Elizabeth Warren, chair of the TARP congressional oversight panel, pens an op-ed on financial reform, the importance of a Consumer Finance Protection Agency, and the American Bankers Association curious flip-flop on the issue.

ABA lobbyists now aggressively insist that separating consumer protection and safety and soundness functions would unravel bank stability. Yet just a few years ago, they heatedly argued the opposite — that the functions should be distinct.

In 2006, the ABA claimed to act on principle as it railed against an interagency guidance designed to exercise some modest control over subprime mortgages. It criticized the proposal for “combin[ing] safety and soundness guidance with consumer protection guidance, creating confusion that is best addressed by separating them.”

The ABA went on to argue that the “marriage of inconvenience between supervision and consumer protection appears to blur long-established jurisdictional lines.” And then: “ABA recommends that the safety and soundness provisions relating to underwriting and portfolio management be separated from the consumer protection provisions.”

Read that again: The ABA in 2006 said that policymakers should separate safety-and-soundness and consumer protection — exactly the opposite of its position today.

This 2006 memo illustrates the ABA’s real consistency — consistent opposition to meaningful reform.

If there is a smoking gun in the battle over financial regulatory reform, the 2006 ABA memo is it....

In the weeks ahead, the Senate does not need to decide between safety and soundness and consumer protection.

But the ABA is right about one thing: The Senate does need to decide between banks and families.