#NNPA BlackPress

COMMENTARY: House Chair Waters leads charge to return consumer protection to CFPB

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Although Director Kraninger announced a plan to suspend the payday rule, changes in how the Bureau operated with regard to these lenders began under Mulvaney. While at CFPB, he urged Congress to repeal the rule and joined a lawsuit brought by a payday lender that sought to indefinitely suspend the rule.

Published

6 years ago

March 8, 2019

Oakland Post

By Charlene Crowell, Deputy Director, The Center for Responsible Lending

On March 7, the House Financial Services Committee, chaired by Congresswoman Maxine Waters marked the first time that the new Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) appeared for a hearing in this capacity. Entitled, Putting Consumers First? A Semi-Annual Review of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” the session is the first of two mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Financial Reform and Consumer Protection Act. Twice a year, CFPB’s Director must report to each chamber of Congress.

But before the hearing, other actions signaled that Director Kathy Kraninger would likely be forced to defend both the Bureau’s actions and inactions that occurred at the hands of Trump political appointees. Under Mick Mulvaney, CFPB’s former Acting Director, a series of actions turned the agency’s focus away from consumers, regulation and enforcement to make its policies and structure more favorable to deregulation and business.

One day before the hearing, Congresswoman Waters and other majority members of the Financial Services Committee held a news conference to announce the reintroduction of the Consumers First Act. Initially filed in 2018 by Waters, the 2019 version has the same intent: to block and reverse the Trump Administration’s anti-consumer agenda. This year, Waters has the support of co-sponsoring lawmakers representing 19 states as diverse as California, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina and Virginia. Another boost – the bill is also supported by 51 consumer, civil rights, and labor advocates.

“The bill reverses the harmful structural changes Mulvaney and his deputies made to damage the agency one-by-one,” said Chairwoman Waters at the news conference. “We will be asking all of the questions that our members deem necessary to find out whether or not she is on the road to restoring much of the damage that was done by Mr. Mulvaney.”

Ohio’s Rep. Joyce Beatty, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, took direct aim at the Bureau’s changed perspective on payday lending adding, “Under Trump’s CFPB director Mulvaney, the CFPB has reduced transparency and accountability, weakened enforcement…and became more interested in helping payday lenders who allegedly misled consumers and charged exorbitantly high interest rates, rather than protecting the American consumers they were sworn to serve.”

Readers may recall that during Black History Month, Director Kraninger announced the Bureau’s intent to suspend the August 2019 effective date of the long-awaited payday rule. After more than five years of public forums, rulemaking, research and thousands of public comments, Director Kraninger still intends to begin the rulemaking process anew.

In response, consumer, clergy, and civil rights advocates received updated information from the Center for Responsible Lending that pinpoints state by state, how current triple-digit interest rates (APRs) continue to harm consumers across the country. Regardless of a state’s population size or average incomes, the cost of borrowing payday loans remains a debt trap. Further, in states where these loans remain legal, lenders continue to squeeze billions of dollars of fees from borrowers whose annual average earnings are $22,500.

Prepared by Charla Rios, a researcher with the Center for Responsible Lending, the updated payday map reveals that in 2019, 31 states charged 200 percent APRs or higher on payday loans. Of these, 18 states have APRs of 400 percent or more, three more – Idaho, Nevada, and Texas charge in excess of 600 percent.

The Lone Star State can rightfully claim one other distinction: its 661 percent APR is the nation’s highest. That claim becomes even more curious when that figure is compared to the actions of more than 40 cities that have adopted some kind of regulation on these predatory loans. In 2011, the City of Dallas led the municipal curbs with an ensuing unsuccessful legal challenge. Fortunately, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the city’s restriction.

Despite these disappointing numbers, there have been recent and notable consumer victories on payday lending. Colorado and South Dakota successfully approved by voter referenda 36 percent payday rate caps. In each of these referenda, voters supported rate caps by 75 percent majorities.

“When no rate caps exist, payday lenders become more predatory as they charge even higher triple-digit interest rates that financially bury people in debt,” said Rios. “The 2019 map shows just how much real reform is needed at the state and federal levels.”

