Skip navigation

Monthly Archives: September 2017


It is strange that Ann Coulter is slamming  TOTUS but not for the same reasons as the Scamocrats and DACA proponents. Ann has been upset with Trump for not being more conservative and has punched him for it several times.

Harriet Sinclair
Newsweek  05 September 2017

Ann Coulter appears to be upset with the White House after President Donald Trump’s decision to scrap the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA), but not for the same reasons as the president’s liberal critics.
The controversial commentator shared a number of tweets on the subject on Tuesday, following the announcement by Attorney General Jeff Sessions that the White House is rescinding the policy and a subsequent press conference on the topic.
“That’s great. Sarah Huckabee Sanders says Trump wants COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM!  Exactly what he used to denounce,” she wrote of Sanders’ Tuesday press conference.
During the press briefing, Sanders said of Trump’s decision on DACA: “He wants to be able to make a decision with compassion but at the same time you can’t allow emotion to govern. The president wrestled with this decision all through the weekend.”
But her comments appeared to anger Coulter, who suggested the administration should not be concerned with placating DACA recipients.
“Trump’s landmark, election-winning immigration speech, 8/31/16: ENFORCEMENT 1ST! We can’t even discuss amnesty until we have a wall!” Coulter added, sharing a speech from Trump in which he said that the first focus should be on tackling illegal immigration and building a wall on the U.S. southern border.

“Weird how Huckabee Sanders obsessively attacks congress. Trump’s not going to get out of betraying voters on the wall by blaming congress,” she wrote.
But while Coulter expressed her concerns that Trump was not going far enough on immigration and wondering where the promised wall on the U.S. southern border was, recipients of DACA were facing up to an uncertain future.
Trump’s decision has left 800,000 successful DACA applicants facing an uncertain future and prompted a backlash from immigration charities, DACA recipients and politicians, including former President Barack Obama and even some within the Republican party.
Obama, who brought in the DACA initiative in 2015, said on Tuesday the decision to rescind it was “cruel.”
“Whatever concerns or complaints Americans may have about immigration in general, we shouldn’t threaten the future of this group of young people who are here through no fault of their own, who pose no threat, who are not taking away anything from the rest of us,” Obama wrote on Facebook shortly after Trump’s decision was announced.

Please Donate


• Sam Becker

• September 04, 2017

President Donald Trump has created logistical headaches at the taxpayers’ expense. Under normal circumstances, Americans would assume a Republican president would usher in an era of fiscal responsibility. Of budget slashing. Of belt tightening and more efficient government programs. But these are not normal circumstances, and Donald Trump is not a typical Republican president. Although changes are coming and some people are going to benefit, taxpayer money has been flowing rather freely on Capitol Hill since the election.
A report from The Washington Post outlines that the taxpayers are fronting a lot of money to pay for the Trumps and their “elaborate” lifestyles. Trump and his family have a complicated web of business interests, investments, and properties. And life in and around the Oval Office is quite different from what they’re used to.
The resulting “logistical nightmare,” as the Post calls it, comes at the expense of the taxpayers. That means you, the American people, are paying for Trump’s trips to Florida. And you’re paying for the security of Trump Tower in New York in addition to many other things. You might not like it, but there’s little you can do about it — at this point, at least, with Republicans in Congress unlikely to tell Trump to cool it on the expenditures. Just how is Trump and the rest of his family burning through your tax dollars? Here are 10 ways that we know of — so far.

