Sen. Elizabeth H. Warren (D.-Mass.) and Sen. Brian E. Schatz (D.-Hawaii) have proposed the Freedom From Equifax Exploitation Act, but the real exploitation is Warren and her co-sponsor leveraging Equifax’s breach of personal information to expand the reach of Warren’s own creation: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
For people, who have not heard of the CFPB, this rogue agency has morphed from its original intention of protecting consumers to becoming an agency that fights for powerful interests under the guise of consumer protection.
According to Forbes:
[The CFPB] has issued contentious rules, tortured data to make other rules, engaged in an extravagant spending spree, and even found itself blasted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for employment discrimination. Nobody has ever made a strong case that the pre-Dodd-Frank framework failed, much less that a new federal agency was necessary to protect consumers. CFPB advocates act as though there would be no consumer protection in financial markets without this government agency, but that’s demonstrably false.
Warren’s FREE Act would open the door to excessive regulation of a credit industry that provides a critical service to the markets.
The FREE Act mandates that credit agencies provide credit freezes and unfreezes free of charge, in addition to a number of other huge regulatory increases.
The bill seems innocent enough on the surface, but the broader intentions of Warren’s bill take a bit of deeper digging to find.
Warren has said she is intent on transforming the entire industry and the ultimate goal argued that this whole industry should be completely transformed,” she didn’t mean it lightly. This is simply the first of many steps in a federal takeover of the financial reporting industry.
If many Americans no longer trust Equifax with their personal information, then they would be no wiser to trust the federal government with their personal information.
Only the federal government and crony capitalist lobbyists, not consumers, will benefit from this new legislation.
After what was undoubtedly a horrific breach of consumer privacy, something must be done. Conservatives should support a free market-oriented solution to this problem, instead of an ineffective left-wing power grab.
Luckily, we already have an example to follow.
Pennsylvania lawmakers have proposed a more balanced bill, PA House Bill 1847, that could serve as a model for federal law. The bill outlines specific policies for dealing with credit breaches, and requires that credit agencies affected by a breach provide free credit monitoring for three years.
This is a smarter solution because instead of blanketly forcing all credit agencies to provide free credit monitoring, under the stern supervision of the CFPB no less, it incentivizes credit companies to increase their security and avoid a costly breach.
House and Senate Republicans need to vote down Warren’s the FREE Act, and introduce conservative legislation at the federal level that gives power back to the consumers, instead of to the bloated CFPB.
HUGE: Mitt Romney Spokesman Reveals He’s Not an Automatic ‘No’ On SCOTUS Nominee Confirmation
Romney might vote to confirm a nominee.
Mitt Romney isn’t an automatic ‘no’ vote for a Supreme Court nominee in the Senate, contrary to initial reports suggesting that he would be.
Initial reports- just hours after Ginsberg’s death- from an anonymous(as usual) source claiming to be a Romney ‘insider’ had suggested that the Utah Senator was already planning to refuse a confirmation vote for a tentative Trump administration SCOTUS nominee.
— Jim Dabakis (@JimDabakis) September 19, 2020
Senator Romney’s communications director, Liz Johnson, refuted the report just hours after former Utah State Senator Jim Dabakis claimed to have been privy to it.
— Liz Johnson (@LJ0hnson) September 19, 2020
A similar report had come out at the time of Ginsberg’s death, claiming that Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley was also planning to vote no on a potential Trump administration nominee. This report that was also promptly corrected by a Grassley spokesperson.
This is a game changer for the potential confirmation prospects of a Trump administration Supreme Court nominee. It leaves Maine’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski as the only outstanding Republican ‘no’ votes on a nominee, hypothetically opening up a possibility of 51 votes(if every single Democrat votes against a SCOTUS nominee) to confirm a judge in the Senate.
It’s even possible to confirm a SCOTUS judge with fifty votes and a Vice Presidential tiebreaker, but an extra potential vote would give Senate Republicans breathing room for error.
Romney is known for his liberal sympathies, but he has not come out in opposition to a SCOTUS nominee as of yet. He’ll doubtlessly receive a load of invective and hate from the progressive left for refusing to instantly ice a new judge, especially if he actually votes in favor of the confirmation of the eventual nominee.
Fake News Media4 days ago
SHAMEFUL: Fox News Censors Newt Gingrich for Correctly Stating George Soros’ Role in Fomenting BLM Terror
Crime4 days ago
Omaha Business Owner Who Killed BLM Rioter in Self-Defense is Hit with Multiple Felony Charges
Crime3 days ago
ILHAN’S DISTRICT: 17-Year-Old GOP Volunteer Shot Dead Outside of Gas Station in Minneapolis
News3 days ago
OUTRAGEOUS: Milwaukee Man Who was Defending His Home from a Leftist Mob is Arrested
Campaign 20203 days ago
VOTE STEAL: Pennsylvania Supreme Court Rules to Count Mail-in Votes Submitted After Election Day
Big League Economics4 days ago
SHAME: Democrats Are Blocking Stimulus Legislation That Includes Second $1,200 TrumpBux Check
Immigration3 days ago
New Jersey IT Company Busted for Exploiting H-1B Cheap Labor Program, Must Pay $350,000 In Restitution
States3 days ago
EMAIL LEAK: Nashville Dem Mayor’s Office Colludes to Hide Data Indicating Restaurants and Bars Were Not COVID-19 Hotspots