Although Director Kraninger announced a plan to suspend the payday rule, changes in how the Bureau operated with regard to these lenders began under Mulvaney. While at CFPB, he urged Congress to repeal the rule and joined a lawsuit brought by a payday lender that sought to indefinitely suspend the rule. Earlier and as a member of Congress representing South Carolina, Mulvaney opposed the idea of creating the CFPB and counted payday lenders among his top donors.

The 2017 payday rule was promulgated after five years of hearings from a variety of stakeholders and everyday citizens. There was also extensive research, and a public comment period where literally thousands of statements documented this financial exploitation wrought by payday loans.

“Eliminating this protection is plain and simple a huge gift to predatory lenders so they can keep borrowers trapped in unaffordable debt with interest rates exceeding 300 percent,” concluded Diane Standaert, a CRL EVP and Director of State Policy.

Charlene Crowell is the Center for Responsible Lending’s Communications Deputy Director. She can be reached at Charlene.crowell@responsiblelending.org.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Up Next

Senator Kamala Harris and Rep. Yvette Clarke Reintroduce Legislation to Commission Statue Honoring U.S. Representative Shirley Chisholm

Don't Miss

FILM REVIEW: Black Mother

Oakland Post

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

Recently Approved Budget Plan Favors Wealthy, Slashes Aid to Low-Income Americans

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts

Published

16 hours ago

March 21, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown

BlackPressUSA.com Senior National Correspondent

The new budget framework approved by Congress may result in sweeping changes to the federal safety net and tax code. The most significant benefits would flow to the highest earners while millions of low-income families face cuts. A new analysis from Yale University’s Budget Lab shows the proposals in the House’s Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Resolution would lead to a drop in after-tax-and-transfer income for the poorest households while significantly boosting revenue for the wealthiest Americans. Last month, Congress passed its Concurrent Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2025 (H. Con. Res. 14), setting revenue and spending targets for the next decade. The resolution outlines $1.5 trillion in gross spending cuts and $4.5 trillion in tax reductions between FY2025 and FY2034, along with $500 billion in unspecified deficit reduction.

Congressional Committees have now been instructed to identify policy changes that align with these goals. Three of the most impactful committees—Agriculture, Energy and Commerce, and Ways and Means—have been tasked with proposing major changes. The Agriculture Committee is charged with finding $230 billion in savings, likely through changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), also known as food stamps. Energy and Commerce must deliver $880 billion in savings, likely through Medicaid reductions. Meanwhile, the Ways and Means Committee must craft tax changes totaling no more than $4.5 trillion in new deficits, most likely through extending provisions of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Although the resolution does not specify precise changes, reports suggest lawmakers are eyeing steep cuts to SNAP and Medicaid benefits while seeking to make permanent tax provisions that primarily benefit high-income individuals and corporations.

To examine the potential real-world impact, Yale’s Budget Lab modeled four policy changes that align with the resolution’s goals:

A 30 percent across-the-board cut in SNAP funding.
A 15 percent cut in Medicaid funding.
Permanent extension of the individual and estate tax cuts from the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Permanent extension of business tax provisions including 100% bonus depreciation, expense of R&D, and relaxed limits on interest deductions.

Yale researchers determined that the combined effect of these policies would reduce the after-tax-and-transfer income of the bottom 20 percent of earners by 5 percent in the calendar year 2026. Households in the middle would see a modest 0.6 percent gain. However, the top five percent of earners would experience a 3 percent increase in their after-tax-and-transfer income.

Moreover, the analysis concluded that more than 100 percent of the net fiscal benefit from these changes would go to households in the top 20 percent of the income distribution. This happens because lower-income groups would lose more in government benefits than they would gain from any tax cuts. At the same time, high-income households would enjoy significant tax reductions with little or no loss in benefits.

“These results indicate a shift in resources away from low-income tax units toward those with higher incomes,” the Budget Lab report states. “In particular, making the TCJA provisions permanent for high earners while reducing spending on SNAP and Medicaid leads to a regressive overall effect.” The report notes that policymakers have floated a range of options to reduce SNAP and Medicaid outlays, such as lowering per-beneficiary benefits or tightening eligibility rules. While the Budget Lab did not assess each proposal individually, the modeling assumes legislation consistent with the resolution’s instructions. “The burden of deficit reduction would fall largely on those least able to bear it,” the report concluded.

