This year’s presidential election has voters whipped into a paranoid frenzy. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, the opposing party’s leading candidate is dead set on taking away something you love.

I’m not crazy about Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, or Cruz or Sanders (favored by CU Times readers at press time) for that matter, but the hysteria over the future of America under any candidate’s regime is probably just that: Hysteria.

Despite Trump’s grandiose campaign promises, the U.S. still has a nifty system of checks and balances in place. The president can’t accomplish much without Congress.

Some may argue – usually with wild eyes – that federal executive orders are a growing problem. However, President Obama and President George W. Bush executed fewer of those orders during their two terms than nearly any president in the last 100 years: Obama had 226 while Bush had 291.

Social media is more prominent today than it was eight years ago, when a little-known senator with a foreign name, Barack Obama, was nominated by the Democrats. Can you imagine the vitriol your curmudgeonly old uncle would have posted about Obama, had he been on Facebook in 2008? Or likewise, what your retired aunt, who was arrested for protesting the Vietnam War, would have posted about George W. Bush in 2000?

The point is, voters have amnesia. Members of both parties were convinced America was finished when Bush and Obama won their first terms. Neither one of them returned America to its glory days, but the passage of time alters memories. The glory days weren’t as glorious as we remember or have been told.

If you log off Facebook and actually visit Trump’s and Clinton’s websites, you’ll find they sound more like your average presidential candidate than omnicidal maniacs. In fact, the opposing party’s candidate might even surprise you.

For example, Trump wants to eliminate income tax returns for all households that earn less than $25,000 for singles or $50,000 for married couples. His website proudly claims this would exclude 75 million households – more than 50% in this country – from filing income taxes. Your angry uncle has been claiming on Facebook that thanks to those damn liberals, fewer than 50% of American households don’t even pay taxes. That’s not true, but President Trump would try to make it so.

Candidate Clinton is less specific about her future plans for America, but her website’s national defense page reads more like a Republican than a Democrat. President Clinton would be a stronger ally of Israel than Obama and take assertive positions against Iran, Russia and China.

Where do the candidates stand on credit unions? Like most candidates running for any office, they haven’t said. However, both said on their websites they would close tax loopholes, with Trump saying he would reduce or eliminate corporate loopholes that cater to special interests. That sounds like banker talk to me, and could mean the end of the credit union tax exemption, should Congress ever pass a law eliminating it.

However, credit unions already have enough to worry about when it comes to the federal government. Despite positive regulatory relief talking points from Congress and regulators, the reg burden continues to weigh down credit unions.

According to a CU Times poll, the CFPB was the most important issue credit union leaders discussed with their elected officials during GAC Hill visits. Even though the NCUA board finalized its contentious risk-based capital rule last year, most of what the NCUA did was deregulate, not propose or finalize new regs.

The CFPB, admittedly new, is only in new reg mode, and each new proposed topic is more terrifying to credit unions than the last. News about payday loan alternatives, overdraft fees, paper statements and checking history reporting make remittance rules seem quaint.

Regulator assessment of civil money penalties is a disturbing trend. Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released CMP guidance that included a penalty matrix that so far only applies to national banks. However, given the trend of regulatory parity and FFIEC interagency guidance, it’s a red flag the matrix is coming to institutions of all kinds and sizes.

In fact, the NCUA is required by law to update maximum CMPs in various categories by June of this year.

Does this mean the NCUA will start assessing CMPs for regulatory violations? It’s hard to say. Under Matz’s watch, the NCUA has never assessed them. However, the Matz era is over.

Recent talk among Capitol Hill Democrats and CFPB Director Richard Cordray about regulatory capture is also troubling. Of course, it’s something to avoid, and certainly contributed to the financial meltdown almost 10 years ago (and, many would argue, corporate credit union losses). However, comments by Senate Banking Committee Member Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and interest in the topic by House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) make it seem as if some lawmakers consider any input from stakeholders to be regulatory capture.

Cordray told the Community Bankers Association Wednesday the bureau listens to stakeholders, but I think credit unions would strongly disagree with that statement. His position that the bureau can’t exempt credit unions from rules makes industry trade associations crazy, because they insist Dodd-Frank says it can.

Is Cordray really seemingly misinterpreting Dodd-Frank or just playing dumb? It’s hard to say. But if Democrats recapture control of the House and Senate in November as some are predicting, this could become an even bigger problem for credit unions if Clinton or Sanders wins the White House.

Instant Insights /

Party Doesn&rsquo;t Matter: The Feds Are Coming for Your Credit Union

Related Stories

Recommended For You

Party Doesn’t Matter: The Feds Are Coming for Your Credit Union