binocularsSo he won.  Whether his election is good for America or not remains to be seen.  But we have a pretty good sense that it won’t be good for consumers.   Throughout the debacle that masqueraded as a political campaign,  Trump threatened many important and hard-fought consumer protections, such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform.   Trump hasn’t provided specifics on any meaningful policies that would protect consumers. No surprise; he’s aggressively pro-business, a stance that far too often is at odds with consumer protection.  However, he did come out in opposition to the proposed AT&T buyout of Time Warner.

The Federal Trade Commission has two open seats on its five-member panel, and Chair Edith Ramirez’s term ends in April 2017. So Trump will be able to remake the agency, which has responsibilities over consumer protection and policing anti-competitive business practices, like the employing of monopoly power. Outside of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division, no government agency is more responsible for competition policy than the FTC.

When you factor in the rip-offs that were Trump University, Trump Steaks, Trump Condominiums and his general disdain for the rule of law, consumer protections are likely at risk with the upcoming Trump Administration.   We’ll be watching his actions on behalf of consumers for the upcoming four years (if he makes it that far) and chronicle his actions at this page.   And for those thinking that we’ve coined a new word, check out the dictionary.   The word trumpery is defined as “something without use or value; rubbish; trash; worthless stuff.”

With hopes for the best and expectations of the worst kind,  here we go……………………………….

The first sign of a bad moon rising

  • Trump’s “America First Energy Plan,” published recently, appeared to focus almost exclusively on increasing fossil fuel production and rejuvenating the coal industry. It states: “the estimated $50 trillion in untapped shale, oil, and natural gas reserves, especially those on federal lands that the American people own.”   Not a word about renewable and/or solar power despite the fact that in 2015, new installations of solar power capacity surpassed both wind and coal for the second year in a row, accounting for 32% of all new electrical capacity, according to a new report from GTM Research.   Sure enough, on March 28th, Trump directed his federal agencies to relax carbon emission restrictions and allow for more coal production.  His order effectively blocks the 2015 Paris Agreement commitment made by the U.S. cut its carbon emissions about 26 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.   Trump’s big lie:  that it will restore jobs for coal miners.  In fact, very few jobs will likely materialize.  As explained by the Wharton School of Business, Trump’s orders is a gift to the large coal companies, but not much else.  If a picture tells a thousand words, then this picture, below, tells a horror story!

