Veep Tone Deaf at GAC

I don’t know if Vice President Mike Pence can carry a tune.

But he certainly is tone deaf.

Speaking at CUNA’s Governmental Affairs Conference earlier this month, Pence delivered a speech that was better suited to a Trump rally somewhere in a Red State.

Speaking to a packed audience, the Hoosier started off on the right path.

He said the requisite nice things about Jim Nussle, recalling the years he and Nussle served in the House.

He said the required nice things about credit unions.

“Credit unions are a part of everything good that is happening in cities large and small across this country,” the Veep said.

And he praised the group for standing by President Trump as he advanced “a pro-growth, pro-jobs agenda.”

Then he went off topic, talking about what the administration sees as a crisis on the southern border.

“It’s a crisis of illegal immigration, drugs, dangerous criminals and human trafficking,” he said.

Uh-oh. Was he really going there?

Yes, he was, as he continued to throw oratory red meat to the crowd.

He went so far as to ask the crowd to use their limited face time with lawmakers to talk to their elected representatives about border security.

“And so, I encourage each one of you, as you meet with representatives in the House and Senate, just encourage them to take a stand for border security,” he said. “Encourage them to stand with this President as he’s taking such decisive action to secure our border.”

Now, you may be for or against building a wall, and you may believe that there is a crisis at the southern border, but was this really the time and place for that speech?

It’s been pointed out that Pence has been a good soldier on behalf of Trump and that he’s been playing to an audience of one.

And granted, it was the week that the Senate voted on a resolution to disapprove of Trump’s plan to declare an emergency in order to spend money on his precious wall.

But still, was this the right tone to strike with a group of credit union executives?

It was up to Nussle, Pence’s good buddy, to clean up the mess.

The next day, Nussle said he cringes whenever a speaker asks credit union executives to talk with their elected representatives about anything but credit union issues.

He urged the crowd to concentrate on credit union issues.

He didn’t say to ignore Pence’s plea, but the message was clear.

Bankers and GAC

It looked like the banking trade groups held their fire during GAC.

Not a chance.

The Independent Community Bankers of America circulated a list of questions that elected officials and their staff should be asked when GAC attendees hiked the Hill.

“When meeting with credit union executives this week, we suggest the following topics of discussion,” the one-page list of topics read.

Topic number one: Credit unions purchasing community banks and allegations that the NCUA has made it easier for that to happen.

“But this abuse of the tax subsidy is exacerbated by an order of magnitude when a credit union acquires a community bank and all of its deposits, and removes the bank’s earnings and activities from the tax base,” the ICBA said.

It continued, suggesting that representatives and staff be asked, “Do you believe that it’s appropriate for a credit union to multiply the cost subsidy of its tax exemption by acquiring a taxpaying bank and removing it from the revenue base of the federal government as well as the state and locality?”

That’s a nice, balanced, unloaded question if there ever was one.

And on it went, suggesting that credit unions be asked, “Do you agree with Chairman McWatters’ assertion that the viability of the credit union model is dependent on a tax subsidy?”

The list concluded, “It is incumbent upon the Congress to ask the tough questions regarding credit unions’ strategies to increase their unbridled and reckless growth.”

I strongly doubt that members and staff asked their constituents about those issues.

If they did, it may cost them some votes on the next Election Day. And members of Congress don’t like to alienate folks and lose their votes.

CFPB, BCFP Revisited

Remember the kerfuffle over the name of the Consumer Bureau?

Everyone called the agency the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.”

That is, until Mick Mulvaney took over the place.

Mulvaney decided that Dodd-Frank named the agency the “Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection” and ordered that from now on, the agency would be referred to by that moniker.

Until Kathy Kraninger was confirmed as the new director.

Kraninger, in a peace offering to supporters of strict regulations, decided to re-re-name the bureau and call it the “Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” once again.

Matter settled, right?

Not so fast.

Recently, the Government Accountability Office issued a report on fintech. It said that agencies need to do a better job of defining the alternative data that lenders may use to decide whether someone should be approved for a loan.

The report seemed strangely familiar.

It said it was revised from a previous report the agency had issued.

Where were the changes?

A statement on the cover made it clear.

“On March 12, 2019, this report was revised to insert Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and CFPB where we initially referred to the agency as the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection and BCFP, respectively based on the agency’s preferences at the time we released the report,” the front cover of the document said.

Now, GAO knows something about name changes.

Before it was named the Government Accountability Office, it was called the “General Accounting Office,” a name that sounded like it employed a bunch of bean-counters rather than a group of government watchdogs.

As they say, only in Washington.

David Baumann is a correspondent-at-large for CU Times. He can be reached at dbaumann@cutimes.com.