want to shell any money out to victims.   Recall here that the CFPB was created out of the Dodd-Frank banking legislation to enforce federal consumer financial laws and protect consumers in the financial marketplace.  The agency's main goals have been to:

- Root out unfair, deceptive or abusive practices by writing appropriate rules, supervising companies and enforcing laws.

- Solicit and respond to consumer complaints.

- Enhance financial education.

- Research consumer experiences for assorted financial products, e.g. annuities.

- Monitor financial markets for new risks to consumers.

All of these have been found to be more than warranted, which is why the CFPB reaped $12 billion in relief for more than 29 million consumers the past six years. Had the assorted financial outfits been adhering to the existing laws the CFPB would not have been needed by all those citizens. The fact that 29 million got screwed shows the need for thorough regulation and an agency to oversee such. That Trump and the Republicans would destroy this agency shows they have no more concern for the financial welfare of their voters than they do for wayward bugs that might invade their vacay homes.

Section 841 of the Financial Choice Act has been particularly noteworthy in its potential to undermine and overturn the interests of investors, especially retirement savers.   Under Sec. 841 the Labiior Department's fiduciary rule would e repealed. To refresh memories, that rule stipulates that anyone handling retirement assets - and gives financial advice to savers - has a duty to work in their clients' best interests and disclose any conflicts where and when they exist.   By Jan. 1, 2018, under the impetus of the GOP's Sec. 841 of the "Financial Choice Act", the fiduciary rule will no longer likely to be enforced.

If your financial planner doesn't inform you of his conflicts, or takes you for a ride by selling you some mutual fund that is front loaded with fees he can make $$$ off of, it's all on you. Added to your new healthcare spiking premiums, welcome to Trump World, Year II.

This elicits the question of what new nightmares await us next year compliments of Trump and his Reptiles.

Oldsters Going Back To School? A Waste Of Money And Debt You Don't Need

The buzz from the Neoliberal enclave the past ten years or so has been for the senior segment of the populace to "get more education" or "retraining" to access more lucrative work to supplement their retirement income, or even have more of it. These fools have peddled the bilge that "you're never too old to do it", and hey - with possible Social Security cuts - better to be safe than sorry.

Now, we read in the 'Retirement View'  (TIME, Feb. 20, p. 22, by Hayley Sweetland Edwards)  That oldsters:

"are now the fastest growing group of student borrowers and own, on average, $23,500, up from $12,000 in 2005."

And the real kicker:

"Altogether the over-60 set now carries $66.7 billion in student debt."

Even reading that twice made it no less incredible, mind boggling.   Especially on next reading, "the trend has Washington policy makers wringing their hands".

Well, didn't they all recite the refrain some years ago that the elderly set needed to retrain and "go back to school" to enable them to grab higher paying jobs to afford retirement? Yeppers, I have several sources ('Mother Jones', The Nation, The Atlantic) filled with such codswallop. Most recently: 'Career Pivot Is Ultimate Test  Of Self-Reinvention', (Washington Post) And now what do we behold? Well:

"This student loan crisis is preventing people from living with dignity in retirement"

The column does cite two main causes for this senior descent into student loan debt and now struggling in retirement to repay it:

1) Grandparents (and parents) are co-signing loans to support the younger generation.

2) Older Americans are increasingly taking out student loans for themselves, the proverbial "career pivot" if you will.

Both of these unwise moves can be grasped when one sees the dwindling number of blue collar jobs available - but that was always coming, if not from globalization then via automation. To fix ideas on the absolute nature of the bad decisions, the column then cites a waitress who went back to school in her 40s (not even in the 60s, like many now) to earn a degree in occupational therapy.  As the piece notes:

"While her new profession yields a higher income it has also left her with a lifetime of debt, with the consolidated loans tallied at $42, 000."

Of course, for a 60 or 65-year old this would be financially suicidal, unless one had plenty of money set aside. Like at least $600,000.

Let's look at options here. In terms of (1) it is axiomatic that no older person, over say 55, should be co-signing loans for a kid to attend university. Community college? Sure, maybe - and don't knock it!

The natural route now to craftsman status and good future work (e.g. for auto mechanics, plumbers, electricians etc.) in the U.S., as noted by Dick Hilker in his op-ed piece in the Denver Post from 2 years ago, is the community college. Hilker quoted Rhonda Bentz (the state system's media and government relations director), noting  that :

"the Voc-Technical route is the educational system's best kept secret. Students come for two year degrees and then get real jobs."

