Read time: 2 minutes

Why Does Mick Mulvaney Think The CFPB Should Lay Off Payday Lenders?

There isn't an industry more predatory and in need of consumer protection than the payday lending industry. So of course, Mick Mulvaney helps them out.
Views:

There is no more predatory an industry as payday lending. Taking advantage of people literally living hand-to-mouth by giving them emergency money at astronomical interest rates and other abusive terms.

It is, by definition, the very reason that Elizabeth Warren fought so hard to put together a Consumers Financial Protection Bureau during the Obama administration.

But then we got Trump.

When Obama-appointed Richard Cordray announced he was stepping down from the directorship, it gave Trump the opportunity to effectively destroy another Obama legacy, once again at the expense of most Americans. So he gave Budget Director Mick Mulvaney the oversight of CFPB, in addition to his other responsibilities. You know that Mulvaney takes it very seriously when he submits a budget for the bureau of a whopping $0 (that's right ZERO dollars).

So maybe it's not a surprise that Mulvaney tasked the writing of the new policy towards payday lenders to....wait for it...an attorney for payday lenders. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, predictably, was less than happy with Mulvaney's actions to render CFPB toothless.

At the end of January, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, along with Rep. Maxine Waters and four other Congressional Democrats, wrote acting CFPB Director Mick Mulvaney on recent actions seen benefitting payday lenders.

They asked why the CFPB halted implementation of a rule on payday lending, dismissed a case against four payday lenders and halted an investigation into an installment lender. Mulvaney, they pointed out, received $60,000 in contributions from the industry when he was in Congress.

In a letter released Friday directed at Warren, Mulvaney fired back, saying the decisions weren’t based on any motivation other than “a careful examination of the laws and facts particular to any matter.” He further chided Warren in particular for a lack of civil discourse — and insinuated that her vote against repealing the arbitration rule was because of campaign donations she received from trial lawyers.

Catch that? Mulvaney didn't actually respond to their concerns. He just punched back. He's learned well from Trump.

And once again, accountability for American citizens just goes out the window.

Can you help us out?

For 17 years we have been exposing Washington lies and untangling media deceit, but now Facebook is drowning us in an ocean of right wing lies. Please give a one-time or recurring donation, or buy a year's subscription for an ad-free experience. Thank you.

More C&L Coverage

Discussion

New Commenting System

Our comments are now powered by Insticator. In order to comment you will need to create an Insticator account. The process is quick and simple. Please note that the ability to comment with a C&L site account is no longer available.

We welcome relevant, respectful comments. Any comments that are sexist or in any other way deemed hateful by our staff will be deleted and constitute grounds for a ban from posting on the site. Please refer to our Terms of Service (revised 3/17/2016) for information on our posting policy.

Please Do Not Use the Login Link at the Top of the Site.

In order to comment you must use an Insticator account. To register an account, enter your comment and click the post button. A dialog will then appear allowing you create your account.

We will be retiring our Crooks and Liars user account system in January, 2021.

Thank you.
C&L Team