1. Securing Trump Tower

One of the most obvious and expensive ways in which taxpayers are getting nailed concerns Trump Tower in Manhattan. The first lady and Trump’s son Barron are living there, and that requires round-the-clock security and Secret Service protection. That amounts to roughly $500,000 per day in expenses — all paid for by the American people. The people of New York City are also fronting the bill for an extra 200 police officers.
2. Weekends at Mar a Lago

You might have heard that Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s Florida resort, has the unofficial moniker of “White House South.” Trump likes it and has been spending his weekends there at the beginning of his presidency. But it’s not cheap. With just three visits, he’s burned through more than $10 million in taxpayer money. It’s unclear as to whether Trump plans to continue his weekly journeys. But what’s important is it’s mighty expensive.
3. Golf
Trump likes to golf. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s a great way to get some exercise and escape the pressures of the office. Former President Barack Obama liked to golf, too, as did George W. Bush. Obama was also criticized for it — and quite often. Now Trump has been golfing on the taxpayers’ dime, even if it’s with foreign dignitaries. It’s important to give our leaders a break, but if you’re going to criticize one president for hitting the links, you’ve got to get them all.
4. Attacking businesses

The Trumps have had several public spats with big companies, and it’s not only troublesome in terms of ethics violations. Trump, while drawing a salary from the taxpayers (along with others, such as Kellyanne Conway), has gone after Nordstrom for dropping his daughter’s clothing line, as well as many media companies. So far, there’s a list of more than 60 companies Trump has targeted on Twitter, all as the American people pay him as president.
5. Re-election events

The president likes to get out among his fans. He’s already held a big rally in Florida. And with the 2020 race set to heat up sooner than we all would like, Trump will get to be back on the campaign trail in full force. He was able to bill his own businesses more than $8 million during 2016. Given that he’s the sitting president this go-around, taxpayers will be fronting some of that money for security and transportation.
6. Promoting the Trump brand abroad

One particularly maddening way in which the Trumps seem to be profiting off of the presidency is by paying for members of the family to fly around the world to promote the Trump brand. Case in point: Eric Trump recently took a trip to Uruguay to look over the family’s business interests. That single trip, which, by law, required Secret Service protection, cost taxpayers almost $100,000.
7. Trump’s D.C. hotel

The Trumps recently opened a fancy new hotel in Washington, D.C., a location they lease from the government. This has been tagged as a big conflict of interest, with a report from a Republican senator’s office showing Trump was granted $40 million in tax credits. It doesn’t look like anyone’s going to press for changes on this front.
8. Rallies

We brought up re-election expenses, but most of that stuff is down the road. That hasn’t stopped Trump from holding a big rally in Florida, only a few weeks into his tenure. That rally, and any future rally, comes with a hefty price tag. And like it or not, you’re fronting the money to put them on — or at least for elements within them. Security, transportation, and other costs add up quickly.
9. Questionable appointments

“Questionable appointments” aren’t really an expense. But the American people expect competent, qualified people to fill Cabinet and senior staff positions. So far, Trump has given those jobs to some questionable people — all of whom will be getting paid by the taxpayers. Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, is one example, with many wondering about his qualifications. The same goes for Betsy DeVos, Ben Carson, Scott Pruitt, Steve Bannon, Stephen Miller, Rex Tillerson, and more.
10. Renting office space (from the Trumps)
The Pentagon might need to lease space in Trump Tower for when the president spends time in New York. We’ve already discussed expenses related to keeping Trump Tower as “White House North.” But it appears the Pentagon might actually need to lease space for when the president spends time there. That could cost as much as $1.5 million per year — money paid to the Trumps.

Please Donate


This is another effort to move American citizens farther away from medical care, this includes die hard Trump supporters who only see the TOTUS fulfilling campaign promises even if they and their families are harmed by it. MA.

Jeffrey Young,HuffPost 12 hours ago

 

