Back in December, Senate Republicans blocked the confirmation of former Ohio Attorney General, Richard Cordray, as head of the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB).
How did the GOP defeat their democratic colleagues who hold a majority in the Senate? They used the filibuster — the congressional equivalent of a spoiled child taking his ball and going home — the tried and true method whereby a super-majority of 60 votes is required to end the debate of a bill.
Unable to break the filibuster, the senate could not even proceed to an up-or-down vote to confirm Mr. Cordray.
At the time, President Obama vowed to proceed saying:
“We will not allow politics as usual on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of American consumers being protected from unscrupulous operators.”
However, it was not clear what solutions were available to the President at the time.
Under normal circumstances, Obama could have easily appointed Cordray during a senate recess.
But these are not normal times.
Working hard to hardly work
To block these recess appointments, Republicans have been holding pro formasessions. Typically lasting seconds or minutes, pro forma sessions are an administrative maneuver designed solely to obstruct the legislative progress. No business is conducted — many Senators have gone back to their districts for example — nor is any intended.
In this way, the GOP had hoped to continue to indefinitely block the nomination of Cordray and thus the activities of the CFPB.
That all changed last week when the President decided that pro forma sessions did not constitute a legitimate session of the Senate.
Armed with this legal opinion, Obama thus declared Senate to not be in session and proceeded with the recess appointment of Cordray.
Selective amnesia
In the latest case of manufactured outrage, the GOP yesterday released — via our very own Representative James 'Jimmy' Sensenbrenner (R-WI) — an opinion piece slamming President Obama for an “unprecedented power grab”.
Jimmy went on to accuse the President of"
"[...expanding] executive branch powers to his liking by using administrative rules to change policies when he has failed to pass his agenda through the legislative process.”
What’s really rich here is Jimmy’s ability to ignore the two apparently acceptable administrative procedures — the filibuster and pro forma sessions — that got us into the ridiculous situation of having legally created a federal bureau that cannot be put into effect as the agency head has not been confirmed.
Only a disingenuous fool would thus accuse the President of “my way or the highway” gamesmanship.
Voting to confirm or not confirm the nominee is the very definition of the President complying with Congressional oversight!
So when faced with a perpetual block of his nominee the President found an administrative solution to the problem.
Fear, fear and more fear
Setting aside the clear irony of Obama’s success in this battle and the hypocrisy of Jimmy's comments, there is of course a political motive to publishing this sort of drivel — it’s another chance to get people agitated while pouring over the ever-so-carefully placed buzz words.
In 2004, it was the threat of terrorism. Now it’s the threat of big government, executive overreach and tyranny, juxtaposed obtusely with another hot-button issue: immigration reform.
The GOP know that both the passive and explicit racism that drives a not-so-small faction of the Republican base will be terrified of a black man flaunting the Constitution and opening the Southern border to hoards of illegal Mexicans.
So terrified, in fact, that they will be blinded from the real truth — that politicians in general, and folks like Jimmy in particular, are not beholden the electorate, but rather to special interests.
How else could you explain any political opinion article that begins by complaining about a policy designed to protect consumers and concludes with verbal philosophical diarrhea about “...protecting American liberty...”.
How little Jimmy must think of his proponents to serve up something so obviously detrimental to the average citizen and try to spin it as something positive. It's lipstick on a pig and nothing more.
He might as well walk into a Town Hall meeting and try to convince folks struggling with underwater mortgages that regulating the financial services industry is bad for the economy.
I mean with friends like that, who needs enemies?!?
The Supreme Court of Public Opinion
The other motive for attacking Obama in the court of public opinion is that the GOP know their pro forma sessions are complete crap and would not withstand judicial scrutiny.
The Department of Justice has just recently released a memo stating that the pro forma sessions:
“...do not interrupt the intrasession recess in a manner that would preclude the President from determining that the Senate remains unavailable throughout to ‘receive communications from the President or participate as a body in making appointments.’”
Translation? Sit down and eat your humble pie.
The Supreme Court may also be supportive of recess appointment powers according to a statement made recently (2010) by Chief Justice Roberts.
Even the US Chamber of Commerce — who had also previously spoken out against Cordray’s appointment — has backed away from challenging the case in court.
Cutting through the crap
But let’s be clear: the GOP are not backing away from this fight because of some legal setbacks. The longer they delay the CFPB from doing its job, the better chance they have to water it down even more than it already has been.
Slowing down the implementation of this new agency is win-win regardless of any legal outcome.
The real reason they are backing away is that Obama has been painting the GOP as corporate-friendly obstructionists as part of his reelection strategy.
Unfortunately for the GOP, he’s got them dead to rights and the public agree. Congressional approval ratings (see image, above) at 13% show that this narrative is polling well.
And with the economy showing some real signs of improvement, the GOP are scared to give Obama too much ammunition by opposing Cordray’s appointment with a legal challenge.