As Hilker goes on to note:

"In other words there are solid alternatives to spending big bucks at Big State U. to major in Tibetan Culture or Music Appreciation before winding up as a clerk at Mega-Mart."

A brutally frank observation, but which no rational person can dispute. And certainly a retiree or near retiree contemplating co-signing a loan for a grand kid!

Here's another brutal fact: those who believe they will be saved by higher aspirations, i.e. going into academia via the Ph.D. route, are also in for a shock. Universities across the board are now scaling back costs by hiring more and more adjunct professors and lecturers, many of whom now have to go on food stamps because they can't cobble together enough 'gigs' (teaching courses at different colleges, usually)  to earn even a lower working class level income.

The community college route also provides an alternative track for those seniors who wish to do a career pivot but don't wish to go into hock over massive student loans, say to get a university degree (or additional one).  In the case of the WaPo article on "career pivots" I cited earlier, both the individuals who achieved it were already coming from good paying jobs (one a medical doctor) so didn't have to worry about accruing lots of student loan debt. The doc (aspiring to be a statistical biophysicist)  also applied for a "Pioneer Award" from the National Institutes of Health that "made it possible for him to go back to the classroom"

But not all seniors are so fortuitous.

The main things seniors need to know before committing themselves to student loans for any reason are:

a) If seniors become ill or incapacitated - or even if they don't - they still have much less time to pay back loans than a young sprat.

b) Making monthly payments on a loan is also likely to be a lot more difficult because first, you're likely on a fixed income and second, even if you land a better job the remuneration is unlikely to grow as fast as it would be for a young student grad.

c) The loan burden often puts seniors in a bind to the extent that - according to a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau report- those 60 and older forego medical care and taking needed prescription drugs.

By 2015, a full 40 percent of student loan borrowers were in default meaning the government can garnish wages or even Social Security benefits to service payments.

The bottom line here? Make do with what you have, give up the fantasies of "career pivots" unless you are independently wealthy (that goes for co-signing loans for grand kids too). And if you need mental stimulation go for online open  courses - such as the "open courses" offered by Yale, e.g.

http://oyc.yale.edu/courses

GOP Obstructionists Brought This on Themselves

There's nothing that a real American loves better than a fighter. A guy who will stand up for what's right, and devil take the hindmost. This applies in the realm of politics as much as on the field of battle. In this sense, all those who are left of center on the political spectrum have welcomed President Barack Obama's recess appointments because they mark a development of spine in concert with appreciation of political reality - which is that the Republicans aren't interested in making common cause with him. They want to get rid of him!

After the grand bargain to reduce the deficit collapse, in the wake of the debt ceiling fiasco, Obama finally realized these guys aren't invested in anything he wants or proposes, never mind the GOP often proposed it before. For example, Obama's Affordable Health Care Act was originally floated in basically the same form by the conservative American Heritage Foundation in 1994, after the collapse of the Clinton Health Plan. It provided then Republicans something to run with, but now they disavow it and want it killed because Obama supports it!

Now, barely 3 years after his signature election, and after GOP blocking of nearly all of his major nominess for whatever position, Obama has had enough. In his most recent move, he named the nation's primary consumer watchdog on his own, provoking Republican threats of "a constitutional showdown in the courts." Hey, bring it on, Reepos!

Setting a fierce tone in the election-year fight for middle-class voters, Obama said: "I refuse to take `no' for an answer."

Obama named Richard Cordray, a respected former attorney general of Ohio, to be the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, after giving up hope for a confirmation vote in the Senate. The appointment means the agency is able to oversee a vast swath of lending companies and others accused at times of preying on consumers with shady practices.

In political terms, some media outlets have portrayed Obama's move as "unapologetically brazen, the equivalent of a haymaker at Republicans in the Senate who had blocked his nominee". But in more sober and rational terms, Obama simply responded in kind to the fierce opposition and GOP obstructionism which has paralyzed many facets of Obama's administration since he came to office.

In other words, Obama delivered to the Repukes exactly what these obstructionist cowards (who can't prevail any other way) deserved, no more and no less. That they are now whining like stuck pigs over a position that ought to have been filled over a year ago, merely confirms for all to see that they are not a party of the people - but rather of Big Business.