President Donald Trump’s administration has taken more steps to undermine the Obamacare marketplaces it’s responsible for managing.
The federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced Thursday that it’s making drastic cuts in spending on advertising for the 2018 open enrollment period on the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges, as well as significant cutbacks in funding for local organizations that help consumers navigate the buying process.
Weakening the two most important tools the federal government has to promote enrollment on the state-based exchanges ― 39 of which are run wholly or mainly by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ― is the latest signal that the Trump administration isn’t committed to serving exchange customers and bolstering the marketplaces during the first open enrollment it will oversee from start to finish.
Less awareness of the open enrollment period running from Nov. 1 to Dec. 15, combined with less help from community organizations, which have assisted more than 9 million enrollees with sign-ups since the autumn of 2013, will likely result in fewer people being covered by health insurance obtained via the federally operated exchanges accessed on HealthCare.gov.
In addition, these moves could worsen the financial state of the exchanges, as sicker and costlier consumers are more likely to seek out coverage than healthier people, who may be unaware that the sign-up season is taking place.
Trump himself repeatedly has said he wants to let or make the health insurance exchanges collapse, and his administration has taken a number of actions to destabilize them. That’s above and beyond his advocacy for the Affordable Care Act’s repeal.
Chief among the destabilizing steps has been Trump threatening to withhold billions owed to health insurance companies serving poor enrollees, which has contributed to large rate hikes for next year. The Department of Health and Human Services also has used its websites and social media channels to criticize the Affordable Care Act at taxpayer expense.
And the administration previously canceled other outreach and education programs President Barack Obama’s administration created to help get out the word about coverage options and provide in-person assistance to people seeking help signing up. The current administration also cut the open enrollment period for next year to half its length from last year, giving customers less time to weigh their options.
Trump previewed Thursday’s actions at the beginning of his presidency. He took office at the end of the sign-up campaign for this year, and his new administration promptly halted rounds of advertising for which the Obama administration had already paid, which contributed to national enrollment on the exchanges falling from 2016 levels.
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services unveiled two new policies Thursday.
First, the promotional budget for the upcoming sign-up campaign is being cut from $100 million to $10 million. Moreover, a bulletin the agency released indicates that the ad campaign will include no television or radio, and be limited to digital media, email and text messages
Second, organizations with federal contracts to help consumers shop for coverage ― known as “navigators” ― will get far less money. Navigator organizations received $62.5 million from the federal government last year, but will get just $36.8 million this year, a 39 percent cut, according to a fact sheet from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
Navigator organizations will receive funding for 2018 based on what percentage of their enrollment targets for 2017 they achieved. So an entity that signed up 70 percent of their target last year will get 70 percent of the amount they expected for this year. These organizations were not told in previous years that their performance would be used to set future funding, and the cuts made public Thursday will force them to scale back their plans for the pending sign-up campaign.
The health insurance industry’s main lobbying group highlighted the importance of the initiatives subject to the administration’s cuts.
“Effective education ensures that consumers understand their coverage options and encourages broader participation of healthy individuals. Marketing, outreach, and education are critical to ensure that all consumers are aware of the upcoming open enrollment period, understand new timelines, and enroll by the deadline,” Kristine Grow, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, wrote in an email to HuffPost.
The Department of Health and Human Services offered information about its new policies under embargo to reporters and via a teleconference Thursday. HuffPost was not informed of the announcement in advance nor invited to participate in the call, as other news outlets were.
The Affordable Care Act’s exchanges and the law’s expansion of Medicaid drove the uninsured rate down to a historic low. Just 8.8 percent of Americans lacked health insurance during the first quarter of this year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Tuesday. As of March 31, 9.1 million people had private health insurance from an exchange, according to data from the Department of Health and Human Services.
Jonathan Cohn contributed reporting.

Please Donate


Apparently it is OK to disassociate the Law Enforcement Agencies from the communities they serve and live in. Mr. Sessions is as anti American as any enemies of the U.S. MA.

Alan Pyke

Aug 29, 2017, 8:53 am
Attorney General Jeff Sessions struck a new blow in his war against police reform on Monday, announcing that President Donald Trump will rescind an executive order from his predecessor restricting local cops’ access to hardware designed for war zones.
The long-predicted move puts grenade launchers and bayonets back on small-town police department shopping lists. It also guts accountability measures for a much longer list of defensive equipment and  military tools which had remained available to police  under President Barack Obama’s reforms.

