The Debate Over Obama's New Consumer Agency

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I'm against creating new agencies. Let's work through existing agencies, whether that means redefining or adding responsibilities. It will be faster and cheaper than building something new from scratch. Think about how a business runs...if you don't like how the current accounting department works, you don't just go add a new department; you fix what's there.

Susan of CO 11:59AM June 23, 2009

Obama's idea of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency sounds pretty similiar to the role of FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), which is a non-governmental Self-Regulatory Organization. In my view, it would make more sense - fiscally and otherwise - to simply partially-subsidize FINRA and broaden there scope of authority. Allow them to regulate investment advisors, hedge funds, mortgages, and credit cards. Gov't already has the infrustructure in place with FINRA and at fraction of the cost. Make the industry (as it currently does) pay a portion of the operating costs and maybe have the gov't fill in the financial gaps. In my opinion, this would make things soooooooooooooooo much easier. Mary Schapiro was the FINRA Chief prior to be appointed SEC Chairman too. I'm not sure why this idea is not mentioned?

Jason of IL 1:20PM June 22, 2009

I want a new Consumer Financial Protection Agency. And I want it fully authorized to poke around not just at banks, but at hedge funds, at private equity companies and in every place where "dark money" trading originates. Right now, for instance, we ought to know what non-oil-user speculators are "playing" in the oil market and how they can be curbed. You think "consumers" aren't hurt paying $70 a barrel for oil when, except for traders, it ought to still be at $40?
This "consumer protection" stuff is not just about whether the fat content of your ground beef is properly disclosed on a package. It is about whether the wealth of your country is being sapped away in trading schemes that are opaque and under-taxed to boot.
Why a new agency? Because the old ones are either captured already by the corporations or they have a fuzzy mission and down-tier priorities---like, say getting all worked up over whether your ground beef is 75/25 or 85/15.

Muser of NM 3:03PM June 17, 2009

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce today welcomed the administration’s proposal to regulate U.S. financial markets, but expressed disappointment with its plan saying it unnecessarily adds new layers of regulation and does not provide comprehensive reform to the current broken system.
“Our evaluation of the administration’s plan is based upon its ability to solve three fundamental problems with our financial regulatory system: ineffective regulation, regulators that are not well coordinated, and regulatory gaps that missed significant problems that occurred in our markets,” said David Hirschmann, president and CEO of the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets. “While the Administration has made several positive recommendations, we’re concerned that overall, the proposal simply adds to the layering of the system without addressing the underlying and fundamental problems. We can’t simply insert new regulatory agencies and hope that we’ve covered our bases.”

Eric of DC 2:11PM June 17, 2009