Buerkle: Not Working for Working People

Ann Marie Buerkle continues her assault on the interests of ordinary Americans. She has again attacked  the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and its architect, Elizabeth Warren.

Appointed by President Obama, Elizabeth Warren is working diligently to launch the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau next week.

Watch this April 2011 video interview from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, in which Warren describes her goal of protecting the financial interests of families from predatory lenders. The CFPB will require transparency in automobile, insurance, credit card and mortgage contracts. [video parts 2 and 3 are also available when you reach The Daily Show site.]

The fire-fight the Republicans are waging against her and the CFPB  has been relentless. In hearings this week, Republicans have displayed willful ignorance of the intent of the bureau and they have persistently  disrespected Warren. They appear to be intentionally creating suspicion. Why fight so hard against the interests of American citizens who were unnecessarily vulnerable and damaged during the financial meltdown? 

Here are a few things to know about two key Republican/Conservative/Tea Party hacks, Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Buerkle (R-NY):

Ann Marie Buerkle is a lieutenant on Issa's House Oversight and Government Reform committee. She, we already know, disdains Americans who voted her into office. She patronizes them; she manipulates them into doing her bullying at her "Town Hall" charades. Like many other tea partiers, she only likes "freedom" for people who agree with her moral view of the universe. She is wealthy by local standards. She owns commercial real estate including a Friendly's in Camillus, two homes including one right by the water on Skaneateles Lake, and other properties. She has always been interested in using political power to extend her moral views.

Buerkle has a gifted teacher in Darrell Issa. At heart Issa is a street thug and a bully. Years ago he was guilty of a concealed weapons charge, insurance fraud, and auto theft,; he may also be an arsonist. Now he is worth $250 million or $451 million [sources disagree]; and Chair of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. His current wealth only changed his weaponry, not his mentality. One of his mantras is "how can we cut regulations so that your business can create jobs?" Does that sound familiar? After 9/11 he reportedly asked this: "why [do] the firefighters who went there and everybody in the city of New York need... to come to the federal government for the dollars versus this being primarily a state consideration[?]" 

Buerkle, Issa and other Republicans on the committee were openly rude and disrespectful to Warren at a committee hearing in May. The recent hearing was somewhat more civil. Still, Buerkle's questioning, as seen on this YouTube clip, is redundant and patronizing.

Blueskygirl returns to the puzzle of why people voted for Buerkle. Blueskygirl is talking about the same people who will benefit from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, yet will applaud Buerkle's treatment of Warren. Why do people vote against their own self interest? 

Here is yesterday's article in The Wall Street Examiner:

Elizabeth Warren vs. House GOP, round 3

By Jennifer Liberto @CNNMoney ; July 14, 2011

WASHINGTON (CNNMoney) -- Elizabeth Warren faced another round of tough questioning about the consumer financial protection bureau at a House hearing on Thursday, her third trip to Capitol Hill this year.

House GOP lawmakers want to curb the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and have called Warren to "finish answering questions" that some lawmakers didn't get a chance to pose to her publicly during a tense May committee hearing.

Thursday's hearing on the consumer bureau was more civil than past ones. Republicans still asked Warren questions aimed at depicting the bureau as too much big government, as when Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle of New York asked if it would "kill jobs."

"I don't think it'll cost people's jobs, I think it'll make them more secure," Warren replied.

Warren has been working long hours to prepare the bureau for its new role, which will include such tasks as inspecting the books at the nation's biggest banks that control most of the nation's mortgages.

Darrell Issa, the California Republican who chairs the committee, said the hearing was being held to ask "whether or not the American people can feel comfortable that what was envisioned in Dodd-Frank is indeed what they want" in a consumer bureau, he said at the beginning of the hearing.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was created as a part of last year's Dodd-Frank Act, which Congress passed to rewrite the financial rules of the road to prevent the next financial crisis.

Excerpts from another article yesterday, in Credit Union Times:

Warren and GOP Lawmakers Clash on CFPB Powers

By Claude R. Marx,  July 14, 2011

House Republicans used a committee hearing Thursday to accuse those setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of not disclosing enough information and for not spelling out what financial products it plans to target for increased scrutiny....

[Elizabeth Warren] said that they would protect consumers by expanding disclosure requirements and don’t expect to ban certain financial products or take measures to raise compliance costs.

Rep. Ann Marie Buerkle (R-N.Y.) said in light of high unemployment rate, she is concerned that any actions by the CFPB would raise compliance costs and cause companies to reduce hiring.