But the most striking thing in a speech riddled with falsehoods was Sessions’ presentation of the thinking behind the administration’s move — dismissing police reform efforts as harmful to public safety.
“These restrictions that had been imposed went too far,” the attorney general said before the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) in Nashville. “We will not put superficial concerns over public safety.”
Sessions was speaking to a receptive audience. Tennessee’s Commissioner of Safety and Homeland Security, David Purkey, opened by characterizing police as soldiers in a war for decency.
“You, my young friends, stand in the gap for this country. This country offers inspiration, and intimidation. We offer intimidation through our military,” Purkey quoted Marine Corps Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis as having told soldiers in the field. “When I look out on this crowd,” Purkey went on, broadening the warzone sermon to include the police audience in Tennessee, “I see a group of men and women who stand in the gap for this country.”
Sessions later characterized the new Trump order as part of its broader rejection of civilian complaints about police.
“We will always seek to affirm the critical role of police officers in our society, and we will never participate in anything that will give comfort to radicals who promote agendas that preach hostility rather than respect for police,” he said.

The rise of these so-called “radicals” and the spread of distrust for police from minority communities to a wider band of the American public is directly connected to the kinds of abuses of force that Sessions ignored in his remarks. While a new wave of public attention to individual police killings of unarmed black and brown people in recent years helped galvanize reform efforts, the drive for change draws on a long-running conversation about systematic rights violations by police.
Obama’s order came out of a deliberative process informed by input from police, civic leaders, private researchers, and Pentagon officials. Its new controls on military materiel were modest, flexible, and grounded in decades of police violence and unnecessary death.

Pentagon tried to give $1.2 million in guns and bombs to a fake police department
The military is so eager to put war machines in cops’ hands that it doesn’t bother making sure they’re, you know, actually cops.
Protests and violence in Ferguson, Missouri following the police killing of Michael Brown provided the immediate motivation for Obama’s reforms. The heavily armored police response in St. Louis County provided striking visuals of cops as an occupying military force — the tip of a counter-insurgency spear, not a shield that protects and serves.
But mass-protest crowd control is almost a more appropriate use of such heavy equipment  than has been typical over the 25-year history of the “1033” program modified by Monday’s order. When a police agency obtains a new tool or stands up a new unit, its mere existence creates an imperative: Leadership must find some reason to use the new toys, send out the new tactical team. As paramilitary-style police thinking, tactics, and equipment found their way into even the smallest towns in America, where situations that actually require armored vehicles are rare, the imperative to justify equipment and personnel bred monstrous outcomes.
Sessions repeatedly depicted the now-canceled restrictions on Pentagon equipment dispersals to police as a cosmetic move born of a misguided focus on perceptions over reality. In his telling, concern about militarized policing inside U.S. borders is feckless posturing that endangers police and harms public safety.
Sessions was roasting a straw man. The actual argument is that police should act from a sense of unity with those they serve rather than from the mindset of an occupying military force. The claim Sessions sidestepped is that the cop-as-conquistador mentality actually brings more violence into communities, not less.

So-called “dynamic entry” police raids – the type of GI Joe police activity encouraged throughout the War on Drugs and enabled by Pentagon equipment  – are deadly and prone to error. More than 120 civilians and dozens of police officers have died in such raids since the 1990s, including 94 such deaths from 2010 to 2016 alone. These numbers are almost certainly low, as statistics about police violence always are thanks to lax recordkeeping.
Raids that don’t go deadly can still inflict gore on innocents. When Georgia police burst into a family home before dawn in 2014, 19-month-old Bounkham Phonesavanh was sleeping in his playpen. An officer chucked a flash bang grenade in with him, tearing a massive hole in the toddler’s chest. The child survived, and the officer was acquitted on federal charges after state officials declined to prosecute any of the police involved in the raid.
When officers are trained to think like soldiers on foreign soil, they  learn to regard the “natives” around them with constant suspicion. That disposition makes investigators sloppy, eager to have their gut belief that something fishy is going on confirmed by any means possible. It only takes one cunning jailhouse snitch, familiar with the rewards of giving an officer the basis for a warrant he wants, to get a SWAT team  dispatched to a sleepy family home.

