Getty Images
Elizabeth Warren, Richard Cordray, and President Obama
It's not exactly news that Senate filibuster rules have been abused to the point of breaking the institution. Though the Senate operated by majority rule for about two centuries, there are now, as a practical matter, mandatory supermajorities for just about everything.
That said, some filibusters matter far more than others, and some may even rise to the level of a constitutional crisis.
President Obama nominated Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau about a year ago, and no one could find any objections to his qualifications. But Republicans don't believe the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau should exist, so they blocked Cordray's nomination in order to stop the law from being implemented. Indeed, GOP senators said they would indefinitely refuse to allow the agency to function -- or do any work at all -- unless Democrats agreed to weaken the CFPB's powers and lessen consumer protections.
Just so we're clear, this had never happened in American history. There was no precedent for the Senate blocking a qualified nominee solely because a minority of the chamber did not like the existence of the agency the nominee was selected to lead.
Obama tried to work around this blockade by giving Cordray a recess appointment, which according to a federal appeals court, may not have been entirely kosher. Either way, the president has now asked the Senate to give Cordray's nomination an up-or-down vote, which appears to have started the mess all over again.
Senate Republicans are renewing their vow to block any nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) unless major changes are made to its structure.
In a letter sent to President Obama on Friday, 43 Republican senators committed to refusing approval of any nominee to head the consumer watchdog until the bureau underwent significant reform. Lawmakers signing on to the letter included Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee.
I know this might seem like inside baseball. For those who've grown accustomed to a constant stream of filibusters, this probably even seems routine. It's why I think it's important to stress how truly radical the Republican move really is.
What we're talking about here is a shrinking Senate minority pursuing a nullification strategy -- they want to nullify federal law by abusing procedural tactics in a way that's literally never been done in the United States.
If Senate Republicans want changes to the CFPB, there's already a mechanism in place that allows them to pursue reforms: it's called the existing legislative process. Senators can write a bill, send it to committee, try to persuade their colleagues of the proposal's merit, debate it on the floor, vote for it, etc.
But that takes time and effort, and it might not work, especially since the changes the GOP wants are absurd. So, instead, Republicans intend to block existing federal law from taking effect unless Democrats accept changes demanded by financial industry lobbyists.
This is crazy. The Republican message, in a nutshell, is this: "Weaken consumer protections or we'll use filibusters to block the executive branch from enforcing existing federal law." Our system of government simply can't work this way.
In fact, it's scandalous in its own right that Republicans are determined to prevent the CFPB from serving as a public watchdog, looking out for American consumers against financial industry excesses. It appears the GOP wants to return Wall Street oversight to the conditions that helped create the 2008 crash in the first place.
What's more, if recess appointments are off the table, it leaves the White House with no real options. Obama can't enforce federal law because the Senate minority won't let him, and he can't appoint officials to his own administration when the Senate leaves town -- exercising a power specifically given to the executive in the Constitution -- because, according to Republicans, congressional recesses no longer exist.
I realize phrases like "constitutional crises" should not be thrown around casually, but the Senate minority's strategy is untenable.
And since the White House has effectively run out of legal options, that leaves one of three possibilities: (1) a minority of the Senate, for the first time in American history, nullifies federal law by abusing filibusters; (2) a majority of the Senate reforms filibuster rules through the so-called "nuclear option"; or (3) public pressure forces the Senate minority to back down.
Something's gotta give.
Leave a Comment:
Thank you Harry Reid
I hope from the bottom of my heart that this man is primaried to death in his next run for an undeserved re-election.
Gus: You want a Democrat Party and base that demands the kind of purity that the right wing base favors? You will end up with literally no adults in the room during actual moments when we need them. Primaries cost alot of money and treasure, so the fact that the repukes constantly have to deal with this costs them alot.
I know Harry had two years to get the blockhead Democrats, like Baucas and Manchin, Boxer, Feinstein, and Schumer on board and didn't in the end, but those five experienced Senators are to blame as much or more than Harry. They are the ones who deserve our pressure and animosity more than ever. Get them on board and Harry wouldn't have said he wasn't ready. Obviously, the rules must be changed.
It's not just Reid. I have little doubt that Schumer and Durbin also oppose real Senate rules reforms. I have some hopes that Patty Murray recalls her origins and the backbone for a principled stand.
My long view is that there is a hormonal imbalance in the Senate. For example, take a look at those in power who are bucking the collusion of inaction over the oversight duties of Congress. The people I see standing up regarding the lies told about the program of torture are people like Diane Feinstein- of meaningful oversight over the drone program- Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps the long strategy to reform the Senate is to forcefully back female progressives. People who aren't so vulnerable to the paralyzing delirium of dominance hormones.
