"I Refuse to Take 'No' for an answer"

[Inquartata]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-bypasses...183629338.html

SHAKER HEIGHTS, Ohio (AP) — A defiant President Barack Obama, tired of Senate Republicans stalling his nominee to lead a new consumer protection agency, put him in charge Wednesday over their opposition.

"I refuse to take 'no' for an answer," the president said.

Outraged GOP leaders in Congress immediately suggested that courts would determine whether Richard Cordray's appointment was illegal.

With a director in place, Obama said the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau can start overseeing the mortgage companies, payday lenders, debt collectors and other financial operations often blamed for practices that helped undermine the economy.

Obama announced the move with Cordray by his side before a cheering crowd in Ohio, a politically vital state where Cordray once was attorney general.

"Every day that we waited was another day when millions of Americans are left unprotected," Obama.

Until Cordray took over, the office didn't have all the tools needed "to protect consumers against dishonest mortgage brokers or payday lenders, and debt collectors who are taking advantage of consumers," Obama said. "And that's inexcusable. It's wrong."

In political terms, the recess appointment during the congressional break raised the level of confrontation for a president seeking re-election by championing the middle class and challenging an unpopular Congress. Acting right after Tuesday's GOP presidential caucuses in Iowa, Obama sought to grab attention and show he would not be slowed, making his most brazen leap-frog over Congress.

Senate Republicans had halted Cordray's nomination because they think the consumer agency is too powerful and unaccountable.

The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, accused Obama of an unprecedented power grab that "arrogantly circumvented the American people."

Added House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio: "It's clear the president would rather trample our system of separation of powers than work with Republicans to move the country forward. This action goes beyond the president's authority, and I expect the courts will find the appointment to be illegitimate."

It was unclear who might undertake a legal fight. But people familiar with the matter said an outside private group regulated by the consumer agency might be in the best legal position.

By going around the Senate, where Democrats hold an edge but Republicans can block action, Obama essentially declared that the chamber's short off-and-on sessions are a sham intended to block him, but don't prevent him from such an appointment.

Yet it was his own party that started the practice when Republican George W. Bush was president.

In reality, Obama had little choice to get the consumer agency fully running after months of stalemate.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer announced Obama's move on Twitter after senior administration officials first confirmed it to The Associated Press. Obama spokesman Jay Carney said White House lawyers have determined Obama is within his bounds to appoint Cordray now.

Cordray, who's expected to take over this week, stands to serve for at least the next two years, until the end of the Senate's next session, the White House said.

At a high school in the Cleveland suburb of Shaker Heights, Obama said Republicans were only blocking Cordray because they wanted to water down consumer protections.

"I'm not going to stand by while a minority in the Senate puts party ideology ahead of the people we were elected to serve," he said.

More than a standoff over one significant appointment, the fight speaks to the heart of a presidential campaign under way. Presiding over a troubled but improving economy, Obama's must persuade a weary middle class that he is their advocate, while fending off criticism from Republicans challengers and lawmakers.

Obama has constitutional power to make appointments during a congressional recess.

Expressly to keep that from happening, Republicans in the Senate have had the Senate running in "pro forma" sessions, meaning open for business in name with no actual business planned. Democrats started the practice under Bush to halt him from making recess appointments.

The Senate held such a session on Tuesday and planned another one on Friday. Republicans contend Obama cannot make a recess appointment during such a break of less than three days, based on years of precedent, and they point to comments by Obama's own Justice Department echoing that view.

Regardless, the Obama White House now contends such an approach is a gimmick.

For all practical purposes, the Senate is in recess and Obama is free to make the appointment on his own, without Senate confirmation, administration officials said.

McConnell shot back that Obama's move "lands this appointee in uncertain legal territory, threatens the confirmation process and fundamentally endangers the Congress' role in providing a check on the excesses of the executive branch."

The president also was expected to announce other recess appointments, possibly including nominees to the National Labor Relations Board.

Republicans have had little opposition if any to the qualifications of Cordray. Their objection is with the consumer agency itself.

Obama and his team say lawmakers should try to revise the Wall Street oversight law if they don't like it, not keep the agency from performing its job.

Before his remarks Wednesday, Obama met with a family that got taken advantage of by a mortgage broker. He wanted to use their story as an example of how the consumer agency can crack down on such practices.

Obama was focusing on the most Democratic congressional district in Ohio, a Cleveland suburb, a day after Mitt Romney won Iowa's Republican presidential caucuses by just eight votes. Obama's trip signals the White House's intent to keep the president in the public eye even as the political world focuses on the GOP's selection process.