Florida sheriff cuts tough-guy video with masked SWAT team
Guilty people aren’t the only ones who should fear nighttime raids.
Sessions never mentioned actual paramilitary tactics like these drug raids in his speech. Instead, he pretended that the Obama restrictions had kept life-saving gear like bulletproof vests and helmets out of police officer hands. That is a lie.
Only five categories of equipment were flat-out prohibited from the police recycling system: grenade launchers, bayonets, high-caliber ammunition, track-driven armored vehicles, and certain types of camouflage.
All other materiel covered by the 1033 redistribution program – including the safety gear Sessions cited in Monday’s remarks – remained accessible to local cops as “controlled equipment.” Departments were required to provide specific justifications for their requests, to establish training and use protocols for the gear, and to more closely track how officers actually use controlled equipment.
“These guidelines were created after Ferguson to ensure that police departments had a guardian, not warrior, mentality. Our communities are not the same as armed combatants in a war zone,” Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights head Vanita Gupta said in a statement. The rules would have meant greater scrutiny for the kinds of reckless assaults on civilian homes that lead to flash bangs in baby cribs and needless firefights between startled, sleeping homeowners and the black-clad invaders they do not realize are police. They would not have sent first responders into harm’s way in flip-flops and Jimmy Buffett tee-shirts as Sessions insinuated.

Still, the FOP convention crowd ate it up.
The most prominent U.S. leaders are not just walking back policies that curb law enforcement’s institutional instinct toward dominance and hard power. They are actively decrying police critics as radical cop-haters, diminishing their nuanced observations about the incentive structures in our criminal justice system into simplistic notions of good and evil.
The remilitarization of American policing — seen in both Sessions’ speech on Monday and in Trump’s blithe endorsement of police brutality in July —  is sold by the administration as simply deferring to what police say they need.
Yet the portrayal of Trump as an open ear and blank check for cops doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. When police’s experience in the field leads them to conclusions opposite to Trump’s own preferences, he is happy to ignore them. Cops across the country have made clear that the administration’s push to deputize them into immigration enforcement work does grave harm to public safety in communities where people fear deportation. They reject Trump’s desire to enlist them into his crackdown on undocumented immigrants, specifically because it makes people less likely to call 911 or cooperate with investigators.
If the administration were serious about promoting public safety, it would listen to the people who disagree with them about where safety comes from and what role police play in ensuring it.

Please Donate


This was sent to me from a friend in Colorado. MA

I pulled this from

We condemn the pardon of Joe Arpaio

This lady is angry, but she is eloquent and gives a perfect summary of
the situation.

#######
It is hard to imagine anyone less worthy of a pardon or of mercy of any
kind than Joe Arpaio. He repeatedly flouted the law by engaging in the
highly publicized and self-serving harassment and abuse of millions of
his constituents at the expense of actual law enforcement and public
safety. He thumbed his nose at the Department of Justice, the court
system and every other legal attempt to get him to cease and desist his
unconstitutional racial profiling of citizens and noncitizens alike. He
has yet to serve a day in jail or pay any other legal price for his
crimes. And he has demonstrated not one ounce of remorse or repentance,
or made any amends to the people he terrorized for more than a decade.

By pardoning someone who has done nothing to earn it, President Trump
has further cemented his upending of both presidential norms and common
decency. And it is obscene for the president to pardon someone who has
been a gleeful and unrepentant bigot and a scourge of all communities of
color in his state just days after he defended White supremacists,
neo-Nazis and their despicable acts in Charlottesville. And that this is
his very first use of this presidential privilege tells you all you need
to know about which Americans matter to him and which don’t.

Sheriff Joe Arpaio was the instigator of racial profiling and made
official a policy of harassment and abuse based on the color of one’s
skin in Maricopa County. SB1070 codified those policies in the state.
President Trump gave the blessing of his administration to pursue those
disgraceful and unlawful policies in every state and locality in the
land. Every person of color in this nation has been put in harm’s way
because of this action and that is unconscionable.