Thank you Democratic Senators for failing to take the necessary action, and showing us all why it was that Julius Caesar was welcomed as a reformer when he neutered the dysfunctional Roman Senate.
Mr. Messerly: you are obviously not from California. Dianne Feinstein is not only not a progressive, she really isn't a Democrat. Had George Moscone not been assassinated, we wouldn't that worthless PoS to deal with, since we'd have been able to stop her career 30 years ago as so many of us wanted to do.
OK Harry, nuclear or bust.
You just knew our candyass Dependably Useless Democrat, Lebowsky DUD, would be here to defend Reid's spinelessness. Note how DUD uses the Republican uglification of Democratic to make it the Democrat party. Makes you wonder doesn't it?
For everybody else, yeah, let's all have another shout out for Reid's solicitous concern for Mitch McConnell and his merry band of obstructionists. It's time the nuke the filibuster when it comes to nominations. Period.
John Messerly, #1.4 First, let me compliment you on your avatar. I like it a lot.
We definitely need to back the female progressives. I, however, have little hope anymore that anything meaningful will ever get done to reform Washington. Not with the GOP determined to deregulate Wall Street. Until we get the money out of politics, I see no help from the GOP in either the Senate or the House.
I think we know what creature will fly on that great gettin' up morning when we get money out of politics.
I have hopes for OFA and an outside game. There were some suggestions in the Atlantic article that control would be decentralized to local organizers and be merit based, but so far I have seen very little activity except lame calls for contacting congresspersons.
TC- it's not that I don't have beefs with her. For example, the enormity of exceptions in the assault weapons ban is shocking, and no, it doesn't come as any particular surprise. The focus of my note was not about the meat of policy, but its motion. Though I do not subscribe to hormonal determinism, there are distinct chemical based titling of the playing field in favor the Senate's culture of patriarchal dominance games. Composition can change that, and even if that means more Feinsteins, Hillarys, and McCaskills, my view is that it will tend to tilt the playing field back in favor of focus on fairness in process.
Actually, I worked for Levi Strauss for a few years living in SF while she was mayor. She was not well liked among my friends in the art community there, in particular for her attempts to move to the center in order to gain higher office. I have made no secret of my affection for another former SF politician who demonstrated an alternate theory of public service and how to best interact with power to achieve social change. My impression was that Feinstein was not doing it so much because she was making cynical calculations- I got the impression she sincerely held the more conservative views that people living out in the Avenues clung to. That is, some saw her as a progressive who sold out. My view was that she was a moderate to right wing Dem who was a progressive poser due to the requirements of the politics of the city. But I wasn't there that long so my views weren't all that developed- I mostly was trying to cope with the culture shock of wearing suits and short hair in a Reagan world after so many years in a completely different universe. Everything looked right wing to me.
It still does.
#1.9 "It still does."
Because it is. Obama is far from a leftist progressive president.
We cannot fault Reid for not making filibuster changes when the necessary votes did not exist. And we do not know how much arm twisting Reid tried with the recalcitrant Dems who obstructed reform. Being Dem majority leader with so many personalities and views on any given issue is more difficult than Boehner's position who has only two factions to work around. It will have to be the public that brings the necessary pressure on the Senate. Obama cannot publicly lambaste the Dems because he will have difficult getting votes for legislation. A group of progressive organizations to whip up public opinion might be enough to get public opinion and anger to move the Senate.
Bernie Sanders stated in his interview I think with O'Donnell that they had 47 or 48 votes. Are you claiming that the Dems could not bend 2 more Senators to their way of thinking? They could have spent two months on such an effort and it would have been a bargain- time well spent since the alternative is more gridlock.
Re: 1.10: Yep. Bill Moyer's show last night was so so depressing because it is so so true. For OFA to be credible, progressives must be willing to challenge their culture hero on Wall Street prosecutions, the drone war, and the massive initiatives necessary to address income inequality and climate change. That is a huge range of issues requiring massive shifts in policy that will not come about without immense pressure. I am skeptical OFA can challenge the White House in anything but a cosmetic way, given the fierce loyalty of the lieutenants in command of the organization.
I have been paying a lot of attention to them because they appear to have a good handle on evidence based grass roots mobilization.
Dystemper: It's nice for me to have fanboys like you, it builds the already enlarged ego I carry around. In Little League there were dozens of you critters trying to knock me down, in fact I miss those days because the quality of those twelve year olds barbs at me was so superior to your fits of hissy. Maybe you should attend a seminar, do lunch.
