Perhaps not.
That said, it's not clear how the timing of its creation is useful to the debate over whether or not it should exist.
We will be fine without them.
Just ask yourself: How other countries manage to survive without the CFPB, and live just fine ?????
1. could be automated completely, removing the need for human cost in the process
2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers
Automation fails. A lot. There will always be a need for humans to address at least some of these cases.
> 2. should be created for all other industries as well, not only finance consumers
Adding to the list of things the government doesn't do (removal of the CFPB without an alternative) doesn't achieve this.
The FTC still directs consumers to the CFPB. Might want to call Russ and let him know.
Just fire 90% of these thousands of lawyers with 500k salaries and replace remaining 10% with engineers who will create a system on autopilot.
There is really no valid argument against materially improving government efficiency
and if you say anything to the contrary about LLMs not being fully baked enough for this undertaking, they will immediately frame it like you're against the entire endeavor. they hate nuance.
CFPB tends to go after those who rip off the less affluent. Not a HN constituency.
We got along great for almost 200 years without the DEA and they have a much larger budget. Hasn't materially improved anyone's life, or do you know someone who was better off from their action? Go after them first.
it is a valid question how DEA was unable to prevent opioid epidemic by Sackler family, and the current fentanyl epidemic, and I'm sure the effectiveness question will be raised.
while we are discussing DEA, I wanted to highlight CIA whistleblower Kiriakou's interview ( https://youtu.be/yaoTdbGbU1c?t=187 )
Afghanistan was net food exporter, but shortly after USA occupation, Afghanistan produces 93% of world's heroine, and DoD encouraged opium production because heroine was exported to geopolitical adversaries (Russia and Iran).
and DEA even shut down investigation by the CIA.
Very big questions are starting to arise
Even if you agree with the goals, the methods are not just bad... they're illegal, ineffective, and likely to be very expensive in the long run. They should have just done it properly.
Congress authorizes appropriations for new expenses (so that executive branch could not authorize their own expenses at taxpayer cost), but not cost cutting within executive branch
Article I, Section 9 grants Congress the power of the purse to approve spending and article II Section 3 says that the president must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed". That's all of the authority over the budget the president has: the ability to faithfully execute the spending Congress approved or to veto the bill when it's passed.
Further, the matter has been to the supreme court TWICE already. First during Nixon's reign in the 70's (Nixon lost), then later under Clinton during the line-item veto mess. Clinton also lost, rightfully.
The worst part of all of this is that I know these things and I'm NOT someone who swore to uphold the constitution.