Indeed, the first move of the new appointee, and one long overdue, will be to demand simplified language for credit card and other forms based on critical financial transactions. Currently, the language is so dense and replete with mumbo-jumbo escape and conditional clauses that most Ph.D.s can't make sense out of it. In fact, if the Repugs were truly for the little guys that they claim, they'd applaud such simplification instead of trying to retain it.

Let's also cut the crap here and understand that presidents of both parties long have gotten around a stalled confirmation by naming a nominee to a job when the Senate is on a break through a process known as a recess appointment. Obama simply went a tad further by squeezing in his appointment during a break between rapid Senate sessions this week, an unusual move that the GOP called "an arrogant power grab".

But in truth, it was perfectly legal and the Repukes can cry foul all they want on this, you can be sure their challenge won't hold up in any court - even the Supreme Court. It is indeed the right and prerogative for a president to implement a recess appointment, even during a very brief recess. The length of time does not undermine the executive's power. What the Republicans are really howling about is that Obama actually had the balls to use a power accorded to him, when they'd bet the farm he'd fold once more . For example a "constitutional crisis" ought to have been brought much earlier by Obama, in August last year, instead of caving into the GOP with the debt ceiling increase (and creation of a "supercommittee"). Thus, he ought to have invoked Sec. 4 of Amendment XIV on his own, and invited the fight as opposed to punting.

Well, it turned out the Supercommittee didn't work and now we face $1.2 trillion in automatic cuts. But that's another story. Suffice it to say Obama appears to have learned his lesson this time around in standing his ground against the GOP bullies and defying them to bring it on. It also bodes well that during the coming election campaign he will cease using the generic term "congress" when meting out opprobrium, and will name the Republicans as the obstructing party they are instead. This includes when the next debt ceiling increase comes, at which time I and many others also hope he will not allow the nation to be held hostage and will invoke his executive power to raise the debt ceiling on his own instead. Let Mitch McConnell and the R-fuckers bring it to the Supremes, who cares! This fight has been building since the Re-pigs went after Bill Clinton for an impeachment based on a blow job because they couldn't nail him for Whitewater!

Now it's time to settle it once and for all!

The White House correctly noted that what the Senate was doing - gaveling in and out of session every few days solely to avoid being in recess - was a sham. Indeed it was, since they knew Obama wished a recess appointment. But Obama would not be deterred by a legislative gimmick, even though it was Senate Democrats who began the practice to halt President George W. Bush's appointments. (What else could they do since they were in the minority after 2002, and Bush's appointments amounted to a prade of human nightmares.)

In making his appontment of Cordray Obama stated flatly:

"When Congress refuses to act, and as a result hurts our economy and puts people at risk, I have an obligation as president to do what I can without them."

Consumer groups hailed Obama's decision but as one might expect, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce balked and warned it was so legally shaky that consumer bureau's work may be compromised. Of course,this is palpable horse manure. It isn't legally "shaky" at all, except in the minds of those who would screw consumers.

Meanwhile, the response from Republicans was predictably hyperbolic, as befits an insane party at the extreme margins of the Right (as noted in the recent Economist, Dec. 31, p. 7). Thus Senate Republican Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, proclaimed that Obama had:

"arrogantly circumvented the American people and endangered the nation's systems of checks and balances. "

Meanwhile Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah called it a "very grave decision by this heavy-handed, autocratic White House."

And House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said:

"It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward. "

Of course, Hatch and McConnell are preaching to their usual crazy base choir of Tea Party nutsos, so no biggie there. This plays to those guys that like to wear 3-pointed colonial hats, white leg stockings, and carry around old flags signed with 'Don't Tread on Me'. Ho hum! As for Boehner, he's either suffering massive intermittent brain farts, premature Alzheimers or doesn't recall that it was HIS side of House Tea-pee whackos that refused to work together with Mr. Obama, as on the debt ceiling and deficit deal.

The bottom line is, minus all the noise and hum-buzz from the reepie peanut gallery, Obama did the right thing on behalf of consumers and Elizabeth Warren, who made this agency possible, ought to be proud.

If and when the Repups demand Cordray appear for House testimony, he should tell all of his inquisitioners to go blow themselves. Oh, and to call him back when they have something useful to ask ....otherwise let him do his damned job!