OFA's page on Facebook has 663 likes.
Still no OFA domain. The mails still go to BarackObama.com.
I am getting a real bad feeling about this. I don't see that we end the inaction unless elected officials take seriously a threat to their incumbency. That means the organization is going demonstrate credibility in making hard hitting pushes that affect the outcome of political campaigns.
#1.11 Mike P
I Agree with you to a certain point , the problem I have with Reid , is that it was not put to a vote, so we could see who and what we needed to do to get filibuster reform passed , and then worked it for a month , as Messerly is pointing out
Even if that failed , dems would know where our party stood on the issue , as it is now , those who opposed reform were all given cover , which makes the whole dem party stink imo
To the subject in general . look at the op , and imagine if the dem senators had done their job , and made the senate more functional , the way it was created to actually work , they would be debating the pros and cons of the CFBP and its new director , then they would have voted to confirm or not confirm , and we would be moving forward with real consumer protection for working americans for the 1st time ever , instead we get to witness a useless cluster @!$%#
I do not see how anyone could ever justify destroying the basic functions of our constitutional government
Patango: The CFPB is up and running, doing it's job with a recess appointed director. This article is about speculation of the future, and a Republican threat letter. The work in the CFPB is not stopped by a freaky Appelate Court ruling that may or may not apply. If the Republicans push this insanity that gimmicks are allowed to take precedent over decades of established law and precedent, they will likely get clobbered in court.
Once again, I cannot understand why the White House and Congressional Democrats don't fight to make this travesty a national story.
MAKE the Republicans defend their actions which make it easier for their Wall Street johns to defraud the public and steal from middle class workers.
Not to worry, subprime loans are already back courtesy of the CFPB. Or at least they would be if not for the courts. Can we now place blame on the subprime crisis with the Democrats? Here is the smoking gun and why Republicans oppose this kind of unaccountable power.
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-perspective/011413-640522-cfpb-denies-high-cost-lenders-legal-shield.htm?p=full
Really shooter, the best you have to prove your story is an editorial from the Investors Business Daily? The same 'publication' that made the comment that if Dr. Stephen Hawking was under the NHS in the UK that he would not have been allowed to live, due to his disability?
I give that editorial about as much credibility of what the CFPB is actually doing as I would believe you are the King of Siam. And I really doubt you are.
Shooter, as usual with gun nuts like you, you've shot yourself in the foot. I know that in the echo chamber you live in, up is down and black is white, but there have been more studies both inside and outside of government showing that the crash did not happen because of lending to "those people." Moreover, the private sector was falling all over themselves to lend to them and complained that gov't regulations were adding to the costs of lending to "those people."
All this said Shooter, I have to tell you I appreciate your presence: you make me go back to find the sources for what I have heard presented - you're always wrong (at least, I haven't found a case where you weren't) but it's good to find the reference for when the "crazy uncles" come to town. Not that they believe it anyway, because it's all a "vast left-wing conspiracy," but for more normal people, it's good to give them the data.
This indeed will be quite an important battle. I bet they back down until the SCOTUS looks at this insane decision from the DC Court.
And you think the right wing Supreme Court isn't going to back the right wing DC Court? They're all in it together.
The decision is so ridiculously slanted towards permanent political gridlock that Kennedy and Roberts would kill it IMHO.
As a member of the watchdog group, Public Citizen, let me assure everyone how badly we need this CFPB in DC.
The corruption is so rampant, especially among the Republicans, that they will fight to the death to prevent this.
My counter argument (to the Supreme Court striking down this ruling) would be just two words: Citizens United
I don't think we can predict how any of the justices are going to come down on the issue. Even conservatives on the court have to consider the implications for future presidents that will include Republicans. The issue is very unusual because it is a new Constitutional issue. Maybe the court can find a justification for an acting head of an agency until Congress approves a nominee. That could end the whole issue now and for a long time to come. It would also toss the issue back to Congress to do its job.
To hold hostage legislation already passed into law, signed by the president, and applicable as the law of the land until a judicial review may change it, is to commit the utmost repugnance toward our way of life!
To abuse procedural machinations to effect the thwarting of legitimate laws is to soil the halls of Congress these Republicans claim to love!
Yes, Mitch McConnell, rats usually shyt where they nest, and your filibuster abuse is having the same opportunistic affect as these rodent creatures have diseased babies! -Kevo
Oh please, what dramatics. The Republicans are following the law as established. Don't like it? Too bad. Maybe you all should address the reasons Republicans have a problem with the CFPB, namely it is an uncontrollable, unaccountable, agency. No transparency, and no oversight make it kafkaesque before it even has the opportunity to exercise it's immense power.
