I’ve done a bit of searching, but I haven’t been able to find the justification being used to shutter the CFPB. One would think that consumer protections are a good thing, and that holding companies responsible for their actions that harm consumers would be a good thing. And one that is universally liked and has returned billions to consumers.
The obvious reason is so that they can screw over consumers, but they have to have at least a cover story that they are using to spin this as something good for the country and constituents, right?
I’m struggling here.
You have to remember that one of his main constituents are the Reagan neoliberals and right-wing libertarians, so one of his main promises to these constituents is to reduce government. There is no further justification necessary, he is removing government regulation and bureaucracy, which is seen as a win by his constituents.
Reading between the lines, while some right-wing libertarians will claim the whole government is a problem, the movement is funded by the rich and the political focus is pointed more at destroying regulations on corporations that impede irresponsible and unethical methods of profiteering, like the way the CFPB protects consumers from companies that commit fraud.