Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
61 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act
Unfortunately there were 33 (D)s in the House and 17 (D)s/(I)s in the Senate that voted for that GOP bill.
Fact Sheet Feb 28, 2018
Fact Sheet: The Senate’s Bipartisan Dodd-Frank Rollback Bill
S. 2155—the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act—has a multitude of misguided and risky provisions.
Authors
Gregg Gelzinis
Joe Valenti
In the coming weeks, the U.S. Senate will likely vote on the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, or S. 2155.1 This piece of legislation, which is supported by the Senate Republican Conference and 13 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, has been touted as a community bank bill. Make no mistake, S. 2155 is the second part of a massive corporate giveaway. The corporate tax cuts passed in December 2017 were a windfall for big banks—and big banks are again winners in this legislation. The bill would deregulate 25 of the largest 38 banks in the United States and would undermine some key protections for homeowners and homebuyers, while offering crumbs for consumers. The devastating effects of the financial crisis were felt in every state, so it is hard to believe that the Senate would vote to undo critical postcrisis protections.
If enacted, the bill would make the U.S. financial system—and key regional economies—more vulnerable to another financial crisis, potentially putting taxpayers back on the hook to bail out the same banks once again. The failure of several of these banks during a period of significant stress in the financial sector could threaten financial stability and starve the economy of the credit and financial intermediation it needs to thrive. Moreover, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Bank profits and lending are both at all-time highs. There is absolutely no reason to deregulate a large swath of the banking sector, especially while the Trump administration is already dismantling financial regulatory tools from within.
Banking provisions
(snip)
(snip)
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-senates-bipartisan-dodd-frank-rollback-bill/
Fact Sheet: The Senate’s Bipartisan Dodd-Frank Rollback Bill
S. 2155—the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act—has a multitude of misguided and risky provisions.
Authors
Gregg Gelzinis
Joe Valenti
In the coming weeks, the U.S. Senate will likely vote on the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, or S. 2155.1 This piece of legislation, which is supported by the Senate Republican Conference and 13 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, has been touted as a community bank bill. Make no mistake, S. 2155 is the second part of a massive corporate giveaway. The corporate tax cuts passed in December 2017 were a windfall for big banks—and big banks are again winners in this legislation. The bill would deregulate 25 of the largest 38 banks in the United States and would undermine some key protections for homeowners and homebuyers, while offering crumbs for consumers. The devastating effects of the financial crisis were felt in every state, so it is hard to believe that the Senate would vote to undo critical postcrisis protections.
If enacted, the bill would make the U.S. financial system—and key regional economies—more vulnerable to another financial crisis, potentially putting taxpayers back on the hook to bail out the same banks once again. The failure of several of these banks during a period of significant stress in the financial sector could threaten financial stability and starve the economy of the credit and financial intermediation it needs to thrive. Moreover, this bill is a solution in search of a problem. Bank profits and lending are both at all-time highs. There is absolutely no reason to deregulate a large swath of the banking sector, especially while the Trump administration is already dismantling financial regulatory tools from within.
Banking provisions
This bill raises the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act’s threshold for enhanced regulatory standards from $50 billion to $250 billion, meaning 25 of the 38 largest banks in the United States would no longer be subject to stronger capital and liquidity rules, enhanced risk management standards, living-will requirements, some stress testing requirements, and more. These rules are vital tools to protect the safety and soundness of banks and the stability of the financial sector.
(snip)
The bill also lowers the loss-absorbing capital cushions at two of the eight most systemically important banks in the United States, State Street Corp. and The Bank of New York Mellon Corp., which play a systemic role in the plumbing of the financial sector—holding a combined $60 trillion in assets under custody and administration. Lower capital cushions make these banks less resilient and more vulnerable to a financial shock.
(snip)
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/fact-sheet-senates-bipartisan-dodd-frank-rollback-bill/
Unfortunately there were 33 (D)s in the House and 17 (D)s/(I)s in the Senate that voted for that GOP bill.
i can never find vote totals -- in part b/c i don't know where to start or the names of the bills.
thanks again!
I always go to "congress.gov" and look for the bill. When you get to the bill page, there are links and tabs including one that says "All Actions" and if you click on that, it will give you a chart of all the actions (including dates) done to the bill including roll call votes (with a link to them).
during 45's reign of terror. It was a carry-over from their attempts to destroy the CFPB created by Dodd-Frank during Obama's 1st term and refusing to confirm a head. The agency was only finally able to get a director, Richard Cordray, confirmed during his 2nd term.
But that didn't stop the GOP from continuing their efforts to kill the agency's mandate. In fact, one case even reached the SCOTUS in order to consider the entire CFPB as "unconstitutional" and it escaped, just barely -
Opinion analysis: Court strikes down restrictions on removal of CFPB director but leaves bureau in place
By Amy Howe
on Jun 29, 2020 at 4:41 pm
In response to the 2008 financial crisis, Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency with approximately 1,500 employees that tackles everything from payday loans to financial literacy programs and helping consumers navigate the COVID-19 pandemic. The director of the CFPB, Kathy Kraninger, was appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate in December 2018 to serve a five-year term. Under the law that created the CFPB, Kraninger can be removed from her position only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Today, in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a divided Supreme Court ruled that these restrictions on the removal of the CFPB director are unconstitutional. But the justices stopped there, rejecting a request by a California law firm to hold that, if the leadership structure is unconstitutional, the court should strike down the rest of the act creating the CFPB as well.
The dispute that was the subject of today’s decision began when Seila Law, a California-based law firm that provides debt-relief services to consumers, was under investigation by the CFPB for possible violations of telemarketing sales rules. Seila Law challenged the CFPB’s authority to request documents from the firm, arguing that the bureau’s structure is unconstitutional because it has just one director, who has substantial power but can only be removed “for cause.” Instead, Seila Law argued, the director should be removable “at will” – that is, for any reason.
(snip)
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-removal-of-cfpb-director-but-leaves-bureau-in-place/
By Amy Howe
on Jun 29, 2020 at 4:41 pm
In response to the 2008 financial crisis, Congress created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a federal agency with approximately 1,500 employees that tackles everything from payday loans to financial literacy programs and helping consumers navigate the COVID-19 pandemic. The director of the CFPB, Kathy Kraninger, was appointed by President Donald Trump and confirmed by the Senate in December 2018 to serve a five-year term. Under the law that created the CFPB, Kraninger can be removed from her position only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”
Today, in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, a divided Supreme Court ruled that these restrictions on the removal of the CFPB director are unconstitutional. But the justices stopped there, rejecting a request by a California law firm to hold that, if the leadership structure is unconstitutional, the court should strike down the rest of the act creating the CFPB as well.
The dispute that was the subject of today’s decision began when Seila Law, a California-based law firm that provides debt-relief services to consumers, was under investigation by the CFPB for possible violations of telemarketing sales rules. Seila Law challenged the CFPB’s authority to request documents from the firm, arguing that the bureau’s structure is unconstitutional because it has just one director, who has substantial power but can only be removed “for cause.” Instead, Seila Law argued, the director should be removable “at will” – that is, for any reason.
(snip)
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/06/opinion-analysis-court-strikes-down-restrictions-on-removal-of-cfpb-director-but-leaves-bureau-in-place/
This battle has been going on for 14 years.
with him constantly looking down at his notes, I was reminded that he can't even give a simple speech
without help. Will MSM evening news even show this? 