Boy Peashooter - you sure got hold of some idiotic talking points to reprint just below my musing! Oh, how I feel so blessed you want me to edify you away from your ignorance:
You're confusing passed legislation with the fantasies in your mind - the CFPB is a lawful office that has been prevented from becoming fully operational, so your talking points about being Kafkaesque are fantasy - and I'm am impressed you can reference Kafka! What language did he write in? What society of abused power was he referring?
When you find the answers, you'll also find your observation about Kafka is simply a misnomer suffered by those who don't read too much! -Kevo
More and more I think the Republican right would prefer civil war or the destruction of the country to allowing anyone but themselves to govern.
Maybe you like being governed by bureaucrats, most don't. Bureaucrats are almost always petty tyrants.
Gus, #5
I would have to agree with you there. They would like nothing more than to take over this country and turn it into a fascist one where they could rule with an iron fist.
I like a whole let better being "governed" by bureaucrats than I do bankers!
ISH (Insert sarcasm here) ~ Perhaps the President should use his powers under the NDAA to remove a few Republicans for an all expense paid waterboarding recess in Quantnamo for a week or two. Maybe that would change their minds about creating a constitutional crisis and waterboarding and Section 1021 of the act … all at the same time. (I really wish these comment sections would have an sarcasm option to go along with bold and italic).
yessir! Months ago, I asked for an html code for snark, such as "<snark>comment</snark>", but it didn't raise any interest.
I have this cut-and-paste item, handy on my desktop!
(Before replying, check the batteries in your SnarkOmeter.)
and also-
Beware: Bridge Out -Sarchasm Ahead
I'm particularly embarrassed by my two Senators from California - Feinstein and Boxer. They both came out against filibuster reform.
Shame on them.
As a Californian I agree. Disgusting - corrupt, power obsessed, and myopic. I wish primary challenges were easier to pull off because the rethugs are so much worse.
You guys should be aware that with the changes in the primary system, we have made the Republicans in California irrelevant. How great it would be to get Robert Reich to run for Boxer's seat next time. I have to say that, having known Barbara Boxer since before she was even a member of the Marin County Board of Supervisors, I was pretty damn surprised by her position on the filibuster reform. She (as opposed to DINO Dianne) really is a progressive. I know she is considering retiring, so getting someone of Reich's caliber is going to be really necessary, and soon.
the issue/ problem is quite simple, really - the reason some dems are against fili-ibastard reform is BECAUSE they might have need of it (someday) when they have fallen into disrepute.
Barbara Boxer has been the best Senator from my State in my 52 years of life. I have not heard any retirement talk about her, she is not up till 2016. Feinstein is not worth a darn, mostly.
Boxer has been decent on the whole. But this issue is not simply a difference of opinion and the only rational explanation I can come up with is that she likes having power at her disposal that in fact no one should have as it undermines our system of government. In other words, even decent people can be corrupted by power. But having been corrupted they can only be counted on to be decent when it does not threaten their power. If there is a better explanation for Boxer's behavior I'd love to hear it.
TC in LA, I would love to see Robert Reich in her seat!
Gus: This never even came up for a vote, so holding Boxer accountable for something we don't even know the positions of others on is not fair. She is hardly a power hungry politician, as her vote against the Iraq War easily proves.
Gus , I would say that is pretty spot on
Dude , she came out against it , then her and the rest of them dem leadership made sure it never came up for a vote , it is spineless dems like you that make the dem party worthless
My dem senator has made bad calls also , and he is called on it , making excuses for them only undermines the whole of the dem party , they are shilling for big money and wall st , period
And yes Dude , working class dems are working to kick these people out of office , the more people like you cry about it , the better we know we are doing a good job at it
Lebowsky Dude
What does that even mean? She took a position and I disagree with that position. That's the way real democracy works.
One of the GOP senators on the Foreign Relations committee, Inhofe perhaps, said that he was opposing Hagel because he stood for the same principles as the President. So that's another example of these people using procedural tricks to undo the outcome of the election. Basically they are denying the President's legitimacy and preventing him from using the powers of his office.
On the other hand the President broke the law and got his ass handed to him by the judiciary. That's exactly how the system is supposed to work.
I know, don't feed, but over 200 recess appointments by Reagan and where was your outrage for THAT Presiden'ts "breaking of the law". Yeah, right.
And it is not A LAW , it is A RULE OF THE CONGRESS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH , shooter and his idiot gop are just to stupid to even know what is what , and the USSC may just throw it out because of that
As opposed to the majority of the Senate nullifying federal law by NOT passing a budget.