-Janet Murguía (President and CEO of UnidosUS, previously known as NCLR
(National Council of La Raza)

Please Donate


It is no secret that this is not a citizen friendly administration yet the hardcore supporters do  not realize the ills  this administration is plotting on them while making them like it. the Germans did not realize the downside of their government’s agenda until it was too late. MA

The New York Times
By STEVE EDER, JESSICA SILVER-GREENBERG and STACY COWLEY

Representative Jeb Hensarling has led Republican attacks on Mr. Cordray, calling the bureau “the single most unaccountable and powerful agency in the history of our republic.”

WASHINGTON — With the election of President Trump, the nation’s consumer watchdog agency faced a quandary: how to shield the Obama-era institution from a Republican administration determined to loosen the federal government’s grip on business.
In the weeks after the election, Richard Cordray, the Democrat who leads the agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, directed his staff to compile stories from ordinary Americans thanking it for resolving complaints.
Sign Up For the Morning Briefing Newsletter
The anecdotes, which he solicited in an email to share with the Trump transition team, could provide a counterpoint to critics who had cast the agency as a regulatory scourge on the economy. And implicit in his request to employees was the belief that some accolades would come from parts of the country that helped elect Mr. Trump — evidence that the popularity of consumer safeguards transcends party divisions.
“There must be hundreds of such stories,” Mr. Cordray wrote in the email in November, which was obtained in a public records request. He added, “I can think of no better vindication” of the agency’s consumer relief efforts.
While many federal agencies have begun to loosen the reins on the companies they regulate, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, born out of the Dodd-Frank financial law in 2010, has taken the opposite course. Congress granted it unusually broad authority — and autonomy from the White House and Congress — to both enforce existing federal rules and write new ones, including issuing fines against financial companies.
Under Mr. Trump it has openly embraced its mission, cracking down on debt collectors, pushing out a major new financial rule on arbitration and pursuing a flurry of enforcement actions against payday lenders and others.
The approach, outlined in emails and other documents obtained through the public records request by The New York Times, comes as the Trump administration has taken an uncharacteristically low-key public stance toward the agency, a prominent blue holdout in a federal regulatory regime newly awash in red.
The White House’s restraint was based in part on a pragmatic assessment, according to people familiar with the strategy. At one point, contemplating a high-profile run on the agency, the White House examined polling data from political bellwether states, two people briefed on the matter said. The agency, they concluded, was too popular to pick a public fight with.
Republicans in Congress, who have vehemently opposed the agency since its creation, have also been unable to muster enough support to derail its work. Efforts to strike down a rule ordering new consumer protections on prepaid debit cards never made it to a vote in either the House or the Senate.
“The public does not share the G.O.P.’s ire toward the agency or its mission,” said Dean Clancy, a Tea Party activist who worked in the White House under President George W. Bush and is now a policy analyst who tracks actions of the consumer bureau. “It is an agency about protecting the little guy, and that is tough to oppose.”
The stories of gratitude rounded up by the agency’s staff for Mr. Cordray illustrated its appeal. Among them was a homeowner in Tennessee who got a disputed lien removed from a property, someone in Kentucky who got assistance warding off a debt collector pursuing a medical bill that had been paid, and a person in Pennsylvania who said the agency helped resolve a contested credit card debt.
That doesn’t mean the Trump administration and other opponents have given up on neutralizing the bureau’s work.
Administration officials have isolated the bureau from parts of the government that, under President Barack Obama, helped fulfill its mission. In public statements and documents, officials at the Justice Department, the Treasury Department and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency have all turned a cold shoulder toward Mr. Cordray and his staff.
Lobbyists for the financial industry are working behind the scenes on efforts to dismantle some of the bureau’s signature initiatives, according to people directly involved in the plans. They include lawsuits to be filed in reliably conservative courts when new regulations are issued.
