However, it's not fair that community financial institutions have been punished for the financial crisis. Sure, lawmakers can attempt to placate credit unions and community banks with lip service about who didn't cause the crisis, but it doesn't accomplish anything.

If they really meant what they said, our elected officials would have written meaningful legislation. Instead, Dodd-Frank hammered community financial services providers as much as, if not more than, the Wall Street bankers.

Lawmakers could also repeal Dodd-Frank or at least pass new legislation that rights those wrongs. They could legislate more CFPB oversight and demand other regulators ease regulatory burdens on community financial institutions.

Likewise, the president could support this effort instead of stubbornly playing CFPB politics.

Next fall, I hope credit union professionals consider these things as they vote for our next president, senators, congressmen and other officials.

Pointing fingers at the opposing party isn't the answer. House Republicans have passed bills that would ease these burdens, but their counterparts in the Senate have shown only tepid interest in following through.

In addition to reg relief, let's take it one step further. Let's change the discussion from who didn't cause the financial crisis to who did.

Since the financial crisis, only one big banker went to jail, and in the grand scheme of things, he wasn't that big. Yes, some inside traders have received jail sentences, but those who blatantly lied about losses and liquidity have not only escaped jail sentences, most are still working in the industry and collecting huge paychecks.

A 2014 article in the New York Times detailed many reasons for this.

A series of court decisions made shortly before the financial crisis weakened the Justice Department's ability to prosecute big bankers. Those responsible for the market crash of 1929, the savings and loan scandal and even the corporate accounting scandals of the 90s went to jail in relatively large numbers. However, according to the article, since 2010, fewer than 10% of federal white-collar cases resulted in prosecutions.

Additionally, prosecutions against too-big-to-fail banks and their executives would result in portfolio losses for average Americans and hundreds of thousands lost jobs for rank and file workers. As our economy has limped toward recovery, it's easy to appreciate the conundrum this has created for the government.

Finally, the Justice Department is filled with prosecutors who aspire to private legal practices that pay exponentially higher salaries than the government does. It's not in their best interest to risk losing a case, especially given the rulings that have weakened their ability to prosecute, and derail their careers and earning potential.

The odds are stacked in the bankers' favor, and they know it. Nearly all bankers, except for the one poor sap who admitted he did wrong and faced the music, opted instead to fight their charges and claim doe-eyed innocence. That legal strategy has proven very effective.

Instead of pursuing prosecution, the Justice Department has levied stiff fines on big banks and settled for handsome sums. They've bragged in press releases about how these funds have settled the score.

Even at the NCUA, suits against big banks have resulted in recoveries but no jail sentences. Credit unions have been grateful for the money, as it has reduced corporate assessments and may eventually result in a refund.

Still, that doesn't make it right.

It has also set the stage for the next boom and bust, which will again allow the bad players to skate while community financial institutions pay the price.