This is just like anything else in Washington, both sides are playing games. Obama did not appoint Warren as his assistant instead of the bureau director to avoid oversight. The Republicans want more accountability with this new agency because it has little to no accountability...to anyone. They've said they will not even approve a Republican for the position. This doesn't even count Obama's unconstitutional attempt to appoint the agency head.
This is how the process works (and yes, sometimes does not). But make no mistakes, both sides do the same thing.
Pretty transparent try to paper over the assaults on our constitutional order by a ruthless minority. Read Madison's Federalist 10, focus on his analysis of what factions do to a free government when they get too strong.
But then, members of factions really do not care about the future of the country if they cannot rule it.
Wrong...false equivalency warning....
what the RETHUGS need to remember is the old adage "LEAD, FOLLOW, or GET THE HELL OUT OF MY WAY!"
What specifically is wrong in my post? Put your proof where you accusation.
This is so funny and so typical. Someone says "you're wrong!" but when asked for specifics, they run and hide.
"Something's got to give"??? Why?
Let's get real here. IF Harry Reid had truly wanted to reform the Senate rules against abuse of the filibuster, he could have done so. Hell, he said he was going to do just that. But, Reid doesn't want to open up the Sensate to do its job and vote on laws and appointments. IF he did that, he and the rest of the Democrats would actually have to pass some of the promises they made, and continue to make, to the people who elected them. We might actually get a CFPB with power to protect consumers from the abuses of big banks, big credit card companies and big business. We might get a lot of things we thought we were voting for when we elected Obama for a second term and put the Democrats back in the Senate. Reid is doing exactly what he has been told to do. If the filibuster rules were changed, the Democrats would have no easy excuses for why they can't get anything done that is counter to what big business wants done. As it stands, any time Obama can't get something like decent health care, or Wall Street reform, or banking reform, he (or more likely his apologists) will say, "We really tried, but the Republicans wouldn't let us". Perfect excuse. And he, and the rest of these so called Democrats, take their big "contribution" checks to the bank with smiles on their faces. There is no "party of the people" any more. It all belongs to the rich, we just haven't figured it out yet.
the GOP is committing TREASON against this country.
period.
Hopefully, if I post this enough, people will finally understand how true your statement is:
Hofstadter on the pseudo-conservative (i.e. what is today's movement conservative)
"It can most accurately be called pseudo-conservative -- I borrow the term from the study of The Authoritarian Personality published five years ago by Theodore W. Adorno and his associates -- because its exponents, although they believe themselves to be conservatives and usually employ the rhetoric of conservatism, show signs of a serious and restless dissatisfaction with American life, traditions and institutions"
“Their political reactions express rather a profound and largely unconscious hatred of our society and its ways -- a hatred which one would hesitate to impute to them if one did not have suggestive clinical evidence ... The pseudo-conservative, Adorno writes, shows 'conventionality and authoritarian submissiveness' in his conscious thinking and 'violence, anarchic impulses, and chaotic destructiveness in the unconscious sphere…… The pseudo conservative is a man who, in the name of upholding traditional American values and institutions and defending them against more or less fictitious dangers, consciously or unconsciously aims at their abolition.'"
i hope to god that this fiasco puts some steel in harry reid's backbone.
I have explained several times on my firetreepub.blogspot.com that Reid is from a red state and fears for his job. This same thing drives Blue Dog Democrats. It makes him susceptible to political racketeering. It is like a protection racket; if you do not vote the way we want we will primary you and take away your job. How is that any different then telling a storeowner he or she must pay protection or the gang will trash you store. The tragedy is that Harry Reid is senate majority leader, you know, the one who made the decision about cloture.
I have explained several times on my firetreepub.blogspot.com that Reid is from a red state and fears for his job. This same thing drives Blue Dog Democrats. It makes him susceptible to political racketeering. It is like a protection racket; if you do not vote the way we want we will primary you and take away your job. How is that any different then telling a storeowner he or she must pay protection or the gang will trash your store. The tragedy is that Harry Reid is senate majority leader, you know, the one who made the decision about cloture.
The other democrats should be willing to vote somebody else in as majority leader at least, even if the people won't get rid of him. His political situation means he doesn't (he would say can't) make the best decisions for the public at large.
I know that Steve can't bring himself to see other's veiws as anything but BS but he should have noted the real reason that republicans and independants have a problem with the CFPB. Here is a link to the real problem http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903554904576457931310814462.html
The obama admin is not really looking for real reforms provided by bipartisan agreements. As with all the other CZARS he has created, He only wants his vision to be advanced.