I was watching a discussion of this on The News Hour yesterday. I didn't know that Harry Reid had invented this 'gimmick'---and Obama is of course correct, that's exactly what it is---of 'pro forma' sessions---where nothing is done and no business conducted---to prevent recess appointments. But then, gimmicks are what half of the legislative process is about. So much for 'advise and consent', apparently...yet I'm sure that this is somehow, in some way, NOT an attack on the Constitution, as it would have been under a Republican president.

Also interestingly, the new agency has been constructed in such a way that its budget is outside of the House appropriations process, hence beyond Congressional control. Also not, I'd imagine, an attack on the Constitutionally prescribed separation of powers or anything.

Your thoughts?

PS Obama: "What a douchebag!" Am I right?

[erooMynohtnA]

My eyes! Oh, poor em dash—what has become of you?

[migopod]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-bypasses...183629338.html



I was watching a discussion of this on The News Hour yesterday. I didn't know that Harry Reid had invented this 'gimmick'---and Obama is of course correct, that's exactly what it is---of 'pro forma' sessions---where nothing is done and no business conducted---to prevent recess appointments. But then, gimmicks are what half of the legislative process is about. So much for 'advise and consent', apparently...yet I'm sure that this is somehow, in some way, NOT an attack on the Constitution, as it would have been under a Republican president.

Also interestingly, the new agency has been constructed in such a way that its budget is outside of the House appropriations process, hence beyond Congressional control. Also not, I'd imagine, an attack on the Constitutionally prescribed separation of powers or anything.

Your thoughts?

PS Obama: "What a douchebag!" Am I right?

TL;DR. What's your complaint exactly? That Pro Forma sessions happen or recess appointments happen?

Either way, both Republicans and Democrats have been known to do both things so what's the big deal?

[I_luv_saber]

TL;DR. What's your complaint exactly? That Pro Forma sessions happen or recess appointments happen?

Either way, both Republicans and Democrats have been known to do both things so what's the big deal?

I think the "big deal" is all the wailing about obstructionism now that the shoe is on the other foot. As noted, this was started by Democrats wanting to prevent Bush from making what they saw as unilateral appointments, and I'm sure they did not consider themselves obstructionist because of it. Now he is ignoring that procedure because the Republicans are being "obstructionist" by using their own tactic against them. I think the point is the double-standard.

[migopod]

I think the "big deal" is all the wailing about obstructionism now that the shoe is on the other foot. As noted, this was started by Democrats wanting to prevent Bush from making what they saw as unilateral appointments, and I'm sure they did not consider themselves obstructionist because of it. Now he is ignoring that procedure because the Republicans are being "obstructionist" by using their own tactic against them. I think the point is the double-standard.

Personally as a non-democrat / non-republican looking in from the outside what I've generally observed is Democrats doing something a couple of times and then Republicans using the same tactic every time and both parties claiming that the other is being hypocritical.

Kinda like how Dems filibustered some stuff every now and again when they were in the minority under Bush so now Republicans filibuster every single thing now. Previous to this congress I don't think I had heard the phrase "lost 59 to 41" for every piece of potential legislation. In fact if you were to believe the Left Wing Media it takes 60 votes to pass a bill through the senate now.

I still think it's cute that people like Inq think that there's some kind of real difference between Dems and Republicans.

[jkormann]

There were two Republican pundits on the (NPR) radio last night as I was coming back from FAP. One of them said that the Repubs "hate Obama and will do anything to remove him." What did this man do, other than win the election, that they "hate" him for? And "hate" to the point that if he said it was a nice day, there would be press releases that he's ignoring people who are not having a "nice day". It's become silly.

[migopod]

There were two Republican pundits on the (NPR) radio last night as I was coming back from FAP. One of them said that the Repubs "hate Obama and will do anything to remove him." What did this man do, other than win the election, that they "hate" him for? And "hate" to the point that if he said it was a nice day, there would be press releases that he's ignoring people who are not having a "nice day". It's become silly.

As far as I can tell the reason why Republicans have such a hate-on for Obama is that he's embraced so many Republican policy positions that they don't have anything left and have to start opposing their own ideas on a regular basis and the cognitive dissonance hurts their tiny brains.

[mrbiggs]

I think the "big deal" is all the wailing about obstructionism now that the shoe is on the other foot. As noted, this was started by Democrats wanting to prevent Bush from making what they saw as unilateral appointments, and I'm sure they did not consider themselves obstructionist because of it. Now he is ignoring that procedure because the Republicans are being "obstructionist" by using their own tactic against them. I think the point is the double-standard.

I see less of a double-standard, and more of both sides using the same tactics to get things done. The Republicans weren't happy about the Democrats using these tactics either. I'm not really familiar with what happened the first time (honestly I had no idea Reid was involved in this way), but I'd be quite surprised if Bush just rolled over and went "OK, you guys win, no appointment!" That was never really his style...