  • Trump, and the Republican Party, is poised to strip the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau of many of its power, including eliminating its consumer complaint database and scaling back its enforcement abilities, according to a five-page memo distributed by Rep. Jeb Hensarling, chairman of the powerful House Financial Services Committee.  The Washington Post reports that Republicans plan to cut back the agency’s rulemaking authority and enforcement powers and also to eliminate its consumer education functions.  So far, Trump has issued no tweets on the Republican plan.  Nor has he acknowledged that the Bureau has returned billions of dollars to bilked consumers since it was created in 2011. Its regulators exposed the scandal of Wells Fargo employees creating fake accounts.  Just last week, the Bureau fined MasterCard and RushCard $13 million for glitches that denied holders of prepaid debit cards access to their cash.
  • Republicans are also moving to scrap consumer protection rules that prevent the prepaid debit card industry from collecting tens of millions of dollars in overdraft fees. The resolution, introduced by Sen. David Perdue, R-Georgia,  would undo the new rules package crafted by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) in October.  Consumer advocates have long called for limitations on overdraft fees, warning that prepaid cards were becoming credit services.  Notably, prepaid debit cards are disproportionately used by low-income people.   In May, over 100 consumer advocates from 36 states across the country traveled to Washington, D.C.  to urge lawmakers in Congress to oppose legislation that would weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and undermine its proposed rules to limit high-cost payday loans and forced arbitration, as well as another piece of Republican legislation that creates roadblocks against all new health, safety, and pocketbook protections.
  • Privacy is now at risk in a move by Congress to overrule current FCC privacy rules.  Specifically,your wireless company and in-home broadband (ISP) providers can potentially see what sites you actually end up visiting and when you visit them. Mobile carriers track your location and could keep tabs on how much time you spend using different apps. And they can sell that information to the highest bidder. The current FCC rules, which have yet to go into effect, ban internet service providers and wireless carriers from selling many types of customer data—including web browsing history, location, and health information—unless you explicitly opt in.  But Republicans in the Senate want to overturn those FCC rules.   The plan, according to Politico, is to use a seldom used law to overturn federal regulations within 60 days of when they take effect as well as to ban the FCC from passing similar rules in the future.  Nasty stuff.  Congress has just passed a bill that will allows Internet companies to sell your data about websites you’ve visited and other activities that you’ve engaged in, as well as hijacking your search queries and redirecting you to a place customers hadn’t asked for, snoop through your traffic, record what you’re browsing, and then inject ads into your traffic based on your browsing history, impose “Carrier IQ” on your computer so that your ISP could also see what encrypted (HTTPS) URLs you visit and record what apps you use, and inject your computer with “supercookies” that allows anyone—not just advertisers—to track you as you browsed the web. Even if you cleared your cookies, advertisers could use your ISP’s tracking header to resurrect them, which led to something called “zombie cookies.”  This bill is headed to the White House and all indicators is that Trump is going to overturn 8 years of consumer Internet protections and sign this misguided bill.
  • Talking about privacy…….it’s going to get a big test in the courts thanks to the Trump Administration.  At issue is whether a government employee loses the First Amendment right to free expression.   Trump’s Department of Homeland Security is trying to force Twitter to cough up the identity of a government employee who is anonymously criticizing Trump in a Twitter feed.    In response to a demand by DHS to turn over the identity,  Twitter filed a lawsuit in Northern California, asking the court to prevent it from being forced to unmask an anonymous user of an anti-Trump account.  According to Twitter’s suit, US Customs and Border Protection has attempted to use a “limited-purpose investigatory tool” to unmask the owner of the Twitter account “@ALT_uscis.” The account, one of several “alt” accounts that appeared in the wake of Trump’s victory, “to express public criticism of the Department and the current Administration,” according to Twitter’s complaint. In the suit, Twitter writes that @ALT_uscis has purported to be a dissenting member of US Citizenship and Immigration Services. Twitter filed the lawsuit against DHS and federal government employees as a way to prevent them from unmasking the identity of the account user.  The American Civil Liberties Union indicates that it is representing the anonymous Twitter user.  This will be an important legal test to resist the Trump doctrine of fighting back against any criticism of his administration.   This case is a must-follow for any governmental employee who plans to exercise their First Amendment rights.
  • The EPA’s Energy Star program to promote energy efficient appliances was described by former EPA Administrator Christy Todd Whitman under George W. Bush as “a no-brainer. It worked, and it hardly cost any money.”  Yet, the Trump Administration is reportedly looking to kill the long-standing and very successful federal program.   In his proposed budget, Trump has proposed defunding the 25-year old program.  A Los Angeles Times article states:  “Energy Star has been a pillar of the federal government’s effort to fight climate change, with the EPA boasting that it has kept some 2.8 billion tons of greenhouse gas from escaping into the atmosphere — or roughly the equivalent produced from powering 36 million homes with electricity each year. It has enabled consumers and businesses to cut their energy bills more than $30 billion per year. At an annual cost of $60 million to taxpayers, it is easily the cheapest and least burdensome initiative the federal government runs to help Americans lower their energy consumption.”   Trump’s EPA advisor is quoted as justifying the program defunding because it: “is pushing companies to place too much focus on efficiency, saying it leaves consumers with inferior products to choose from.”   A final word from former EPA head Whitman pretty much says it all:  “The kinds of cuts they are making are scary.”