Warren responded that one of the bureau’s first efforts will be to combine the disclosure forms required by the Real Estate Settlements Act (RESPA) and the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). She said this will make the process simpler for consumers and cheaper for financial institutions and noted that the bureau is working with banks and credit unions in its efforts.

Buerkle then asked if the bureau will “never, ever[?]” make rules or policies that raise compliance costs.’’

Warren said their work on RESPA and TILA will be a template for their efforts....

Credit union leaders have expressed their concern over new regulations imposed on the industry, while Republican lawmakers have been working to weaken the new agency’s powers and have promised to filibuster the nomination of whoever is ultimately selected by President Barack Obama to lead it.

And in the New York Times

Republican Attacks Persist for Consumer Bureau

By Eric Lichtblau, July 14, 2011

• WASHINGTON — House Republicans threatened Thursday to roll back the scope and authority of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau even before it officially opens for business next week.
• 
  

At a combative hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Republicans squared off against Elizabeth Warren, who is setting up the new agency, challenging her to explain what they saw as a bloated, $500 million budget, an overly broad mandate and regulatory power that could deter lending.

As Democrats rallied to defend Ms. Warren and the start-up agency, the morning-long hearing underscored the fundamental disagreements between Republicans and Democrats over the mission and powers of the bureau, echoing the fight over its creation last year.

The agency, created by Congress in the sweeping Dodd-Frank financial regulations law to guard borrowers from unfair lending practices, formally starts operations next Tuesday after nine months of preparations.

Ms. Warren, a Harvard law professor, has been leading the organization of the bureau but many Republicans have opposed her as the full-time director because they believe she has a history of antibusiness attitudes. The White House has not announced a nominee for director, who would require Senate confirmation.

This was Ms. Warren’s second appearance before the oversight committee since May, when she and Republicans clashed openly when she attempted to excuse herself after an hour of testimony.

Both Republicans and Democrats promised more civil discourse in Thursday’s hearing. But the political sniping sometimes overwhelmed testimony as the hearing devolved into what one committee member called “a partisan food fight.” Democrats apologized to Ms. Warren for her treatment by Republicans whom they accused of “sabotaging” the agency to protect Wall Street.

Republican members opposed to the agency’s powers repeatedly asked Ms. Warren if there were credit instruments or practices, like payday lending, that she would seek to ban as abusive or unfair under the agency’s new authority.

Ms. Warren said there were not any practices she would want to ban at the moment, adding that she would instead pursue less severe remedies like consumer education, enforcement investigations, fines or civil lawsuits against lenders.

Several Republicans seized on her answer and then pressed her to agree to strip the agency of its power to ban such practices if she did not see any immediate need to use them. But Ms. Warren balked, saying the power to ban practices was one important tool the new agency needed to fix “a broken consumer credit system.”

Expanding on her vision for the agency, Ms. Warren said she saw it as a “cop on the beat” that would regulate lending institutions, seek to simplify loan documents to make them more understandable and guard against fraud and abuse.

Republicans have unsuccessfully tried to chip away at the authority and structure of the agency by proposing a commission instead of a single director to oversee it, among other ideas. They signaled Thursday that they want to reduce the agency’s powers by challenging the salaries of some staff members, the justification for its budget decisions, its authority to look into certain types of financial institutions and practices, and a number of other organizational issues.

Representative Ann Marie Buerkle, Republican of New York, said she worried that an overly intrusive consumer agency would drive up the cost of compliance by lenders and make it harder for small businesses and others to get affordable credit.

Ms. Warren said that the large banks and lenders hired “armies of lawyers” who produced loan documents that were indecipherable to many Americans. “We need some pushback. We’re the voice on behalf of the customers, the American families,” she said.

She said that the agency’s regulation of the industry should help to lower the costs of credit to Americans, rather than raise it, and make borrowers “a little more secure.”

Representative John F. Tierney, Democrat of Massachusetts, said he found it “stunning” that Republicans appeared to be “flacking for banks” rather for standing up for borrowers and for an agency meant to protect them.

Democrats won a small victory when they sought to get Representative Darrell E. Issa, the California Republican who leads the committee, to subpoena major mortgage lenders for documents on abusive practices.

Mr. Issa refused the demand for subpoenas, but he agreed later in the day to a compromise of sending a formal “document request,” along with Representative Elijah E. Cummings of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the panel, to seek records from 10 major lenders related to lending abuses involving service members.