For now, though, it is mostly a waiting game. Mr. Cordray’s term as director expires next July, when he could be replaced with a sympathetic Trump appointee. That moment could come earlier as there is speculation that Mr. Cordray might resign — perhaps soon — to enter the Democratic primary for governor in Ohio.
“The industry will be very happy to see him out of there,” said Alan S. Kaplinsky, a lawyer with Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia, who represents financial institutions in matters before the bureau. “The people running that agency are definitely Obama people.”
The Trump administration, eager for Mr. Cordray’s exit, has compiled a list of successor candidates in the event of his early departure, according to three people with knowledge of the preparation. Yet Mr. Trump can fire Mr. Cordray only for cause, and such a move would most likely backfire by rendering Mr. Cordray a political martyr among Democrats — perhaps bolstering his chances of winning, should he enter the governor’s race.
Lightning Rod
Since Mr. Trump’s election, Mr. Cordray, 58, has counseled his roughly 1,600 employees to tune out the political noise.
“I encourage you to remain focused on doing your good work on behalf of consumers,” he said, according to a script for a call with employees in late November. “Keep calm and carry on.”
The agency was proposed by Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, when she was a Harvard professor, to serve as an advocate for consumers in their dealings with financial institutions. Mr. Cordray, who was working at the bureau as its enforcement chief, was made its first director in 2012 in a recess appointment by President Obama, which heightened the partisan rancor over the regulatory crackdown on Wall Street.
Financial executives and lobbyists offer mixed reviews of his tenure.
They describe Mr. Cordray as intelligent, pleasant and accessible, willing to meet with industry constituents and hear out their lobbyists. But they also consider him a “doggedly ideological” — in the words of Richard Hunt, the chief executive of the Consumer Bankers Association, a banking trade group — leader of an agency that is structured like “a dictatorship.”
“Richard Cordray has gone above and beyond to take C.E.O.s to task on things that he had no jurisdiction over,” Mr. Hunt said.
Mr. Kaplinsky, the financial services lawyer, said Mr. Cordray had stifled innovation in the industry by being too rigid. “It is one guy who calls all the shots,” he said.
Mr. Cordray said he listened to and appreciated his opponents. “Sometimes you look at the critics and say, ‘Nobody else was telling me that, but you were,’” he said in a recent interview.
Since Mr. Trump has taken office, Mr. Cordray has faced increasingly personal attacks. A longtime critic, Representative Jeb Hensarling of Texas, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, has led the charge.
Mr. Hensarling championed the Financial Choice Act, a bill approved by the House in June that would reverse many Dodd-Frank regulations, including curbing the consumer agency’s oversight powers and allowing the president to fire its director more easily. A vote has not been scheduled in the Senate.
He also launched an investigation over a contentious new rule that allows consumers to band together in class-action lawsuits against financial firms. Mr. Hensarling later suggested that there were legal grounds to pursue contempt-of-Congress proceedings against Mr. Cordray, accusing him of inadequately responding to subpoenas in that investigation.
Separately, Mr. Hensarling has questioned Mr. Cordray’s political activities in Ohio and called for an investigation into whether he violated a federal law that prohibits federal employees from most political campaign activities.
Mr. Hensarling’s office declined an interview request. He told The Dallas Morning News this year that the bureau “is the single most unaccountable and powerful agency in the history of our republic.” He said Democrats had “set up a tyranny” when conceiving the agency as part of the Dodd-Frank legislation.
While industry lobbyists are more circumspect, they, too, are eager to remake the bureau. Some in the banking industry would like it to disappear, but others would prefer simply to reduce its autonomy.
“I hope we’ll rebalance the pendulum in a way that ensures honest market participants have clear rules,” said David Hirschmann, who heads the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness, “and those who break laws are appropriately handled through strong, vigorous enforcement.”
Mr. Cordray says the criticism is a badge of honor. He believes the bureau’s work will have lasting ramifications.
The bureau has curtailed abusive debt collection practices, reformed mortgage lending, publicized and investigated hundreds of thousands of complaints from aggrieved customers of financial institutions, and extracted nearly $12 billion for 29 million consumers in refunds and canceled debts.
This week, it began mailing out refund checks totaling $115 million to 60,000 people who had paid illegal fees to Morgan Drexen, a debt settlement company that collapsed two years ago.