Out of options
So having been out-maneuvered by the President and with no practical options remaining, the GOP wrote an obvious and juvenile Obama attack ad disguised as a policy piece and had their lapdog Jimmy put his name on the bottom.
They are hoping this will distract you from what’s really going on - the economy is improving and the GOP have done absolutely nothing to contribute.
Unless of course you count negative contributions such as trying to stall and dismantle financial protection for consumers.
Shit rolls downhill, Jimmy, and you’re in the creek without a paddle.
Editor's Note: This blog was updated to fix an error at 11:15 on Jan. 18.
But why should we care? The Ogalalla isn't our aquifer.
I just remember the President telling us how he had been convinced that drilling in the Gulf was safe now, and then -- blam. That sort of experience would have made me cautious too.
How did this discussion get from consumer protection to an oil pipeline?
If it was truly all about following existing bankruptcy law, then why didn't they liquidate as many assets of the companies as was necessary to 1) fully compensate all secure debt holders, 2) set up the mandated victim compensation fund to provide for an estimated 30 years worth of potential claims against the old companies, and 3) provide reimbursement to existing equity shareholders of whatever was left over? According to my reading of the bankruptcy laws, this is what should have happened if indeed it was truly all about following the existing laws. Instead, the government intervened and most of the valuable assets of the old companies were transferred virtually liability free to new companies that were majority owned by the UAW, the U.S. and Canadian governments, and an Italian corporation, respectively speaking. While secure debt holders, victims, and equity shareholders were all left out in the cold. In fact, I seem to remember several lawsuits being filed against the old companies and federal government for not following the existing bankruptcy laws by several pension and equity funds. And if I recall correctly, although the court ruled that the suing funds were in fact correct under existing bankruptcy laws, it ended up using a never before seen in bankruptcy law reasoning of 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one,' to justify the governments interference and control over the bankruptcy process in these specific cases.
So YES, this is absolutely HYPOCRISY to the extreme from Obama and the Dems to one minute screw over consumers in the name of providing for the 'greater good,' and the next to claim to care so much about consumers. If you honestly can't see this, then you're fooling yourself or are ignorant as to bankruptcy law and what really happened in this situation. If you're truly an independent as you claim to be, then perhaps you should work a little harder to get your facts straight on this situation.
Can anyone intelligently provide an answer to this?
A map..... http://www.westshorepipeline.com/map.htm
I am also certain that the CFPB will not protect everyone, but it will be a lot more protection than they have now.
So how will this consumer protection agency prevent people from being greedy and stupid by trying to live beyond their means?
This article mentions that the right is all about the special interests and not the people, please explain to me the union zealots of the left. The "Union" is one of the largest special interest groups there is. One last thing, please inform me, exactly what has the Obama regime done to create jobs? Was it when he joked that "I guess those jobs weren't quite shovel ready" Or when he said that extending unemployment benefits would create jobs, still trying to figure that one out. It must be now, when he went against his own advisors to say no to keystone. He didn't mention the aquifer, but sure blamed the right of not helping or standing in the way, you know the usual. He had 2 years, was it, and 2 billion dollars in research wrapped up in this, and it is still the rights fault? Maybe we should start a recall effort for Obama.
First you claim it was about following bankruptcy laws. Now you claim that it was about protecting the industry. So clearly, under your own logic, Obama and the Dems prioritized protection of the industry OVER the protection of the consumer in their auto industry bailout, right? After all, if they really wanted to bailout the auto-industry and protect the consumer at the same time, then why didn't they do it simply with direct loan guarantees, like Carter did with Chrysler under Lee Iacocca? That bailout was far more successful given that Chrysler actually repaid ALL of the government money it borrowed with interest ahead of schedule, unlike the current arrangement that will see several billion loaned taxpayer dollars being forgiven in order to satisfy Obama's UAW backers and supporters! Not to mention that in Carter's Chrysler bailout, no one was shafted, including the consumer, unlike in Obama's bailout! Clearly, the Carter bailout provides us with PROOF that Obama could have done the bailout and protected the consumer all at the same time if he really wanted to. But he didn't. Instead, he pandered to the wishes of his friends.
This isn't new, this is safe, we already have pipeline in that same area. You read a 3 second talking point.
I'll also point out that many people took out those mortgages fully expecting to pay because they had a job that would cover it. And then the job disappeared.
I, just I'm sure all Americans do, receive a countless number of direct mailings encouraging me to sign up for high interest credit cards. Just as I'm also barraged with a countless number of advertisements encouraging me to eat every single meal at McDonalds. And whenever I go to the mall, I can't help but notice all the stores that are encouraging me to buy items from their inventories. I guess all of this should just be done away with by the consumer protection agency because some people are too stupid to manage their financial affairs responsibly and end up getting themselves into trouble, right? Let's stop the 'drug dealers' instead of dealing with the 'drug users.' Man, that constantly seems to be the left's argument about everything, and yet they claim that it's the conservatives that believe in and push for so-called 'supply-side' economics. How very hypocritical. "I mean, who expected the housing bubble to burst?" Ron Paul and those subscribing to Austrian economic theory were warning about it since the mid-nineties. And then Dodd and Frank went and did the exact opposite of what Ron Paul told them to do. Gee, go figure, eh?
