During the current Congressional recess, the President used his authority to appoint the head of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, whose appointment has been languishing in Congress for months. Immediately, there was much huffing and puffing, which is all that Congress does anyway.
The Republicans justifiably objected that this recess appointment bypassed the Senate's constitutional responsibility to "advise and consent." The President justifiably responded that Congress was opposed to the Bureau and wanted to cripple it by leaving it headless. White House sources say the President has concluded it is simply a waste of time to negotiate with Congress, which would be a tragedy for the country, especially if is true.
My thinking is that we don't need another agency to protect consumers, nor do we need more laws. We like to think we are a nation of laws. Instead, we are a nation of lawyers, and their first response to any problem is to throw more paper at it.
If we create ten million new laws, we will have created no new protection unless the punishment is swift and certain. The ethically-challenged will take a chance and commit a crime, since there is scant chance they'll be caught and will only serve relatively short jail terms, even if convicted. Besides, with prisons overflowing with minor drug-related criminals, paroles are quite common.
Did you, for example, read the agreement you signed for your credit card? If you did try, I seriously doubt you understood it. Now, will you be better protected if the credit card agreement is twice as long?
Because financial crimes are hard to prove and because the criminals tend to be educated white males, the punishment should be more horrific, more public, and more common.
I'd vote for fewer regulations with greater punishment . . . because we're over-regulated and under-punished!
The Republicans justifiably objected that this recess appointment bypassed the Senate's constitutional responsibility to "advise and consent." The President justifiably responded that Congress was opposed to the Bureau and wanted to cripple it by leaving it headless. White House sources say the President has concluded it is simply a waste of time to negotiate with Congress, which would be a tragedy for the country, especially if is true.
My thinking is that we don't need another agency to protect consumers, nor do we need more laws. We like to think we are a nation of laws. Instead, we are a nation of lawyers, and their first response to any problem is to throw more paper at it.
If we create ten million new laws, we will have created no new protection unless the punishment is swift and certain. The ethically-challenged will take a chance and commit a crime, since there is scant chance they'll be caught and will only serve relatively short jail terms, even if convicted. Besides, with prisons overflowing with minor drug-related criminals, paroles are quite common.
Did you, for example, read the agreement you signed for your credit card? If you did try, I seriously doubt you understood it. Now, will you be better protected if the credit card agreement is twice as long?
Because financial crimes are hard to prove and because the criminals tend to be educated white males, the punishment should be more horrific, more public, and more common.
I'd vote for fewer regulations with greater punishment . . . because we're over-regulated and under-punished!
