5 ms·

Pedantic but for clarity: CFPB is directed by a single person who serves for five years and cannot be terminated by the President except for cause, which is one

Pedantic but for clarity: CFPB is directed by a single person who serves for five years and cannot be terminated by the President except for cause, which is one of the reasons unaccountability is brought up. Folks often indicate they want a "commission" (similar to SEC or FDIC) instead of an agency with a single director. All that said, yes, this panel of people making "recommendations" that are not laws but have the effect of law seems like a great recipe for selective enforcement based how large or small a company is and what they do, which is not going to do much to solve the bigger issue. Congress is not going to move at the speed of the internet / technology. I'm not sure if that's a named "rule" yet, but it should be. Illegal communities will move. And similarly, conditional "safe harbor" to operate a website should not be a thing. These regs are easily avoided by operating in other countries which will just make the US even less involved and competitive in this space.

iamatworknow 7y ago
I just think it's interesting that you can make almost exactly the same argument against this new commission that Graham made against the CFPB with a couple of words swapped out: "They can get into everybody's business. I don't think they added much at all to child protection. They sure add a lot to decreasing privacy for people in the country that had nothing to do with the exploitation of children."
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  You can make that sort of argument against anything: the FAA, FEC, FCC, National Wetland Agency, etc. What’s euphemistically called "the real world“ simply moves too fast for any legislative body to keep up, let alone the current US Senat. So to some degree, the specific implementation of regulation will always be delegated to agencies.
  - duckMuppet 7y ago
    Agreed. The Obama administration used federal agencies, the FBI, DOJ, and infamously the IRS to target conservative groups. All of these groups tend to be beholden to their particular agendas.
- sailfast 7y ago
  100%. That said, it would be more surprising to me if he said two things in a row that were logically consistent, not hypocritical, and made sense. I do not expect consistency from that particular gentleman.
tehwebguy 7y ago
> CFPB is directed by a single person who serves for five years and cannot be terminated by the President except for cause, which is one of the reasons unaccountability is brought up. Of course they could be fired, the legislature could take action and rewrite the law. There is no pedantry required here, it is simply Graham’s trademark hypocrisy.

iamatworknow 7y ago

I just think it's interesting that you can make almost exactly the same argument against this new commission that Graham made against the CFPB with a couple of words swapped out: "They can get into everybody's business. I don't think they added much at all to child protection. They sure add a lot to decreasing privacy for people in the country that had nothing to do with the exploitation of children."

KarlKemp 7y ago
You can make that sort of argument against anything: the FAA, FEC, FCC, National Wetland Agency, etc. What’s euphemistically called "the real world“ simply moves too fast for any legislative body to keep up, let alone the current US Senat. So to some degree, the specific implementation of regulation will always be delegated to agencies.
- duckMuppet 7y ago
  Agreed. The Obama administration used federal agencies, the FBI, DOJ, and infamously the IRS to target conservative groups. All of these groups tend to be beholden to their particular agendas.
sailfast 7y ago
100%. That said, it would be more surprising to me if he said two things in a row that were logically consistent, not hypocritical, and made sense. I do not expect consistency from that particular gentleman.

tehwebguy 7y ago

> CFPB is directed by a single person who serves for five years and cannot be terminated by the President except for cause, which is one of the reasons unaccountability is brought up. Of course they could be fired, the legislature could take action and rewrite the law. There is no pedantry required here, it is simply Graham’s trademark hypocrisy.