Elizabeth Warren Strikes Back Against New GOP Efforts to Weaken Dodd-Frank

The senator, joined by Obama allies and architects of the financial regulations, are slamming the House’s proposed budget.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) listens to testimony from witnesses during a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on 'Mitigating Systemic Risk Through Wall Street Reforms,' on Capitol Hill, July 11, 2013 in Washington, D.C.
Eric Garcia
Add to Briefcase
Eric Garcia
March 18, 2015, 8:07 a.m.

The White House, former Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials, and Sen. Eliza­beth War­ren are cri­ti­ciz­ing at­tempts to weak­en the Dodd-Frank fin­an­cial-re­form law in House Re­pub­lic­ans’ pro­posed budget, set­ting the stage for a policy fight that’s only just be­gin­ning.

The budget, re­leased on Tues­day, would put the Con­sumer Fin­an­cial Pro­tec­tion Bur­eau un­der con­gres­sion­al ap­pro­pri­ation, which crit­ics say could res­ult in few­er funds for the bur­eau, since Re­pub­lic­ans in Con­gress would con­trol how much money it re­ceives.

War­ren, a Demo­crat from Mas­sachu­setts who served as an as­sist­ant in set­ting up the Con­sumer Fin­an­cial Pro­tec­tion Bur­eau be­fore she ran for Sen­ate, said the House GOP budget could com­prom­ise the agency’s in­de­pend­ence.

“The con­sumer agency has put in place strong rules to pro­tect con­sumers from tricks and traps in fin­an­cial products,” War­ren said in a state­ment to Na­tion­al Journ­al Tues­day night. “The big banks don’t like that—and that’s the num­ber one reas­on the CFPB should re­main free of polit­ic­al in­flu­ence.”

The White House joined War­ren in its cri­ti­cism, say­ing that put­ting the bur­eau un­der the ap­pro­pri­ation of Con­gress would lim­it the agency. The ad­min­is­tra­tion also cri­ti­cized the Re­pub­lic­ans budget pro­pos­al’s “cre­at­ive-ac­count­ing sav­ings” that shift fund­ing for the agency to ap­pro­pri­ations.

“In ad­di­tion, it risks re­turn­ing us to the days of ‘too big to fail,’ pro­tect­ing Wall Street firms from im­port­ant reg­u­lat­ory safe­guards and put­ting or­din­ary cit­izens and the eco­nomy at risk,” the White House said in a fact sheet Tues­day even­ing.

War­ren and the White House’s united front against the Re­pub­lic­an pro­pos­al once again shows the com­plex re­la­tion­ship the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion has with the sen­at­or, a pro­gress­ive fa­vor­ite. Obama and War­ren are at odds about parts of the pro­posed Trans-Pa­cific Part­ner­ship, but both were sup­port­ive of fin­an­cial re­form on Wall Street.

The House budget also would scrap what’s known as the Or­derly Li­quid­a­tion Au­thor­ity, a pro­vi­sion that gives the Fed­er­al De­pos­it In­sur­ance Cor­por­a­tion, the in­de­pend­ent agency cre­ated dur­ing the Great De­pres­sion meant to main­tain sta­bil­ity of the U.S. fin­an­cial sys­tem, the power to as­sume op­er­a­tion­al and fin­an­cial con­trol of a troubled fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tion con­sidered sys­tem­ic­ally im­port­ant. In that role, it has the re­spons­ib­il­ity to merge, sell, and man­age the in­sti­tu­tion’s as­sets, as well provide money ne­ces­sary to bring an or­derly end to the troubled in­sti­tu­tion.

Re­pub­lic­ans say cut­ting this pro­vi­sion pre­vents tax­pay­ers from be­ing on the hook for bail­outs of fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions be­hav­ing badly. But the White House struck back on Tues­day, say­ing, while Re­pub­lic­ans claim the budget does not rely on gim­micks or “cre­at­ive-ac­count­ing tricks,” the sav­ings made by get­ting rid of the pro­vi­sion would be both.

“[The Or­derly Li­quid­a­tion Au­thor­ity] was en­acted to en­sure tax­pay­er funds are nev­er again used to bail out ‘too big to fail’ fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions,” the White House fact sheet said.

Mi­chael Barr, a law pro­fess­or at the Uni­versity of Michigan who served as the Treas­ury De­part­ment’s as­sist­ant sec­ret­ary for fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions, said re­mov­ing the Or­derly Li­quid­a­tion Au­thor­ity would re­in­force the concept of too-big-to-fail fin­an­cial in­sti­tu­tions.

“One of the key fea­tures is giv­ing the gov­ern­ment the abil­ity to wind down a firm like Leh­man Broth­ers if it gets in trouble,” he said, re­fer­ring to one of the in­sti­tu­tions whose col­lapse was part of the 2008 fin­an­cial crisis.

Re­pub­lic­ans have pre­vi­ously used spend­ing bills and oth­er must-sign le­gis­la­tion to weak­en parts of Dodd-Frank, know­ing it would be dif­fi­cult for Demo­crats to vote against them. But in this case, the White House and pro­gress­ive Demo­crats like War­ren are draw­ing lines in the sand, vow­ing to stop ma­jor parts of Dodd-Frank from be­ing weakened or re­pealed.

What We're Following See More »
CITE NEW REGULATIONS ON NON-PROFIT REPORTING
Dems on Finance Committee Get Cold Feet on IRS Nominee
2 hours ago
THE LATEST
THE QUESTION
How Much Will Trump's Military Parade Cost?
2 hours ago
THE ANSWER

About $12 million, according to an initial estimate shared with CNN.

Source:
"NOT FOR LONG," HE SAYS
Trump Lashes Out at EU for Google Fine
3 hours ago
THE LATEST
ARMS CONTROL, SYRIA WERE DISCUSSED
Russians Refer to "Verbal Agreements" with Trump
14 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Two days after President Trump’s summit with Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, Russian officials offered a string of assertions about what the two leaders had achieved. 'Important verbal agreements' were reached at the Helsinki meeting, Russia’s ambassador to the United States, Anatoly Antonov, told reporters in Moscow Wednesday, including preservation of the New Start and INF agreements," and cooperation in Syria.

Source:
WAS "GRUDGINGLY" CONVINCED
Trump Was Shown Proof of Russian Interference Before Inauguration
15 hours ago
THE LATEST

"Two weeks before his inauguration, Donald J. Trump was shown highly classified intelligence indicating that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia had personally ordered complex cyberattacks to sway the 2016 American election. The evidence included texts and emails from Russian military officers and information gleaned from a top-secret source close to Mr. Putin, who had described to the C.I.A. how the Kremlin decided to execute its campaign of hacking and disinformation. Mr. Trump sounded grudgingly convinced, according to several people who attended the intelligence briefing. But ever since, Mr. Trump has tried to cloud the very clear findings that he received on Jan. 6, 2017, which his own intelligence leaders have unanimously endorsed."

×
×

Welcome to National Journal!

You are currently accessing National Journal from IP access. Please login to access this feature. If you have any questions, please contact your Dedicated Advisor.

Login