Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

Back in February, Republicans in Congress allowed an expansion of federal trade assistance — meant to aid workers who lose their jobs due to international trade — expire, bumping thousands of workers off of the program. Workers who qualified under that expansion, which was funded by the 2009 Recovery Act, made up more than half of the 280,000 workers who benefited from trade assistance last year.

At the time, some Republicans, such as House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI), were ready and willing to extend the trade assistance, but Tea Partiers in the House balked. Senate Republicans then threw a fit and blocked an extension, saying that they refused to budge on trade assistance unless it was coupled with consideration of pending free trade pacts with Columbia, Korea, and Panama.

The Obama administration yesterday countered and said that it won’t move on the free trade pacts until trade assistance is reauthorized. “The administration will not submit implementing legislation on the three pending FTAs until we have an agreement with Congress on the renewal of a robust expanded TAA program,” said National Economic Council Director Gene Sperling. Republicans have responded to the administration’s stance with predictable disapproval:

SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL (R-KY): “Our economy needs jobs and growth, not an ever-expanding list of reasons to delay the creation those jobs. It is my hope that the President will reconsider this decision and will not allow anything to get in the way of Congressional consideration of these trade agreements and the jobs they’ll create.”

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT): “[Tying trade agreements] to unrelated spending is hugely disappointing to American workers, farmers, and job creators, who are losing out to foreign competitors with every passing day. It makes no sense to shut the door on increasing U.S. exports by over $10 billion in order to fund a costly program.”

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA): “I don’t think the current funding level is sustainable,” said Senator Charles Grassley…“I see the possibility of more goal-post moving.”

So Republicans are allowed to hold benefits hostage for more trade deals, but the administration attempting to ensure that workers already affected by trade receive some help “makes no sense”? As CAP’s Sabina Dewan wrote, “threatening to let Trade Adjustment Assistance expire unless the administration ‘moves’ other trade agreements amounts to little more than a conservative anti-jobs and anti-worker agenda.”

Indeed, merits of the trade agreements aside, trade assistance should be reauthorized independently, as the current version of the program, which dates to 2002, “covers fewer workers and offers lower benefits and fewer opportunities” than the version of the program that expired. As AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said, “for years the TAA program has been a lifeline for working people trying to get the skills necessary to change careers after their lives have been turned upside down.”

The bipartisan group of Attorneys General that is attempting to negotiate a settlement with the nation’s biggest banks over the foreclosure fraud scandal (in conjunction with the Justice Department and other federal agencies) has run into a slew of roadblocks. First, a group of eight Republican AG’s has broken with the group and criticized the idea that the banks should face monetary penalties. Some federal regulatory agencies, including the notoriously bank-friendly Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, have also split away and come to their own settlement with the banks.

As CAP Housing Policy Adviser Alon Cohen explained, the settlement that the regulators forged with the banks is a weak one. Adding insult to injury, one facet of the settlement required the banks to hire outside parties to conduct reviews of their past behavior, but the regulators have agreed to not make those reviews public:

When mortgage servicers signed consent orders with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve, these companies were required to hire outside firms to conduct “look back” evaluations of questionable foreclosure practices. But these reviews will not be made public, according to an OCC spokesman.

Major servicing arms at Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Ally Financial and others agreed to the enforcement actions taken in April as a result of mishandled foreclosures still being corrected.

So the banks not only get to pick and choose who they want to conduct these reviews, but the findings will never see the light of day. As FDIC Chair Sheila Bair noted, there is huge potential for conflict-of-interest, as these reviewers “may have other business with [banks] or future business they would like to do with them.” “This is a huge issue,” she said.

For some hint into what these reviews could potentially turn up, the Huffington Post’s Shahien Nasiripour reported that the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s inspector general found the nation’s biggest banks were potentially “defrauding taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures on homes purchased with government-backed loans.” But instead of having to undergo a thorough investigation — and face the music if more misdeeds are uncovered — the banks will be able to pick their own reviewers, those reviews will be stamped by an agency that is extremely cozy with the banks, and then the public will never see the results.

Hopefully, this defection doesn’t deter the AG’s from continuing their investigation and ultimately winning homeowners some relief from bank misdeeds. (Cohen has some good ideas for how to apply monetary penalties to help homeowners here.) But with regulators and Republicans undermining the AG’s on all sides, that task is getting harder.

Last year, President Obama signed the Dodd-Frank financial reform law, enacted to give consumers vital protections and to rein in Wall Street excess in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Republicans were staunchly opposed to the bill, with no Republicans voting for it in the House and just three supporting it in the Senate.

As the bill has been implemented this year, Republicans have continued their opposition. Initially, they said they’d like a full repeal of the law, but they have since moved on to attempting to undermine the bill piecemeal, advancing legislation chipping away at both the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the reform of derivatives regulation.

But as the Boston Globe reported, 2012 GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney believes full repeal of Dodd-Frank should still be under consideration:

“Whether you repeal the whole bill wholesale is something which you’d have to resolve after you had a chance to look at each of the pieces of regulation that comes forward,” he said. “But clearly the consumers deserve protection.”

“Legislation and regulation is important, but the level of over-regulation and burden which has been placed on the financial services sector I think is unnecessary and will cost us jobs down the road,” he added.

Romney had previously defended Wall Street from criticism, saying those pushing for stricter regulation were acting “as if Wall Street greed is something new.’’ “It’s been there for a long time, and that is not the reason we had an economic meltdown,’’ Romney said. Late last month, Romney delivered a speech in New York in an attempt “to woo Wall Street donors.” That swing though the Big Apple netted Romney $1 million.

But Romney is not the only 2012 contender to come out against the Dodd-Frank law. Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) in April repeated the false GOP talking point that Dodd-Frank perpetuates bailouts.