A legitimate and common complaint regarding the Dodd-Frank Act is that it not only did not resolve too big to fail wherein the taxpayer is on the hook for the ­missteps of the nation's largest banks. It ­actually made the problem worse as the weaker institutions and brokerage firms were merged into multitrillion asset, ­colossal banks with the implied backing of the U.S. Treasury. They can borrow money more cheaply with the assumption of government backing, and they leverage their position to their advantage over all other financial institutions and especially the smaller ­community-based credit unions and banks.

After you accept that ­reality though and recognize that it is not sound, long-term public ­policy to privatize earnings and socialize losses, does it not makes sense for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to try and regulate differently based not just on size but purpose? Doesn't it make sense to offset the unintended reward to too big to fail institutions by ­promoting what you want more of, financial institutions that work to build consumer and small business financial strength? Instead, the one-size-fits-all regulations treat a $2 billion asset credit union the same as JPMorgan Chase weighing in at a whopping $2.3 trillion.

While the CFPB has attempted to ­exempt the very smallest of credit unions and banks in a very limited way from certain regulations, the scale is much too small to accomplish public policy objectives promoting improved consumer access and outcomes. The exemption of $2 billion and below asset credit unions making fewer than 500 mortgages a year and retaining them for three years from some qualified mortgage requirements is an example.