Photo Source: LA Times, picture of Mike Mulvaney
Leandra English, the acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, was named to that role when previous Director Richard Cordray resigned on Friday. However, President Donald Trump decided to appoint Mike Mulvaney to the head of that agency. In response, English has filed a lawsuit, attempting to stop the appointment of Mulvaney. She claims that she is entitled to the role based on the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform law, which was signed by President Obama in 2010, as Cordray had not finished his term yet (he still had 8 months left).
Part of this comes down with the agency, which was created during the Great Recession to protect consumers and their interests regarding mortgages and debts, as well as regulating the finances of Americans. However, Republicans have long opposed it and Mulvaney, a former Congressman, voted to shut down the agency. They believe that the regulations are hindering economic growth. Trump has called the agency a mess and claiming it needs new leadership to bring it back to life.
However, English in her lawsuit, along with many other Democrats, believe that this appointment is only there to bring an end to the agency. They believe that Trump's actions and goals will violate the law.
Who do you think should be the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? Do you think the Bureau has been good for Americans? Why or Why not?
Sources:
NY Times
CNN
LA Times
2 comments:
I believe that Leandra English should become the the director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau because, if the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Act really says what English is claiming, then she should get the job for the next eight months. But, overall I believe that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has been good for Americans in the past because it helped Americans during the Great Recession. But now, I do not know if the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is still serving its original purpose correctly. I believe this because the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is able to impose penalties on various financial products for various reasons. Now, in this day and age, politics do not always help the public, but instead the politician’s agenda that benefits them (financially). This means that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau could use its power for the wrong reasons.
According to the text of the Dodd-Frank Act; "In the event of a vacancy in the office...of the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau...the acting Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau [will serve]" According to the Dodd-Frank act which establishes the CFPB, English has every right to sue, and she has a very good case. I can see a panel of judges siding with her. However, I'm a little skeptical of Isabela's claim that the CFPB is a political tool per se. That implies that the powers that be want to use the CFBP for their own personal gain, but as the OP says, Mulvaney has only been named Director to pull the plug on the entire show. Whether or not the CFBP is beneficial to the American people is a matter of debate. Personally, I know that regulations stifle economic growth, and regulations are what the CFPB primarily does. Government at times has to be economically activist in times of economic crisis, but this is no longer the case. The Dow has been at the highest it's ever been, and that trend shows no indication of subsisting. Thanks to President Obama and to a lesser extent, President Trump, consumer confidence is at an all time high, and from an outsider perspective, the American economy is booming. Perhaps the CFBP has finally outlived it's usefulness.
Post a Comment