Save us the right wing blarney. Obama drove many of us Democrats and Progressives up the wall with his incessant attempts at bipartisanship and compromising with dishonorable opponents.
You put your party ahead of the country and the constitution and probably call yourself a "patriot." If so, look up the meaning of the word.
sorry Clouseau - WAS or WAS NOT Obama elected as PRESIDENT? Do we have to rub your nose in it again? I support eliminating the roadblocks (but also to reducing FEDERAL SPENDING - starting with the mythical DEFENSE (take a big bite outa THEM for a start.)
Oh You mean like when Obama called Mc Cain and others to the whitehouse only to tell him "I won" so shut up . Yeah I bet that drove you nuts.
You're quoting a Wall Street Journal Editorial? Bwaaahaha!
Those chumps have been so wrong so many times it's amazing.
You gotta be kidding.
which side are you on anyway?
By RICHARD SHELBY
On July 18, President Obama nominated former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau created under the Dodd-Frank Act. Many on the left are disappointed that the president did not choose the Bureau's most vocal advocate, Elizabeth Warren, who currently serves as an assistant to the president and adviser to the Treasury secretary. Republicans, on the other hand, are focused on the key issue: Regardless of who runs it, will the bureau be sufficiently accountable to the American people?
The economic wounds inflicted by other unaccountable government entities are still fresh. Before the housing bubble burst, the government-sponsored Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were beyond reproach. Along with their beneficiaries, they labeled those who raised concerns about their risk to taxpayers as enemies of the American dream of homeownership.
In 2003 and again in 2005, I sponsored legislation to make these institutions financially safe and sound. Each time, Senate Democrats exercised their rights as the minority party to block the legislation, falsely claiming that my aim was to kill Fannie and Freddie and deny Americans the chance to own a home.
Ultimately, Washington's failure to reform Fannie and Freddie had profound consequences. Since the housing bubble burst, taxpayers have paid $165 billion to bail out these institutions. Worse yet, millions of Americans lost their homes and the taxpayers' tab is still open.
The story of Fannie and Freddie is instructive in the debate over the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. During the consideration of Dodd-Frank, the Democrats used their overwhelming majority to foreclose Republican alternatives and create the most powerful yet unaccountable bureaucracy in the federal government. And now guardians of the bureau's structure are railing against those who dare expose its flaws. Don't be fooled.
In its current form, the bureau is headed by a single director. Over a five-year term, the director will have unfettered authority over thousands of American businesses, not just banks. While the bureau receives hundreds of millions of dollars of public money annually, the elected representatives of the American people have no say in how it spends this money. Moreover, other regulators have no meaningful ability to prevent bureau mandates that may threaten the financial health of banks. This is dangerous because American businesses depend on banks, large and small, for funding to grow and to create jobs.
Unless Congress enacts reform, it is only a matter of time before this concentration of power is abused or misused to the detriment of American businesses and consumers. On May 5, 43 of my Senate colleagues joined me in writing a letter to President Obama informing him that we will not confirm any nominee to head the bureau absent structural changes that will make it accountable to those it seeks to protect.
Predictably, as happened when I proposed reforms to Fannie and Freddie, myths abound regarding our motives and the implications of our proposals.
One myth is that we are seeking to gut the powers of the bureau. This is patently false. Our proposal does nothing to curtail the powers granted to the bureau in Dodd-Frank.Mary Kissel of the editorial board on President Obama's plan to nominate Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Another myth is that the bureau is already more accountable than any other financial regulator. This is nonsense. The Securities and Exchange Commission is subject to congressional appropriations and is led by a multi-member panel, as is the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) are also led by boards.
Republicans have proposed three commonsense reforms that we believe will enhance consumer protection while ensuring accountability to the American people:
First, we would establish a board of directors to oversee the bureau. This would allow for the consideration of multiple viewpoints in decision-making and would reduce the potential for the politicization of regulations. This is the very same structure proposed by the president and former House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank at the outset of the financial-reform debate.
Second, we would subject the bureau to the congressional appropriations process to ensure that it doesn't engage in wasteful or unnecessary spending. This also gives Congress the ability to ensure that the bureau is acting in accordance with our legislative intent.
Finally, we would allow bank regulators (such as the FDIC, the Federal Reserve, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency) to prevent the bureau from endangering the safety and soundness of financial institutions—as it would, for example, by unduly banning profitable products or imposing unwarranted and onerous regulations that threaten banks' solvency. Because hundreds of banks have failed since the crisis began, we must protect consumers without inducing more failures. This simple change will accomplish that goal.
