Author Danny Vinik

Rolling Stone’s Despicable Cover

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

The new edition of Rolling Stone magazine is out and its cover is truly reprehensible. It has a full image of Boston Bomber Jahar Tsarnaev, looking more like a rock star than a terrorist. In fact, Tsarnaev looks good on the cover! It’s a glamour shot of him. Here it is:

Rolling Stone Cover

Boston Bomber Jahar Tsarnaev.

After a shooting in Portland, Oregon last year and right before the tragedy in Newtown, Forbes Joseph Grenny penned an excellent post (which I expanded on here) about the coverage of mass shootings and how the press must do better. Here’s the important part:

But my horror was twofold. The first misery came as I heard the names and numbers of victims and thought about the pain they and their families will endure for the rest of their lives. The second dose came as I held my breath, hoping and praying the media wouldn’t amplify the violence.

But they did.

They did exactly what they needed to do to influence the next perpetrator to lock and load.

  1. They named the shooter.
  2. They described his characteristics.
  3. They detailed the crime.
  4. They numbered the victims.
  5. They ranked him against other “successful” attackers.

Public shootings are a contagion. And the media are consistent accomplices in most every one of them.

The Boston Bombing is a bit different than a mass shooting. The Tsarnaev brothers weren’t motivated by fame or trying to “outnumber” past killers. Terrorist attacks of that sort aren’t fueled by that. In this case, the brothers were motivated by extremist Islamic beliefs and a deep hatred for America.

But, nevertheless, Rolling Stone‘s cover still glamorizes the attack. Future potential terrorists won’t see it as further incentive to attack our country (as noted above, that’s not what incentivize them), but other madmen may. Future potential mass murderers may see the cover and think that they could one day find themselves on there as well. What kind of message is that for Rolling Stone to send?

The story has a number of interesting details about Jahar and his brother’s decent into radical Islam. It’s worth reading and provides an invaluable look into their lives. But there is no reason for Rolling Stone to put Jahar on the cover whatsoever, especially not a glamour shot of him. The less we do to spotlight terrorists and mass shooters while still investigating stories, the better. With its recent cover, Rolling Stone failed mightily.

The CFPB Has Adequate Checks

Danny Vinik Leave a comment

As a fan of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), I am very happy that Richard Cordray will almost certainly be confirmed as its legitmate head later this evening. It took Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) almost deploying the nuclear option in the Senate, but it appears that Cordray’s nomination will overcome a filibuster and that he will be confirmed as the agency’s first director.

So, why did it take so long for his confirmation? Not because he isn’t qualified. Republicans have no qualms about his qualifications. What Republicans have objected to is the agency itself. A letter to President  Obama on February 1st this year signed by 43 Republicans outlined their concerns. They are as follows:

  1. Establish a bipartisan board of directors to oversee the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
    .
  2. Subject the Bureau to the annual appropriations process, similar to other federal regulators
    .
  3. Establish a safety-and-soundness check for the prudential regulators

After today’s vote to proceed to his nomination, Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) complained that “we don’t have adequate checks within the bureaucracy.”

Well, the last few days demonstrate why Dodd-Frank created a single director for the agency and not a board. Just look at the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). The Board currently has just three members and on August 27, when Mark Pearce’s term expires, it will be unable to hold a quorum and thus will have no power. Without Reid’s willingness to invoke the nuclear option, the GOP would have continued filibustering all NLRB nominees, effectively rendering the agency useless. Is that what Democrats want to see happen to the CFPB? Of course not!

Having a board of directors instead of a single director has its own advantages. More voices at the top of the agency can prevent it from acting outside its purview or not enforcing strict enough regulations. But it also slows the agency down with more people at the top. It would also require multiple confirmations to function. The GOP could confirm a couple of nominations and just filibuster the rest to prevent the agency from operating. As of today, that should be a thing of the past with the agreement between the two parties never to filibuster executive nominations again. But up until today, Democrats did not just fear that the GOP would obstruct the agency this way; they knew it would. Republicans can appeal to change it now that there is an agreement on filibusters, but they still must demonstrate why a board is better than a single director for the CFPB.

The CFPB also has to report on its actions and appear before Congress. It is subject to an annual audit by the Government Accountability Organization (GAO). It’s also monitored by the Inspector General for the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Republicans want a dedicated Inspector General for the agency. Fine by me. I’m not sure why Democrats blocked the amendment earlier this year, possibly out of anger over Republication obstructionism over Cordray. Now that he’s confirmed, Democrats should relent and allow the agency to have its own IG.

How about subjecting the budget to the annual appropriations process? This one is easy: Hell No! Republicans’ favorite way to prevent agencies from using their full powers is to reduce or eliminate their funding. House Republicans have repeatedly voted to slash the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s (CFTC) budget even as the agency has taken on a greater regulatory role after the passage of Dodd-Frank. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has seen its budget cut as well. Neither agency has near enough money to compete with the seemingly endless cash from Wall Street. Why would Democrats allow the same thing to happen to the CFPB? The agency receives a maximum of 12% of the Federal Reserve budget. It’s not unlimited and if it wants more funding, then it must ask Congress for it.

As for the safety-and-soundness check, Mike Konczal explains it better than me:

There is already a safety-and-soundness check at the OCC, which, through the Financial Stability Oversight Council, can vote on vetoing CFPB actions. It’s not clear why this is important to Republicans. A cynical reading would be that since profit-making is one way to achieve the safety and soundness of banks that the CFPB regulates, anything that might get in the way of banks ripping off their customers would hurt safety and soundness. And, indeed, big fines and settlements for illegal practices do, in theory, mean more capital that they’ll have to raise, or lower earnings for shareholders. But aren’t such fines and settlements how we provide accountability to the financial sector?

The FSOC can veto any CFPB action if it endangers the “safety and soundness of the United States banking system or the stability of the financial system of the United States.” That’s a pretty good safety-and-soundness check. If Republicans really want to interpret such a check so that any rule cannot reduce the profits of banks, that’s ludicrous. Otherwise, I’m not sure what they want. The Bureau must already “consult with prudential and other federal regulators during rulemaking regarding prudential, market and systemic objectives.”

So, it’s a happy day for CFPB-lovers out there. The agency will finally have a legitimate head without giving into Republican demands. Democrats should agree to install a dedicated IG for the Bureau and let the agency function as it was designed from here on out. It’s about time it had its full powers.