With the House’s financial regulatory reform effort set to come to the floor this week, attempts to derail the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency (CFPA) are once again picking up steam. For instance, the Chamber of Commerce has unveiled a new ad campaign attacking the CFPA, and Reuters reports that the Chamber “plans to spend ‘well more’ than its original estimate of $2 million to quash plans to create the new agency.”

Instead of the CFPA, the Chamber would like to see a consumer protection council, composed of the Federal Trade Commissioner and the heads of the already existing federal bank regulators. In short, the Chamber wants the same people who blew their consumer protection responsibilities in the buildup to the financial crisis to have a second chance at it.

But some in Congress are not as skeptical of this approach. One of the more than fifty proposed amendments to the regulatory reform effort comes from Rep. Walter Minnick (D-ID), who is embracing the Chamber’s model:

One key amendment to scrap the CFPA was proposed by moderate Democrats and led by Walt Minnick, a representative from Idaho. Mr Minnick, who has the support of Republicans, wants to replace the CFPA with a looser council of existing regulators.

According to National Journal, Minnick “held off offering the language in committee after [House Financial Services Chairman Barney] Frank expressed strong opposition.” This was for good reason, as we’ve already tried allowing the bank regulators to be responsible for both consumer protection and bank regulation. It certainly didn’t work. And making them sit together in a room once in a while as a “council” won’t remove the inherent tension between bank profits and consumer protection (as ripping off consumers is often highly profitable).

Minnick is not the only Democrat trying to bring an amendment to the floor that was held off in committee. As Mike Elk reported, Rep. Melissa Bean’s (D-IL) preemption amendment — which would prevent states from enacting consumer protections that go beyond the federal minimum — has also resurfaced, after she withdrew it from consideration during committee deliberations (partially due to her having to miss a committee meeting to handle a family illness). Hopefully, both of these ideas will finally meet their well-deserved ends, if they come up for a vote on the floor.

Last weekend, the Washington Post reported that one-quarter of the borrowers enrolled in the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) are behind on their payments, providing just one more dent in the armor of the administration’s signature foreclosure prevention plan. HAMP is suffering on multiple fronts, from banks dragging their feet and outright violating their contract with Treasury, to design flaws preventing all of a borrower’s debts from being taken into account when the modification is designed.

To fix this, House Democrats are looking (yet again) to revive cram-down, a measure which would allow bankruptcy judges to rework the terms of a mortgage. Cram-down was part of the administration’s original vision for HAMP, but the measure went down to defeat in the Senate, after an intense lobbying campaign by the financial services industry.

Democrats are planning to attach cram-down as an amendment to Rep. Barney Frank’s (D-MA) regulatory reform bill (with Frank’s approval), which is set to come to the House floor sometime this week. If the measure passes (this time, with the added wrinkle that the borrower must “convince the judge that he or she has made sufficient efforts to complete a loan modification” through HAMP), it will mark the third time that the House has passed cram-down.

Meanwhile, during a hearing today examining HAMP’s flaws, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) explained that the best way to prevent foreclosures is to create jobs, and the only way to do that is to block and obstruct health care reform, cap-and-trade, and regulatory reform:

That is a plan. That is a recipe to create jobs in our economy…And if you create jobs then people can keep their homes. Nothing short of that will work.

Watch it:

This sounds remarkably like anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist’s bizarre foreclosure prevention plan, which hinged on Congressional vacations. But contrary to their assertions, there are still plenty of steps that could be taken, including mandatory mediation before foreclosures are finalized or authorizing housing counselors to approve HAMP modifications.

And while cram-down’s chances of passing the Senate appear no brighter than last time, it still would be a good way to encourage banks to make modifications. As Prof. Jean Braucher wrote in a new study, “bankruptcy modification is administratively efficient in that the bankruptcy courts are already operating and available immediately. Also, servicers, with their perverse incentives, and junior lien holders are removed as obstacles. Furthermore, bankruptcy is not an appealing choice to any borrower and is unlikely to draw borrowers who can afford their payments.”

Our guest blogger is Luke Reidenbach, Special Assistant for Economic Policy at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Last week, the Republican National Committee used positive labor market developments — such as the news that payrolls in the United States remained virtually unchanged in November and the unemployment rate decreased to 10 percent — as an opportunity to criticize the policies that have pulled the country’s economy back from the brink. Additionally, some commentators misread the new data and argued for ending economic stimulus efforts early, like CNBC’s Trish Regan.

The global economy is slowly on the rebound, but it remains crucial that governments maintain policies that protect workers, both in developed and developing nations. Indeed, the International Labor Organization confirms this conclusion with its new World of Work report, released yesterday. The ILO argues that fiscal stimulus around the world was effective, crucial for recovery, and needs to continue as the world economy returns from the brink:

The Report shows that badly shaped spending cuts now would hit many existing jobs which were saved thanks to earlier stimulus measures but are still at risk. Such an early exit would also postpone employment recovery and would aggravate the risk of long-term joblessness, labour market exclusion and employment informality.

The ILO highlights just how precarious global labor market conditions are. While public spending by nations has prevented 7.2 percent of the world’s workforce from losing their jobs, almost 43 million workers around the world are still at risk of exclusion from the labor market. Terminating fiscal stimulus packages before they have run their due course would exacerbate this problem, putting workers at serious risk and potentially destabilizing the fragile recovery.

Furthermore, continuing policies that help workers around the world during recovery is just good economic policy. Today, more than ever before, global markets are deeply connected. Policies to help workers, here at home and abroad, get back on their feet will help boost global aggregate demand. Using the crisis as an opportunity to build and strengthen social protection and labor market institutions will contribute to the creation of a global middle class that has the purchasing power to help sustain global economic growth and alleviate some of the pressure on the American consumer.

It isn’t just the ILO that understands both the value of and need for keeping stimulus measures in place. In early November, Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors from the G20 supported continued fiscal stimulus, agreeing to “maintain support for the recovery until it is assured.” The administration understands this as well. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner has reiterated that while the economy is healing, the administration will not end the stimulus prematurely.

This is the right choice, and throughout the world there is evidence of both an economic recovery and the need for a continued role of public policy to steer the global economy in the correct direction.