Consumer bureau to run – director or not
June 15th, 2011
12:59 PM ET
12 years ago

Consumer bureau to run – director or not

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) - There's a myth in Washington that - come its July 21 launch date - the consumer financial protection bureau created by the Wall Street reform law has to sit on its hands without a Senate-confirmed director.

But Treasury and those working to set up the bureau disagree. They're preparing the bureau to wield some pretty big powers even without a director, many of which have gotten short shrift at other agencies.


Filed under: Senate • Treasury Department • Wall Street
soundoff (9 Responses)
  1. Rudy NYC

    Doesn't it give you that warm, cozy feeling to know that the companies can sell you anything they want without being held responsible if the products fail. not have any liability if the products cause you harm.
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that you can carry insurance against bad businesses by carrying your concealed weapon, locked and loaded, when you go shopping?
    Doesn't it bring a smile to your face to know that if some private company decides that they can generate more tax revenue on your property, that they can go to your local government and have your property turned over to the private company?
    Doesn't it make your kids happy to know that they shouldn't swim in certain rivers, lakes and streams, and neither should they drink the water or eat the fish.
    Doesn't it make you happy to know that the food at the grocery store has arrived without any sanitary inspections, nor any record of where it came from.
    Doesn't it make you feel good that you fought so long and hard for all of the above and now you are dying of cancer and your insurance company will not pay for it.?

    June 15, 2011 01:13 pm at 1:13 pm |
  2. Sniffit

    Hopefully, I'll be allowed to respond in the wrong article since the other closed hehe:

    "Sniffit, it'll be interesting to know what your position will be if Sunday comes and goes and there's still no Congressional approval. "

    Simple: it's a violation if he hasn't pulled them out and a court, likely the SCOTUS, should order him to do so forthwith. Is it a criminal violation or something that justifies impeachment as a "high crime and misdemeanor"? Not so much. The Act contains nothing that creates a criminal offense and it's not uncommon for the court to have to step in to tell the POTUS or Congress where to get off if they're exceeding their powers. Impeachment is supposed to be an extremely EXTREMELY rare procedure used only for the most egregious of offenses...not the go-to political maneuver whenever the opposing party seems to think it has even the remotest argument or toe-hold supporting it. On the other hand, I can see some potential merit to arguments justifying censure, which is a total embarassment for a sitting president...and hey, would still be something the GOP can wave around during 2012 without risking looking like a bunch of extremists who try to kick out every Dem president they can with impeachment proceedings, no matter how small or routine the issue.

    "You hinted that the President could just stop launching attacks, then wait five minutes, then restart the 60/90-day period over, so is it your position that the President may launch indefinite wars this way so long as no ground troops are involved? "

    I was being facetious. I don't think it would actually work like that, but it's an interesting hypothetical question if posed in a seriuos manner. If he were to withdraw everything as required and then a week or so later, based on some material change in the situation in Libya, seek to re-initiate military action under the War Powers Act, well, it would make for some interesting legal arguments before the SCOTUS. Still, it was fun to tease you guys with that.

    June 15, 2011 01:18 pm at 1:18 pm |
  3. gt

    these are not the type of jobs this country needs... more bloated government ..

    June 15, 2011 01:40 pm at 1:40 pm |
  4. Democrat Class Warfare - Destroying the economy, destroying the country

    More government employees, more government costs, more waste, more government regulations, more red tape, compliments of the Democrats and Obama. They won't be happy until they control EVERY aspect of our lives.

    June 15, 2011 02:00 pm at 2:00 pm |
  5. Sniffit

    More tears, GOPers....your obstruction isn't working here bwahaha. You're gonna have to find some other way to prevent Obama from implementing a law that is on the books.

    June 15, 2011 02:17 pm at 2:17 pm |
  6. diridi

    no need for any per law....

    June 15, 2011 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  7. Edward

    It won't be hard. He took an economy that was losing 750000 jobs a month when he took office to an economy that was creating 200000 per month just over two years later. What else does he have to defend? Healthcare reform? Only conservatives care about that an they're already voting republican. When you look at things that Obama wanted to accomplish before he took office he literally checked everything off other than cap and trade and clean energy legislation. Afghanistan is something that was never certain but he did keep that promise as well as troops have already begun coming home. Republicans need to watch it. Who's going to critique obama on the economy? Romney? His state was 47 of 50 in job growth and had a 1% rise in employment when the rest of the country had 5%. Add to that the fact that his former company shipped jobs overseas and you see that Romney is not a formidable opponent. Republicans best bet was perhaps Huckabee or Rubio. 

    June 15, 2011 02:23 pm at 2:23 pm |
  8. Sorensen

    Of course the bureau should run. It is the biggest fear of all the secretive, corrupt, sleazy, ultra right-wing and
    mostly unsuccesful "business" people in the country. In all enlightened western democracies this would not even
    be a question. Unfortunately, in this instance and a few others, the US is still a banana republic.
    Thanks again, GOP.

    June 15, 2011 02:29 pm at 2:29 pm |
  9. Mikey

    Time for a recess appointment.

    June 15, 2011 02:44 pm at 2:44 pm |