Trump Continues To Side With Corporations Over Consumers
March 8, 2018
From cutting consumer protections to filling his administration with industry insiders to lying about regulations, and more, Trump consistently sides with big corporations over American consumers. Here’s a look at just a few of the recent ways:
The Trump administration has systematically rolled back protections for consumers to the benefit of corporations.
Washington Post: “Trump Is Systematically Backing Off Consumer Protections, To The Delight Of Corporations”
Washington Post: “President Trump and the regulators he appointed are taking a far less aggressive approach to consumer protection than their predecessors, delaying key regulations and imposing fewer penalties against financial institutions and other corporations accused of wrongdoing, according to a Washington Post review of available data and interviews with consumer advocates and government officials.”
Despite his promises to drain the swamp, Trump stocked his administration with lobbyists and industry insiders with potential conflicts of interest.
Associated Press: “President Donald Trump and his appointees have stocked federal agencies with ex-lobbyists and corporate lawyers who now help regulate the very industries from which they previously collected paychecks, despite promising as a candidate to drain the swamp in Washington.”
ProPublica: “At least 187 Trump political appointees have been federal lobbyists, and despite President Trump’s campaign pledge to ‘drain the swamp,’ many are now overseeing the industries they once lobbied on behalf of. We’ve also discovered ethics waivers that allow Trump staffers to work on subjects in which they have financial conflicts of interest.”
Trump’s CFPB cozied up to the payday lending industry.
Associated Press: “Payday Lenders, Watchdog Agency Exhibit Cozier Relationship”
Associated Press: “The former CEO of a payday lending company that had been under investigation by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has asked to be considered for the top job at the watchdog agency, The Associated Press has learned. Such a request would have been extraordinary in the years when the agency was run by an Obama appointee and often targeted payday lenders. Along with recent actions taken by the CFPB, it suggests a cozier relationship between industry and regulator since the Trump administration took over in November.”
Trump’s CFPB has not taken a single enforcement actions under Mulvaney.
Boston Globe: “The agency hasn’t filed a single enforcement action under Mulvaney’s reign, in sharp contrast to the CFPB’s average before he took the job of three actions a month. Mulvaney told employees in a memo that he wanted them to move away from enforcement except in extreme situations.”
Associated Press: “Under Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s budget director and acting director of the CFPB, the bureau has taken a decidedly friendlier approach to the financial industry including cutting down on enforcement and dropping investigations or lawsuits against payday lenders and other companies. It has also proposed to revise or rescind many rules put into place by Richard Cordray, the first permanent director of the agency, including some that would have put additional restrictions on payday lenders.”
Trump’s budget office released a report contradicting Trump’s rationale for reversing Obama-era regulations – the regulations actually had benefits that far outweigh their costs.
E&E News: “Contradicting Trump, OMB Report Highlights Rule Benefits”
Vox: “The report was released late on a Friday, with Congress out of session and multiple Trump scandals dominating the headlines. A cynical observer might conclude that the administration wanted the report to go unnoticed. Why might that be? Well, in a nutshell, it shows that the GOP is wrong about regulations as a general matter and wrong about Obama’s regulations specifically. Those regulations had benefits far in excess of their costs, and they had no discernible effect on jobs or economic growth.”
Vox: “OMB gathered data and analysis on ‘major’ federal regulations (those with $100 million or more in economic impact) between 2006 and 2016, a period that includes all of Obama’s administration, stopping just short of Trump’s. The final tally, reported in 2001 dollars: Aggregate benefits: $219 to $695 billion Aggregate costs: $59 to $88 billion By even the most conservative estimate, the benefits of Obama’s regulations wildly outweighed the costs. According to OMB — and to the federal agencies upon whose data OMB mostly relied — the core of the Trumpian case against Obama regulations, arguably the organizing principle of Trump’s administration, is false.”