Stacy M. Brown

Posts by Stacy M. Brown

#NNPA BlackPress

A Threat to Pre-emptive Pardons

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process.

Published

17 hours ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

President Trump is working to undo the traditional presidential pardon powers by questioning the Biden administration’s pre-emptive pardons issued just days before January 20, 2025. President Trump is seeking retribution against the January 6th House Select Committee. The Trump Justice Department has been tasked to find loopholes to overturn the pardons that could lead to legal battles for the Republican and Democratic nine-member committee. Legal scholars and those closely familiar with the pardon process worked with the Biden administration to ensure the preemptive pardons would stand against any retaliatory knocks from the incoming Trump administration. A source close to the Biden administration’s pardons said, in January 2025, “I think pardons are all valid. The power is unreviewable by the courts.”

However, today that same source had a different statement on the nuances of the new Trump pardon attack. That attack places questions about Biden’s use of an autopen for the pardons. The Trump argument is that Biden did not know who was pardoned as he did not sign the documents. Instead, the pardons were allegedly signed by an autopen. The same source close to the pardon issue said this week, “unless he [Trump] can prove Biden didn’t know what was being done in his name. All of this is in uncharted territory. “ Meanwhile, an autopen is used to make automatic or remote signatures. It has been used for decades by public figures and celebrities.

Months before the Biden pardon announcement, those in the Biden White House Counsel’s Office, staff, and the Justice Department were conferring tirelessly around the clock on who to pardon and how. The concern for the preemptive pardons was how to make them irrevocable in an unprecedented process. At one point in the lead-up to the preemptive pardon releases, it was a possibility that the preemptive pardons would not happen because of the complicated nature of that never-before-enacted process. President Trump began the threat of an investigation for the January 6th Select Committee during the Hill proceedings. Trump has threatened members with investigation or jail.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Reaction to The Education EO

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking a higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college.

Published

17 hours ago

March 21, 2025

Oakland Post

By April Ryan

There are plenty of negative reactions to President Donald Trump’s latest Executive Order abolishing the Department of Education. As Democrats call yesterday’s action performative, it would take an act of Congress for the Education Department to close permanently. “This blatantly unconstitutional executive order is just another piece of evidence that Trump has absolutely no respect for the Constitution,” said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) who is the ranking member on the House Financial Services Committee. “By dismantling ED, President Trump is implementing his own philosophy on education, which can be summed up in his own words, ‘I love the poorly educated.’ I am adamantly opposed to this reckless action, said Rep. Bobby Scott who is the most senior Democrat on the House Education and Workforce Committee.

Morgan State University President Dr. David Wilson chimed in saying “I’m deeply concerned about efforts to shift federal oversight in education back to the states, particularly regarding equity, justice, and fairness. History has shown us what happens when states are left unchecked—Black and poor children are too often denied access to the high-quality education they deserve. In 1979 then President Jimmy Carter signed a law creating the Department of Education. Arne Duncan, former Obama Education Secretary, reminds us that both Democratic and Republican presidents have kept education a non-political issue until now. However, Duncan stressed Republican presidents have contributed greatly to moving education forward in this country.

During a CNN interview this week Duncan said during the Civil War President Abraham “Lincoln created the land grant system” for colleges like Tennessee State University. “President Ford brought in IDEA.” And “Nixon signed Pell Grants into law.” In 2001, the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President George W. Bush which increased federal oversight of schools through standardized testing. Meanwhile, the new Education EO jeopardizes funding for students seeking higher education. Duncan states, PellGrants are in jeopardy after servicing “6.5 million people” giving them a chance to go to college. Wilson details, “that 40 percent of all college students rely on Pell Grants and student loans.”

Rep. Alma Adams (D-NC) says this Trump action “impacts students pursuing higher education and threatens 26 million students across the country, taking billions away from their educational futures. Meanwhile, During the president’s speech in the East Room of the White House Thursday, Trump criticized Baltimore City, and its math test scores with critical words. Governor West Moore, who is opposed to the EO action, said about dismantling the Department of Education, “Leadership means lifting people up, not punching them down.”