Apparently there will be even more lawsuits facing the Trump administration, because, apparently some government workers feel they should be allowed to make their own decision on their work, and not the administration.
Granted, this is regarding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and who will run it now that director Richard Cordray has resigned.
The CFPB is an agency design to “protect” consumers, set up in the finance meltdown in 2007 and approved in the Dodd-Frank Act, which essentially is more government intrusion into personal finances and banking practices. It regulates plastic money, mortgages, payday loans and the like, and sets up regulations and penalties.
But it really isn’t a government agency, which would require appointed directors or governmental oversight. The director can only be removed for malfeasance, and what’s at the heart of the current dispute is how a resigning director is replaced. The agency’s rules say the leaving director names a replacement; however, President Trump has appointed a replacement, and they’re not the same person.
The replacement-designate, Leandra English, has sued, wanting to force the hand of the government into following the CFPB’s rule on replacements. The Trump Administration wants Office of Management and Budget director Mick Mulvaney to head the agency.
Cry havoc, and let slip the attorneys of war.
One question never answered in this foray into backbiting is who is the federal government to tell me anything about finances? What organization created by statute is best suited to tell banks how to run their businesses, or decide that some entity has violated some heretofore unknown practice and now must face the wrath of some bureaucrat?
Any time the government becomes the arbiter of “fairness” in anything, be it health care or finances or energy or parks or what have you, it will inevitably become more ponderous, more costly and essentially produce the opposite effect that what was intended.
If left unchecked, it will become the Ministry of Finance, and any and all transactions involving money will be regulated by bureaucrats. And that, folks, is exactly the opposite of freedom.
In the society that has been designed in America, the market is the driving force of itself; if there’s bad things happening, the market (and the people who make up the market) will make its own adjustments — you know, voting with your feet. Problems arise when the well-meaning representatives feel that things need tweaking. If you remember, the government, by forcing banks and financial institutions to lend to under- or unqualified applicants, created the financial meltdown in the first place.
Then, by getting involved in the inevitable crash — remember “too big to fail?” — it stopped the market from making those adjustments. It’s the classic case of can’t have your cake and eat it, too; you can’t regulate a system designed to be free and expect it to operate properly.
Moreover, there should never be a time when it’s acceptable for a government to decide what is best for its people. That leads to dictatorships, ridiculous rules and laws which change depending on whim, and inevitable failure.
Best they stick to what they should — protecting the borders.
•In this week’s entry into the Why is This News? Department, Elon Musk is now expecting events from “The Terminator” to start becoming reality.
In a piece from foxnews.com, the megamillionaire, in seeing a robot do backflips, is now raising the alarm against artificial intelligence and the rise of the machines, seeing them as the cause of World War III.
So, as with most people who are afraid, what does he call for? Salvation from a nanny government by demanding more regulation.
We’re maintaining our freedom by eliminating … freedom. Sigh.
Tony Farkas is publisher of the Madisonville Meteor.