I'm honestly just happy that Obama has finally realized that he's the freaking President and it's his job to do things, not sit around whining about how the Republicans won't let him to anything. I hope to see more actual action by the President along these lines in the future, which will help him in the election. (As he'll be labelled simply as a communist, instead of a communist who doesn't do anything).

[Inquartata]

Personally as a non-democrat / non-republican looking in from the outside what I've generally observed is Democrats doing something a couple of times and then Republicans using the same tactic every time and both parties claiming that the other is being hypocritical.

Kinda like how Dems filibustered some stuff every now and again when they were in the minority under Bush so now Republicans filibuster every single thing now.

Yes. I've noted several times over the years that it goes like this. The Democrats come up with these novel procedural "gimmicks" ( the White House's word ) when they are in the minority and are all smug about how well they block the majority's actions with them. Then later on the Republicans use the same ploys, usually perfecting and polishing them, whereupon the Democrats cry 'foul' and whinge about how they can't get any of their actions through because of it.

Typically, it's not the Republicans who devise these things. They just hoist the Dems on their own petards.

And the point of this all is what I wrote: Technically, gimmick or no, the Senate is in session, and recess appointments should therefore not be permitted. The additional matter of the way the agency is set up to evade Congressional control of its budget is secondary but also important IMO.

Most important of all, though, is that Obama is such a douchebag because of this.

NB If there's really no difference between Republicans and Democrats I look forward to seeing video evidence of Migopod voting for a Republican.

[jkormann]

This new agency is set-up to avoid Congress unfunding it when the agency does something that is fiscally and legally necessary but politically (donor-wise) detremental. They took away one of Congress' favorite sticks: the Power of the Purse. It's the same way the Justice Dept is supposed to be independent. See how far that went under Bush43.

And good for Obama to make a decision. Just curious why it took him this long to do it - nothing with the election cycle timing, I'm sure.

[Inquartata]

This new agency is set-up to avoid Congress unfunding it when the agency does something that is fiscally and legally necessary but politically (donor-wise) detremental.

You really think it's limited to that? ( And who decides what is "politically detrimental"? )

They took away one of Congress' favorite sticks: the Power of the Purse.

Exactly. And that's the problem: They are not allowed to do that. Under Article I, that is the sole purview of the House. The executive branch is not permitted to raise and disburse funding for agencies on its own authority.

It's the same way the Justice Dept is supposed to be independent.

The Justice Department's budget goes through the appropriations process in Congress in the traditional manner.

[jkormann]

You really think it's limited to that? ( And who decides what is "politically detrimental"? )




Exactly. And that's the problem: They are not allowed to do that. Under Article I, that is the sole purview of the House. The executive branch is not permitted to raise and disburse funding for agencies on its own authority.



The Justice Department's budget goes through the appropriations process in Congress in the traditional manner.

Politically detrimental = whatever the congress-critter decides. Decision making can be based on his funding sources. You ever try to see your congress-critter? Bring a checkbook.

The Exec branch isn't disbursing funds here. This is a funded agency, not at the political discression of the House. I’m not happy about that, but I am happy that it won’t be a fiscal football. "We don't like you. No money!"

I mis-typed. You are correct: Justice budget is determined through normal processes. By law, they are supposed to be an independent body without any external political influence.

[migopod]

Most important of all, though, is that Obama is such a douchebag because of this.

NB If there's really no difference between Republicans and Democrats I look forward to seeing video evidence of Migopod voting for a Republican.

False dichotomy. I still have the option of not voting for either party and I usually don't vote Democrat unless it's a particular Democrat that I really like for reasons other than party affiliation (eg Feingold). Also if you like I'll video myself voting for a Republican during the primaries if there are any candidates still in the running other than Willard by the time the Wisconsin primaries are held. I'll have to be sneaky though since IIRC you're not allowed to photo or video in polling places.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

That Obama guy. Such an abuser of the recess appointment usurpation of the checks and balances.

recess.jpg

The Senate is such an odd place, full of ossified ideas about doing business. I was also mildly surprised to hear that Harry Reid came up with the "pro forma" idea...but it's just another of the many dysfunctional ideas the Senate plays with. Secret holds, filibusters with no filibustering required, being in session when there are only two people there and no business is transacted...the list is long.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

As much as I enjoy watching jazz-hands hyperventilation about an agency that has some protection from ideologues, is the CFPB singularly different from other financial regulatory agencies like the FDIC, OCC, the Fed (under whose budget the CFPB gets money) the Federal Housing Finance Agency and others who are funded by fees and assessments? This gives them some breathing room that NPR can only dream about.

