Consumer Financial Protection Agency, Obama’s First Major victory?

Just because some stocks are going up again and the stock market is making gains doesn’t necessarily mean a recession is over. A common occurrence in prolonged recessions is what is known as the “W”. Where after the initial crash in the market a small rebounding starts only to see the market take another nose-dive. With unemployment rising to 9.8 percent in the most recent data and congress still not having passed new regulations for the financial sector, to some it might seem that we are on the cusp of a dreaded “W” in the recession.
One of the most pressing issues for Obama and the financial sector in the near future is the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency. There’s skepticism about how hard Obama can really push for this agency or how much authority it will be granted given the current situation. The president’s biggest campaign donor was the financial sector (Goldman Sachs one of the biggest), which now stands at 21% of our GDP. So far he has left the CEO’s of the banks in place to oversee the distribution of taxpayer money and make regulatory recommendations since the time of the crash.
The seeming reluctance of Obama to hold the banks accountable could be based on real fears about our apparently very weak economy, but creating a Consumer Financial Protection Agency would create an opportunity for sweeping oversight and regulatory change in the financial sector, including non-bank entities like mortgage lenders and credit card companies.
Agencies like this focus on industry practices from consumer’s point of view and make regulatory rulings based on potential for harm to consumers, not based on deceitful actions of sellers. It is free to require industry to change practices that are harmful to consumers. This means that the agency won’t have the burden of proving intent or fraud by the offending companies, but also will not seek damages. Here, legalese in credit card contracts that could confuse consumers along with practices that could result a large number of consumers being deceived could be ruled on without proving intent to deceive by the sellers. Anyone interested in the role the creation of the Federal Trade Commission has had on falsity in advertising should check out "The Great American Blow-Up" by Ivan L. Preston.
This agency would wield a great and important power. It will not punish financial firms but regulate their practices. This needs to happen. But I find it troubling that agencies like this need to be formed in the first place. Why is the idea that our branches of government should work correctly to pass legislation acceptable to the Supreme Court that would protect consumers from industry practices like this thought of as impossible? Why is it that the idea that permanently codifying new and improved ways to reduce the influence of vested interests is UNDESIRABLE so pervasive in our judicial system and history of legal precedent that we just create another government body to gain huge power in the name of protecting the citizens, only to eventually be corrupted and bought back by the vested interests? Take the FDA. Looks like we can’t look to brand new life long politicians, even Obama, to sweep in and clean up the system, we need to start valuing education and civil engagement in this country again.