The agency has also rolled out the arbitration rule, and it has been putting the finishing touches on a rule that could reshape the multibillion-dollar payday lending industry.
“This has been an agency that has gotten people’s attention in a lot of ways,” Mr. Cordray said. “They have a lot of things they say about us.”
War on Multiple Fronts
Mr. Trump has not spoken publicly about the bureau, but in mid-June, he received his first major report from the Treasury Department about the financial system and its regulators.
The assessment included recommendations to chisel away at the Dodd-Frank law, which the Treasury Department, under Mr. Obama, helped draft.
The consumer bureau figured prominently in the report, garnering 340 references and a chapter devoted to the opportunity that Republicans have to change it.
“The C.F.P.B. was created to pursue an important mission, but its unaccountable structure and unduly broad regulatory powers have led to regulatory abuses and excesses,” the report said.
Mr. Trump, who ordered the report, has made his disdain for the Dodd-Frank law clear, issuing an executive order and presidential memos calling for a rollback of Obama-era regulations — and empowering Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin to take the lead in doing so.
“Treasury took the reins,” said Mr. Hirschmann, of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, who participated in meetings with Treasury staff members as they researched the report. “I’ve been impressed.”
Similarly, the Justice Department under Mr. Trump has taken some shots at the consumer bureau. In one court case, it sided with a mortgage lender questioning the agency’s constitutionality.
The bureau had fined the lender, PHH Corporation, $109 million and accused it of illegal kickbacks. PHH denied wrongdoing, appealed the ruling, claimed the bureau was unconstitutional and asked a judge to shut it down.
At a hearing in May before the federal appeals court for the District of Columbia, a Justice Department lawyer argued alongside industry lawyers and said the bureau’s structure was unconstitutional and should be changed. The court is not expected to rule on the case for several months.
Other alliances within the federal government have deteriorated.
The consumer agency had been collaborating with the Department of Education on overhauling the $1.3 trillion student loan market to ensure that private companies collecting loan payments abided by consumer protections.
But soon after Betsy DeVos was appointed education secretary this year, the department scrapped much of that work. In particular, the department eliminated a requirement that federal student loan servicers adopt a simplified repayment disclosure form that the consumer bureau spent years developing.
Lobbyists are also feeling empowered by the change in administrations. Working on behalf of payday lenders, they have flooded the consumer agency with comments, more than a million in all, urging it to halt a proposed crackdown on the industry.
At some payday loan counters, customers were handed comment forms alongside their checks and urged to tell the bureau just how important payday lending was to their livelihood. Hundreds of thousands of those comments, often with nearly identical wording, poured into government databases.
So far, that push has not deterred the bureau. Within the agency, there is a mounting sense of urgency to get the final version of the payday rules out, according to two people familiar with the process. The new rules would represent the first time that the lucrative market — the payday industry collects $7 billion annually in fees — was directly regulated by the federal government.
The bureau’s rollout last month of its rule allowing class-action lawsuits in some arbitration cases has also rattled Wall Street, and is widely seen as a provocative stance against the prevailing political momentum in Washington.
Opponents of the rule have received an assist from the Trump administration. Keith Noreika, the acting currency comptroller, who serves as the chief bank regulator, asked Mr. Cordray to delay publication of the rule, saying his staff needed more time to review whether it posed a threat to the safety and soundness of the banks.
Mr. Cordray, in a response to Mr. Noreika, said the idea that class actions were a threat to the banking system was “plainly frivolous.” (He also said he had already sent the rule to the Federal Register for publication a week before he received Mr. Noreika’s letter.)
A challenge to the rule passed the House, but has stalled in the Senate. Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, has said he would not back a repeal of the rule. Other Republicans are also wavering.
“Moderate Republicans don’t want to be painted as anti-consumer,” said Isaac Boltansky, the director of policy research at Compass Point, a research firm tracking the fate of the agency’s recent rules.

Please Donate