Meanwhile, it hardly seems like a rogue agency of a sort that reduces the steel-jawed fiscal hawks into Wuthering Heights vapors-sufferers. There are plenty of checks and balances and oversights, and the overall bill itself seems a pale shadow of what it should have been.

[Inquartata]

As much as I enjoy watching jazz-hands hyperventilation about an agency that has some protection from ideologues,

IOW...the way the Founders set things up to run? Screw the Constitutional separation of powers, as long as things the President wants get done?

Would you have said the same thing if Bush had set up an agency to accomplish his goals in the same way?

...is the CFPB singularly different from other financial regulatory agencies like the FDIC, OCC, the Fed (under whose budget the CFPB gets money) the Federal Housing Finance Agency and others who are funded by fees and assessments?

The Fed is, at least nominally, a system of private banks, not a government agency. I'm not sure why the CFPD was tucked under the Fed's wing, unless it was specifically to evade the Congressional oversight and control which is supposed to characterize the federal law---whether we like political interference with the bureaucracy or not, the Constitution sets the rules of the game, and "the power of the purse" is assigned to Congress. Bypassing politics would be a fine ideal, were it not for the fact that the Founders seem to have intended it not to be thus bypassed.

To applaud the move seems to me tantamount to applauding exactly what Bush's critics so stridently declared him to be pursuing: The diminution of Constitutional protections.

There are plenty of checks and balances and oversights, and the overall bill itself seems a pale shadow of what it should have been.

What would those be?

[Capt. Slo-mo]

The Fed is, at least nominally, a system of private banks, not a government agency. I'm not sure why the CFPD was tucked under the Fed's wing, unless it was specifically to evade the Congressional oversight and control which is supposed to characterize the federal law...

Yet, the FDIC "...examines and supervises certain financial institutions for safety and soundness, performs certain consumer protection functions, and manages banks in receivership..." and does so without annual infusions of Constitutionally pure cash from the Congress...instead functioning through fees/premiums collected from those it oversees. So far no sign of subterranean rotation from our Founders.

What would those be?

Well...the Financial Stability Oversight Council can veto the CFPB's actions with a 2/3 vote...something no other regulator is subject to.

The Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB to submit annual financial reports to Congress, and report twice a year to justify its budget. The director must testify twice each year about CFPB activities. CFPB must submit financial operating forecasts and quarterly financial reports to the Office of Management and Budget. Unlike other banking regulators, the CFPB is subject to an audit by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), presents its findings to Congress. Congress has the power to overturn regulations through the Congressional Review Act.

So it hardly seems a rogue rhinocerus thundering through the halls of power, a tattered copy of the Constitution ripped from the glass case in the National Archives and impaled on its fearsome horn, impervious to the feeble cries of the House Appropriations Committee members it tramples.

[jeff]

Outstanding imagery, Captain! Sounds like the kind of job that would call for Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson.

It is more instructive to consider that opposition to the CFPB is rooted in what it is intended to do, not how its funded. Even the quoted material says "In reality, Obama had little choice to get the consumer agency fully running after months of stalemate." - because some people simply don't want an agency to provide consumer protection from practices by banks, brokerages, mortgage lenders. You know - the nice guys who almost gave us another Great Depression. If funding is one's concern, better to consider the millions of dollars spent by the financial services industry to purchase influence of the representatives.

[Philistine]

IOW...the way the Founders set things up to run? Screw the Constitutional separation of powers, as long as things the President wants get done?

Would you have said the same thing if Bush had set up an agency to accomplish his goals in the same way?

{snip}-whether we like political interference with the bureaucracy or not, the Constitution sets the rules of the game, and "the power of the purse" is assigned to Congress. {snip}

You seem to be under the impression that the the mechanism for funding the CFPD was set up by the President. This is not the case, other than the fact that he signed the law that Congress passed.

I think it also pertinent to point out that the Republican opposition to confirmation was not to Cordray but rather to confirming anyone unless the agnency was revamped.

Further, on the issue of Constitutional protections--AIUI, the Senate's pro-forma sessions only exist because the House has refused consent to adjourn, somewhat abrogating the whole advise and constent process...

I don't know enough about the area to have much of an idea of what position is technically correct (though I've seen some persuasive arguments from someone who does that it was)--but I think it's a somewhat different position than previous brouhahas over recess appointments. And really--is this something the Republican's want to go to the mat on--arguing against the existence of a watch-dog on Wall-Street?

--Philistine

[jkormann]

And while the R-Congress is happy to argue about this person's appointment, they can quite willingly create SOPA and NDAA.