Originally published at Daily Caller. 

​The Biden administration’s heavy regulation of America’s banking industry hinders economic growth and raises consumer costs. As FDIC Chair Martin Gruenberg faces scrutiny over the agency’s toxic workplace culture, lawmakers have a prime opportunity to address the broader issue of overregulation. 

Instead of focusing solely on internal misconduct, Congress should seize this moment to reduce the oppressive regulatory framework burdening financial institutions and the economy.


The current banking regulatory environment is burdensome and counterproductive. Tens of thousands of pages of rules and guidance dictate banking operations and are treated as legally binding by U.S. regulators. Multiple agencies, including the Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC, and CFPB often overlap and contradict each other, leading to confusion and inefficiency.

This excessive regulation is an administrative burden and a significant barrier to economic prosperity.

The Biden administration’s regulatory overreach is evident in the extensive presence of government examiners within banks. These examiners enforce ad hoc mandates that effectively dictate business decisions, and failure to comply can result in secret, unappealable ratings downgrades. This system creates a chilling effect, stifling innovation and growth.


The annual stress tests conducted by the Federal Reserve impose the highest bank capital requirements globally. However, these tests rely on opaque models and unrealistic scenarios and are never subjected to public scrutiny. This significantly impacts how banks operate and adds to the regulatory burden. The lack of transparency undermines the credibility of regulatory agencies and results in unnecessary costs for banks, which are often passed along to consumers.

Furthermore, the politicization of agencies such as the CFPB, FDIC, and OCC exacerbates the problem. These agencies increasingly pursue regulatory agendas through public relations stunts and policy announcements from the White House rather than through transparent processes. The predominantly progressive leanings of regulatory staff further bias outcomes against the banking industry, contributing to an environment in which financial institutions are unfairly targeted and overburdened with compliance costs.

The economic consequences of this regulatory overreach are profound. As compliance costs soar, assets are migrating away from traditional banks, despite banks having access to deposits and being able to provide low-cost credit. This mainly affects community, mid-sized, and regional banks, which struggle with the high compliance costs of holding a banking charter.


For all banks, high capital requirements and intense supervision increase the cost of lending, significantly impacting small businesses and low- to moderate-income individuals. This limits access to credit and slows economic growth. Reducing these excessive regulations would lead to significant gains in economic activity, highlighting the substantial benefits of reducing overregulation.

The Biden administration’s excessively complex regulations, oppressive oversight, and politicized agenda stifle innovation, raise consumer costs, and hinder economic growth.

Given these glaring issues, Congress should streamline regulations, increase transparency by requiring regulatory agencies to publish their models and scenarios for public comment, and ensure regulatory agencies operate independently of political influence. This would provide regulatory relief for community, mid-sized, and regional banks to enhance competition and access to credit.


By reining these excesses in, Congress can unshackle the economy and promote a more competitive, dynamic financial sector that benefits all Americans. The potential rewards — a more prosperous, innovative, and dynamic America — make this a fight worth undertaking.

Originally published at Econlib.

​Through the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Biden administration has proposed a regulation to cap how much credit card companies can charge us when we’re late on a payment to just $8. 

This sounds great on the surface, right? 

Lower fees mean less stress when we’re struggling to make ends meet, as inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings have been down 4.2 percent. But, as with many things that seem too good to be true, there’s a catch. 

This well-meaning price control could make things the most challenging for those it’s supposed to help.

First, why do credit card companies charge late fees? It’s not just about making an extra buck. These fees support more credit available for everyone and encourage us to pay on time, which helps the credit system run smoothly.

Now, the CFPB is shaking things up by setting a price ceiling on these fees at $8. While it could save us some money if we slip up and pay late, credit card companies will find ways to compensate for this lost income. 

And how do they do that? Well, they might start charging more for other things, tightening who they give credit to, or increasing interest rates. That means, in the end, credit could be more expensive and harder to get for all of us.

Not just individuals who could feel the squeeze, but small businesses, too. 

Many small businesses rely on credit to manage their cash flow and growth. If banks start being pickier about who they lend to or raise their fees, these small businesses will find it more costly to get credit. This isn’t just bad news for them; it’s bad news for everyone, as the result will be higher prices for consumers, lower wages, and fewer jobs for workers.

Remember that small banks and credit unions are a big deal for the local economy. These institutions often depend on fees to keep things running. If they can charge less for late payments, they might not be able to lend as much. This could hit communities hard, making it tougher for people to get loans for starting a small business, buying a home, or building a project.

Economists have long warned about the dangers of well-intentioned but poorly thought-out regulations. By setting a one-size-fits-all rule for late fees, the government would make credit more expensive and less accessible for everyone. The idea is to protect us from unfair fees, but the real-world result would be different if access to credit were limited for those who need it most.

History proves that often the biggest challenge is to protect consumers from the consequences of government actions. In trying to shield us from high late fees, the government will set us up for a situation where credit is harder to come by and more expensive. This doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to protect consumers. Still, we need to think carefully about the consequences of our actions and let markets work, which is the best way to protect consumers as they have sovereignty over their purchases.

While capping credit card late fees sounds like a simple fix, the ripple effects would be complex and wide-reaching. It’s crucial to keep credit accessible and affordable, support small businesses, and ensure the financial system remains robust. 

Let’s look at the implications of this price control regulation before rushing into it. Price controls never work as intended, as history has proven. Instead, we should ensure people in the marketplace determine what’s best for them rather than the Biden administration’s top-down, one-size-fits-none approach. 

Last week, the Texas Association of Business, Fort Worth Chamber of Commerce, Longview Chamber of Commerce, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and American Bankers Association sued to block the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s (CFPB) final rule to lower the credit card late fees cap to $8.
 
This lawsuit challenges the Biden Administration's terrible price control idea that would hurt Texans. Given the entities that sued to block this rule and the effect on Texans, the case should continue in Texas instead of moving it elsewhere as the CFPB would like.
 
Credit card late fees, what some call “junk fees,” are the cost of someone paying their bill late. Nothing is free, so there’s a charge for paying late, as it also influences the expected cash flow of credit card companies. It’s not a price gouging scheme; it’s simply a way to take the risk of giving credit to those in need while keeping cash flow for profitability.
 
This is not only important for businesses, but it also provides an incentive for people to pay their bill online. Without a market-based credit card fee, the cost will be on those who need credit the most as they won’t be able to get it or pay much higher interest rates.  
 
The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board wrote: “Even the CFPB acknowledges, the lower penalty may cause more borrowers to pay late, and as a result incur higher ‘interest charges, penalty rates, credit reporting, and the loss of a grace period.”
 
Many Texans depend on credit card access to pay their living expenses. There are more than 3 lines of credit per user in Texas. More than 3 million small businesses also rely on access to credit to grow and expand. Some card issuers most impacted by this rule, including Citi, Chase, and Synchrony, have extensive operations in Texas.
 
JCPenney, based in Plano, offers one of the country's most popular co-branded credit cards through its partnership with Synchrony. The retailer, which employs more than 2,000 Texans, is just a few years removed from bankruptcy and stands to lose big if this misguided rule is allowed to stand. Reports indicate late fees account for 14 to 30 percent of department store credit card revenue.
 
Given the current state of credit card delinquencies at a 10-year high, the CFPB’s rule would exacerbate an already dire situation. This would have far-reaching effects on our community and economy, particularly as consumers and small businesses increasingly rely on credit to navigate lower inflation-adjusted average weekly earnings by 4.2% since January 2021.
 
Most of the plaintiffs in this lawsuit are local organizations that recognize the importance of defending and preserving access to credit. Texas is the rightful venue for this battle.