  • Enough experts have weighed in on the disaster that is the House-passed “Trumpcare” replacement of Obamacare.  We don’t need to go into details about this so-called healthcare overhaul, other than to refer to Paul Krugman who not only assails the bill from a policy perspective but digs down into the sheer dishonesty of this bill.   Just the fact that it was pushed through the House without giving the Congressional Budget Office a chance to estimate its costs, its effects on coverage, or anything else is head-shakingly ugly.  Krugman calls it a “Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength moment. And it may be the shape of things to come.”  Fortunately, there are no signs that the Republican-controlled Senate will accept this legislation.  So while the House Healthcare Deception is DOA, it has revealed some ugliness that even professional politicians found troubling.
  • When do “alternative facts” get scary?  One example of Trump’s loose grip on reality is a June 2017 tweet in which the president claimed: “When Obamacare was signed into law, CBO estimated that 23 million people would be covered in Obamacare’s exchanges in 2017. They were off by more than 100 percent. Only 10.3 million people are covered by Obamacare.”   He went on to assert:  FACT: when was signed, CBO estimated that 23M would be covered in 2017. They were off by 100%. Only 10.3M people are covered.”  This tweet was intended to discredit the reputation of the Congressional Budget Office, which has found that both the House and Senate versions of health care “reform” or “repeal” would adversely affect over 20 million Americans.  PolitiFact found that Trump’s tweet was, at best, half true.  The nonpartisan fact-checking site reports that “To make its case that the CBO is unreliable, the Trump administration cherry-picked a statistic that CBO got the most wrong. The forecasters were closer to actual results on other major components of Obamacare, including Medicaid and employer changes. Furthermore, the tweet’s math was off: the CBO missed the mark on exchange enrollments by 55 percent, not 100 percent.”   What is concerning is that Trump impugned the reputation of this very important office not because it had a methodological basis to question the CBO’s veracity but because the CBO didn’t tell Trump what he wanted to hear.   And that’s scary.
  • Why should you know Hui Chen?  Because she’s a very smart, capable attorney who has publicly blasted her boss.   Oh yeah, her boss is Donald Trump.  And her beef is that his minion won’t allow the Department of Justice to do its job monitoring corporate compliance with consumer laws.  She was hired in October 2015 as the first-ever compliance counsel for the Fraud Section of the Justice Department, to help prosecutors evaluate the compliance programs of companies under investigation. Chen quit that post one week ago, saying that the Trump Administration’s own ethical shortcomings made her position too difficult.   She knows what she’s talking about because she wrote the Justice Department enforcement rules relating to effective corporate compliance programs.   Her job was to make sure that corporations who had negotiated agreements with prosecutors were following through on their commitments to stop violating laws.   She quit in June 2017 and then went public about why she left this important position.  Among her damning observations:  “To sit across the table from companies and question how committed they were to ethics and compliance felt not only hypocritical, but very much like shuffling the deck chair on the Titanic. Even as I engaged in those questioning and evaluations, on my mind were the numerous lawsuits pending against the President of the United States for everything from violations of the Constitution to conflict of interest, the ongoing investigations of potentially treasonous conducts, and the investigators and prosecutors fired for their pursuits of principles and facts. Those are conducts I would not tolerate seeing in a company, yet I worked under an administration that engaged in exactly those conduct. I wanted no more part in it.” and “My ability to do good at a more micro-level, by exchanging ideas with the compliance community on ways to assess the effectiveness of compliance programs, was severely limited.”
  • Trump’s Department of Energy (DOE) has announced its intent to pay billions of dollars to coal and nuclear plant owners  (mostly utilities and hedge funds).  The DOE has proposed a new rule that would  provide full cost recovery for merchant coal and nuclear plants with 90 days of fuel supply onsite in an attempt to keep the baseload plants online and operating.  DOE claims it is necessary to ensure sufficient generation for the national electric grid.  The truth is that these overpriced baseload plants shouldn’t be getting guaranteed recovery.  Moreover, the grid flow argument is bogus; disruptions of power supply due to “fuel supply emergencies” represented just 0.00007% of the power outages reported from 2012-2016, primarily due to a coal plant in Northern Minnesota.  The rulemaking and its short 60-day timeframe has sparked widespread anxiety in the power sector, with former FERC regulators warning the proposal could “blow up” wholesale power markets.   DOE head Rick Perry (yeah, former governor of Texas) offered a headshakingly dumb defense of the rule:  “I think you take costs into account, but what’s the cost of freedom? What is the cost to build a system to keep America free? … the idea that there is a free market in the energy industry is a fallacy.”