Regrettably, President Obama has ignored these proposals for months. As a result, Mr. Cordray's nomination is dead on arrival in the Senate and will remain so until these reasonable changes are made. The law allows the administration to delay the bureau's start date for an additional six months. I encourage President Obama to exercise this option and come to the negotiating table.
Notwithstanding the political hyperbole surrounding the creation and launch of the bureau, Republicans are seeking simple changes to ensure accountability while protecting consumers. Even if every one of our proposed changes were enacted, the bureau would still possess every authority it was given on the day the president signed Dodd-Frank into law. Our proposal offers the president an opportunity for bipartisan agreement. I hope that he will choose to work with Republicans to honor and strengthen the system of checks and balances that has served our country so well
I strongly suggest that this site and other progressive sites continue to press Harry Reid on why he is hesitant. I'd dearly love to know that.
Having read, listened and thought on the subject, I just can't understand what the thinking is here. I know it has something to do with tradition in the senate, and I can respect that; however, I would like to know the particulars. What, in senate tradition, is so sacred as to trump the constitution? The lawful fulfilment of government, in general? The smoother give and take on the country's business?
I believe we are all owed a straight, unadulterated, and non-political explanation as to Harry Reid's (et al) thoughts.
This, too, is a national security issue, but one that must be addressed in the full light of day.
Harry said there are other measures that can be taken. What are they, Harry? Between the Circuit Court's decision. the letter from Turtle to his constitutents the next day, and the new letter from 43 Republicans to block even discussion of Cordray's appointment, it ought to be pretty apparent to this "gang of six" dems who blocked the change back to a simple majority vote and the talking filibuster, that your agreement if what Rachel said, "getting nothing done faster." So, what are those "other" things, Harry. We'd all like to see them before more people don't obtain jobs.
One thing I think Senate Republicans might want to consider regarding this appointment-back here in Buckeye land, Cordray's name has been floated in a possible run against Kasich next year. Let's not forget either that Tea Party darling Sen. Rob Portman would be up for re-election in 2016. The Rs might want to think about this more carefully after the mess they created in MA by pushing for Kerry as SOS & now they can't get anyone to even think about running for that seat. Just something to keep in mind.
There is one more option that didn't make the list. If it's true that the administration feels strongly enough that this is indeed a "Constitutional Crisis" then they can appeal to the Supreme Court and see if they will force the Senate to actually perform it's function as a branch of government. That kind of thing is rare but has been done before...of course you have to wonder how the court would vote on something like this.
This is the makeup of the U.S. Senate arranged in a 10 by 10 matrix. The arrangement is tended to be that of a pike army. While that is a military term it can be seen as analogous to the constitutionally embodied branch of government that is the self-ruled senate.
R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R
R-R-R-D-D-D-D-D-R-R
R-R-D-D-D-D-D-D-R-R
R-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-R
R-D-D-D-D-N-D-D-D-R
R-D-D-D-N-D-D-D-D-R
R-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-R
R-R-D-D-D-D-D-D-R-R
R-R-D-D-D-D-D-D-R-R
R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R
The Senate body may seem to be the entertainment "Cirque du Soleil" for the media pundits, journalist, and notable news men anchored to fixed positions. These Titians of pabulum nightly news media who like the tragedy is based on the myth of Prometheus, a Titan who was punished by the god Zeus for giving fire to mankind; by being tied to middling convention and by having their livers picked by vulture capitalist only be to be replaced by new and improved improvisations of advertisers.
The Senate is analogous to the pike man army in convenient sense that it is capable of defending itself using its unique and unchallengeable commissioning in the constitution if having unchallengeable rules. These rules can be published except that the most significant of then are unspoken, which by cleverness itself make either font too small or the ink of the most vanishing type.
That then makes the Senate's underlying power; near omnipotent but left largely unseen, as comfortable as a soft chair near a fire place warming on the cold night? The Senate is visible when it is having its hearings; these are not hearings in the sense of a real debate or of public deliberations, of the quiet rooms where unsolvable problems are tactfully ignored. These confirmation hearings are most noted because; the pure raw unadulterated power play is performance art. These are difficult for sensitive or sensible or anyone so calloused of mind and soul to watch a tortured sprit. These would be Zeus's, playing vultures of the livered subject, pecking attacks, with the victim bounded gaged to regurgitate the intentional answer that both condemns the victim and begs forgiveness from those have power to have even more power. The Senate engages in bloody feasts to see who may challenge them in any capacity to be the omnipotent Senators of power lust.
We have so many words, because these are weak these words, begging for new ones to capture the meaning of Senate.
