This year’s presidential election has voters whipped intoa paranoid frenzy. Whether you’re a Democrat or Republican, theopposing party’s leading candidate is dead set on taking awaysomething you love.

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

Despite Trump’s grandiose campaign promises, the U.S. still hasa nifty system of checks and balances in place. The president can’taccomplish much without Congress.

Some may argue – usually with wild eyes – that federal executiveorders are a growing problem. However, President Obama andPresident George W. Bush executed fewer of those orders duringtheir 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 yearsago, when a little-known senator with a foreign name, Barack Obama,was nominated by the Democrats. Can you imagine the vitriol yourcurmudgeonly old uncle would have posted about Obama, had he beenon Facebook in 2008? Or likewise, what your retired aunt, who wasarrested for protesting the Vietnam War, would have posted aboutGeorge W. Bush in 2000?

The point is, voters have amnesia. Members of both parties wereconvinced America was finished when Bush and Obama won their firstterms. Neither one of them returned America to its glory days, butthe passage of time alters memories. The glory days weren’t asglorious as we remember or have been told.

If you log off Facebook and actually visit Trump’s and Clinton’swebsites, you’ll find they sound more like your averagepresidential candidate than omnicidal maniacs. In fact, theopposing party’s candidate might even surprise you.

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

Candidate Clinton is less specific about her future plans forAmerica, but her website’s national defense page reads more like aRepublican than a Democrat. President Clinton would be a strongerally of Israel than Obama and take assertive positions againstIran, Russia and China.

Where do the candidates stand on credit unions? Like mostcandidates running for any office, they haven’t said. However, bothsaid on their websites they would close tax loopholes, with Trumpsaying he would reduce or eliminate corporate loopholes that caterto special interests. That sounds like banker talk to me, and couldmean the end of the credit union tax exemption, should Congressever pass a law eliminating it.

However, credit unions already have enough to worry about whenit comes to the federal government. Despite positive regulatoryrelief talking points from Congress and regulators, the reg burdencontinues to weigh down credit unions.

According to a CU Times poll, the CFPB was the mostimportant issue credit union leaders discussed with their electedofficials during GAC Hill visits. Even though the NCUA boardfinalized its contentious risk-based capital rule last year, mostof what the NCUA did was deregulate, not propose or finalize newregs.

The CFPB, admittedly new, is only in new reg mode, and each newproposed 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 seemquaint.

Regulator assessment of civil money penalties is a disturbingtrend. Last week, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currencyreleased CMP guidance that included a penalty matrix that so faronly applies to national banks. However, given the trend ofregulatory parity and FFIEC interagency guidance, it’s a red flagthe matrix is coming to institutions of all kinds and sizes.

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

Does this mean the NCUA will start assessing CMPs for regulatoryviolations? It’s hard to say. Under Matz’s watch, the NCUA hasnever assessed them. However, the Matz era is over.

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

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

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