That's why if you were financially responsible you had a sizable down payment when buying the house. That way, even if you lost your job you'd be able to re-fi, cash out that equity, and use it to sustain your mortgage payments until you were able to either find a new job or sell the house. Common-sense Randy. But instead of holding people to a common sense standard, you'd rather point the finger at the big bad evil profiteering bankers and hold them accountable. That's how we got into this whole entire mess in the first place - reliance upon others to think and make decisions for us. Time we started getting our personal responsibility back! Just cause McD's wants me to constantly only eat at their restaurant doesn't mean I do it. Just as I don't sign up for a zillion credit cards, despite the companies encouraging me to. It's called taking responsibility for your own actions and making sound common sense decisions. We used to have an abundance of that in this country. Today, not so much because of mentalities like yours.
in case you don't,let me share this:"That sound common sense which is so often 'cited' in such attempts is not as sound and natural as it pretends. It is above all not as absolute as it acts, but rather the shallow product of that manner of forming ideas which is the final fruit of the Enlightenment...".(M.H., Was Heisst Denken?). As to your comments about the way the banking world handled mortgages/HELOC's during the run up and collapse:I was in the mortgage banking business from 2003 through 2008. Unless you were in the room, no one could guess. The world was over-valued by a factor of ...<you fill in the blanks! I still estimate that the world is over-valued by 25% at a minimum!). Again, no one, unless handling transactions on a daily basis, really could understand decision-making or have a clue as to how things really worked at the end. It was maddening to mortgage holders - even more so to those with HELOC's: oops therein is a consumer-related problem. (viz., several of the top 5 national/globalized Banks define their own bankers as their customers: so, of course, we could bring back Glass-Steagall!) Last point: Somewhere in these discussions, it would be interesting to discuss morality (e.g., social responsibility, social and civil contracts), and The 7 Deadly Sins (Sin/vice), and, God: or, don't any of these matter or have any bearing on many of our more important issues today?
What changed was that Wall Street created a perpetual market for mortgages to package into collateralized debt obligations. These were then given mostly AAA ratings and sold to investors around the world including mutual funds, retirement funds, long-term municipal investments and banks who over-leveraged their capitol to buy them. Many laws were clearly broken in this scheme. Given the generous fees generated by the increased demand for new mortgages, this led to predatory and dishonest lending, again breaking laws, and thus to a much higher rate of lending to "stupid" borrowers. Put together, this is what caused the financial meltdown. I agree that folks who did not do their due diligence must be responsible for their actions, but these are not the folks that collapsed the market. These are the folks who need protection from the criminal folks at the top who pushed the scheme into every village, town and city in the country and around the world. THIS is exactly what the CFPB is meant to combat. And you should be happy, because mine and your tax dollars went straight to Wall Street to save the entire system.
1. The governor did outmaneuver the state senators. He won. He used the system better and deserves all the credit (and the blame) for those actions. If the Dem senators who left the state broke a law, they should be charged and prosecuted, simple as that. 2. The Left and the Right are BOTH beholden to special interests. As I am sure you know, the banking sector gives lots of money to the campaigns of both parties so they have both sides covered. I certainly never said grift was limited to one party. But in the case of the CFPB, Sensenbrenner sided with the banking services sector, and the Dems did not. Similarly, Obama sided with the insurance sector when he passed Health Care reform. 3. As for creating jobs, there is the bailout of Wall Street, the auto bailout, the stimilus, and of course nearly 2 years of net-positive job growth, primarily in the private sector: http://reflectionsofarationalrepublican.com/2011/12/02/bush-vs-obama-unemployment-november-2011-jobs-data/ In fact, jobs in the public sector are down by nearly 300,000. There is still lots of rom for improvement, but unemployment is dropping despite the GOP not passing any of their own legislation and then blocking all of Obamas. You can't argue with the math on this one. I am sure that pipeline gets built eventually. This is a typical delay for such a big project.
Until then, I've requested comments on my most recent post: Why are Obama's critics so dumb? http://sussex.patch.com/blog_posts/why-are-obamas-critics-so-dumb
“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has a little trick up his sleeve that could spell an end to President Bush’s devilish recess appointments of controversial figures like former United Nations Ambassador John Bolton.” U.S. News reports: We hear that over the long August vacation, when those types of summer hires are made, Reid will call the Senate into session just long enough to force the prez to send his nominees who need confirmation to the chamber. The talk is he will hold a quickie “pro forma” session every 10 days, tapping a local senator to run the hall. Senate workers and Republicans are miffed, but Reid is proving that he’s the new sheriff in town. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/20/reids-plan-to-block... /