Discussion is getting a little heated as less-than-lukewarm friends of the Dodd-Frank Act in Congress recently held a hearing to determine just how much new regulation will cost the government and, ultimately, taxpayers.
The hearing focused on the apparent conflict between banking profits and the fiscal health of American households.
Foes of regulation note that the cost of protecting households from abuse will make it more expensive for banks in particular to operate while taking away some of their most lucrative offerings. Fans, obviously, want to ensure that households don't shoulder all the risk.
It would be nice to see a solution emerge from the advisory channel -- where a lot of energy is spent pondering exactly how to align the seemingly incompatible interests of client and advisor -- that gives both sides a win.
In the meantime, Elizabeth Warren is getting testy with the CFPB budgeting process. She recently told Congress that there's "no principled reason" the consumer protection bureau should have to go through the appropriations cycle to get its funding.