Financial crash devastated Central Valley. Why risk a repeat?

Members of the Home Defenders League rally in front of a Bank of America branch in San Jose in 2011 during the foreclosure crisis.
Members of the Home Defenders League rally in front of a Bank of America branch in San Jose in 2011 during the foreclosure crisis. Associated Press file

The U.S. House is expected to vote Thursday on the so-called Financial CHOICE Act, a bill that would eliminate consumer protections and destroy safeguards in place to avert financial crises like the one California just survived.

The bill should be called the “Wrong Choice Act,” because it will turn back the clock to 2007, when toxic and manipulative financial products brought down the entire economy.

When our nation was rocked by the Great Recession, California’s San Joaquin Valley was at the center of the damage. Residents were losing their homes, jobs and life savings in droves.

Republican Congressmen Jeff Denham of Turlock and David Valadao of Hanford should oppose this extreme legislation. But they unfortunately have a record of siding with predatory lenders instead of American families, including votes to weaken homeowner protections, to block action against racial discrimination in auto lending and to prevent consumers from having their day in court. They have a chance to help right these wrongs by opposing this bill.

This bill repeats the mistakes of the past. It makes another foreclosure crisis more likely by weakening the common-sense rule that lenders verify borrowers’ ability to repay. It exempts a wide range of mortgages from basic borrower protections and enables lenders to make costlier loans that are harder to repay. Minority borrowers, owners of manufactured homes and poorer residents are especially at risk.

The financial crisis exposed the vast underbelly of predatory lending. The 2010 Dodd-Frank financial reform law created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to be the cop on this beat. The bureau has returned approximately $12 billion in relief to 29 million Americans.

But the bill would severely curtail or completely strip the bureau’s powers. It wouldn’t be able to secure justice as it did for victims of Wells Fargo’s unauthorized accounts scam, or act against payday, car-title or similar small-dollar loans notorious for triple-digit interest rates and for pulling seniors, service members and other borrowers into a debt trap.

The bureau’s enforcement authority would essentially consist of sending cease-and-desist letters asking banks and credit card companies to play nice. The legislation would let the president fire the bureau’s director for any reason, including for being too tough on politically powerful players on Wall Street. The measure would also put the bureau’s funding at risk, threaten its education and research wings and hide the names of companies in the consumer complaint database, removing a powerful incentive for treating customers fairly.

The bill is a giveaway to payday lenders, debt collectors and bad financial actors. It would expose California families to enormous financial risk. Congress should oppose it.

Graciela Aponte-Diaz is director of California policy at the nonpartisan Center for Responsible Lending. She can be contacted at