The pike army comes to mind just by watching the Senate, the symbolism, internally, it organized by party, not from any constitutional intent for have parties. The fact that is organized as parties means that it can have no control, guilt, feedback or relation to the constitution, this make it extra constitution or outside the constitution. Ironic to have this as the first level organizing concept, since it based on the scant evident of honor, trust that could be assumed or could also be assumed to be vanishingly small. The pike army, assume this as well just because it is there.
To make this internal symbolism current, consider the couture vote's unfortunate history, created to tragically stop debate of filibuster of the WWI treaty. This was unfortunate because it could have been used to thwart the next war or to further it, if at all you can sense the national feeling of invincibility on the nation after the canal was dug and the enemy vanquished a true test of the big stick, and the power of a banking system established. History only says that the nation then fell into a deep economic sleep and lay to rest the old enemies. The bravado can do went abroad, for a few years, and as all ambition does return strengthened by the unaware. The heedless extension of evaporating dreams to wait a rude wakening.
For better or worse America was wedded to the future, not by sweet embrace but the careless shotgun type. The WWII Senate jostled finally awake and with war at hand as it guide. The war Senate faded into generational history; replaced by recharged generation, drenched in recent history of how power could be used, with fading memory of the abuse of power could corrupt as it did.
No matter the detail, the event, the war, the errant path, the excuse, the power of corruption was seen as benefitting power, entitling the holders of power to any deed, to cover any lie, to extinguish any and all who stood in the way.
The pike diagram above we see the edges owned by one party, a minority, who by guile have granted themselves the power to obstruct, it is only in part called a filibuster, but because of the sheer weight of its power, it is joined secretly, by those entrenched in power of the senate, and not of anything American, but by the gain sought from being held by the rules and unwritten of the secret Senate. The enthralling power, of knowing a president's term is limited that of powerful senator is near immortal.
There is no higher moral crime, than to hold millions of lives from achieving their goals, to hold remote death cause by withholding that power, to take into the ultimate future that power was not for the fate of millions that fed it that power.
You can begin see the fruits of this exercise, leveraged by history and seeded by your own thoughts, or suggested by the references below.
While Machiavellian is the adult subject, but we could just use our homemade observations. Parents with their first born, are subject to the stress of having a powerful being in their presence, if they are to have a future at all then that new born has more than enough power to hold your attention. Parents need a proper education, to enable and guide their infant to fit in, or their sleep will be in peril. The Senate is ever so much as 100 infants, each having powerful and demanding ego, each one willing to engage in infant explorations of the world they command. They have new ways to get and hold attention, the tossing away of food and toy to see poor momma pick former from the floor. The cries in the night just see mommas face. It would take years to document every similarity between spoiled Senator and spoiled infant. The Senate cannot grow up, and will go on and on knowing that the diapers will changed, and will be on the circular dais, until they literally rot and fall off.
Here's the Pike Senate moving to the right, and bristling like hedgehog at who's in the way.
R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R---->
R-R-R-D-D-D-D-D-R-R---->
R-R-D-D-D-D-D-D-R-R---->
R-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-R---->
R-D-D-D-D-N-D-D-D-R---->
R-D-D-D-N-D-D-D-D-R---->
R-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-D-R---->
R-R-D-D-D-D-D-D-R-R---->
R-R-D-D-D-D-D-D-R-R---->
R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R-R---->
These references are intended to stimulate the mind of the media to go beyond the preset regurgitation of whom that feeds you:
Pike square - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_square
The pike square (German: Gevierthaufen or Gewalthaufen, meaning crowd of force) was a military tactic developed by the Swiss Confederacy during the 15th century for use by its infantry.
Pike (weapon) - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(weapon)
A pike is a pole weapon, a very long thrusting spear formerly used extensively by infantry. Unlike many similar weapons, the pike is not intended to be thrown. Pikes were used regularly in European warfare from the early Middle Ages until around 1700, and wielded by foot soldiers deployed in close order.
Ancient Tactic Tested - http://www.niderost.com/pages/Battle_of_Marignano.htm
Swiss pike and ancient phalanx. The collision of new and old lasted for 28 hours.
Swiss Pike Tactics - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=88257
How to Employ Pike men Offensively - http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?123316-How-to-Employ-Pikemen
Topics: Pike men and the Pike Square, Tactical Usage, Historical Significance, Battlefield Deployment, Tactical Usagem and Notable Vulnerabilities
Steve,
As head of the executive branch, can President Obama decide that he will personally head the CFPB? He then would not need any Senate confirmation, would he?
I have not been able to find an answer to these questions.