HURRAY!!! Obama makes recess appointment of Cordray to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

@Questioner,

Questioner wrote:

I fear you give the Public far too much credit. Here is how I can easily see that same conversation going:

GOP: Obama is destroying the constitution!

Right Wingers: HELL YES HE IS, THAT KENYAN-BORN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT SHOULD BE DEPORTED AND SHOT! RUMSFELD 2012!

Left Wingers: Every Republican from the first to last has been an utter war-mongering moron with nice hair.

Independents: I'm not playing anymore.

Well, I can't effectively respond to an expression of cynicism. At least the discussion I envisioned relates to actual events that have occurred; the narrative you posit is a static one that doesn't change based on actual events. Not much discussion to be had about assertions of that nature.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

You guys are all really funny. You post graphs showing the number of recess appts. each president made yearly, yet none of you mention the fact that republicans are not concerned about Obama making recess appointments, as he has the right to do, but rather that his most recent recess appointments were made while congress was not in recess. Now admittedly, what the republicans have done was politically motivated to keep Obama from being able to make a recess appointment to the CFPB, but can someone explain why it is now obstructionist for republicans to do this but when democrats did it during Bush's term it was perfectly fine to do?

And in case you doubt that democrats used this same basic tactic on Bush, here is an excerpt from a Washington Post article dated Oct 15, 2010.

"A novelty first seen during the waning months of the Bush administration, the pro forma session threatens to become a permanent roadblock in the already dysfunctional appointments process. "

So I guess what democrats once found ok to do is now considered obstructionist? Either it is ok to use this little trick to keep a president from making a recess appointment or it is not. But I guess it all depends on who is in the White House, doesn't it?

(As an aside, I disagree with the use of these pro-forma sessions, but I see nothing wrong with them. Both sides have used it evidently so until they decide as a group not to do this going forward, then it is something that any president may have to deal with.)

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Questioner wrote:

I fear you give the Public far too much credit. Here is how I can easily see that same conversation going:

GOP: Obama is destroying the constitution!

Right Wingers: HELL YES HE IS, THAT KENYAN-BORN ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT SHOULD BE DEPORTED AND SHOT! RUMSFELD 2012!

Left Wingers: Every Republican from the first to last has been an utter war-mongering moron with nice hair.

Independents: I'm not playing anymore.

Well, I can't effectively respond to an expression of cynicism. At least the discussion I envisioned relates to actual events that have occurred; the narrative you posit is a static one that doesn't change based on actual events. Not much discussion to be had about assertions of that nature.

Cycloptichorn

Oh come now. The majority of politics today revolves around double-talk, outright lies, and cynicism. If you can't effectively respond to it then might as well hang up the political debate hat now.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

You guys are all really funny. You post graphs showing the number of recess appts. each president made yearly, yet none of you mention the fact that republicans are not concerned about Obama making recess appointments, as he has the right to do, but rather that his most recent recess appointments were made while congress was not in recess. Now admittedly, what the republicans have done was politically motivated to keep Obama from being able to make a recess appointment to the CFPB, but can someone explain why it is now obstructionist for republicans to do this but when democrats did it during Bush's term it was perfectly fine to do?

It was obstructionist in both cases; but moreso now, in that Republicans have effectively used the filibuster to prevent a vote on ANY candidates for these positions. The opposition is NOT based on the specifics of the candidate, but instead a strategy of Nullification that the GOP is pursuing: they couldn't stop laws from being passed, so they are trying to use a parlimentary trick to keep ANY vote from EVER occurring to allow the laws to be carried out. There is no history of the Democrats ever doing anything similar in recent decades.

This isn't a supposition on my part, either - they've come right out and declared that, unless Obama and the Dems fundamentally weaken the CFPB and change the NLRB laws, they will NEVER allow a vote on any candidate - ever. Our government was not designed to work that way and cannot work that way, and the tactic itself is despicable.

Quote:

And in case you doubt that democrats used this same basic tactic on Bush, here is an excerpt from a Washington Post article dated Oct 15, 2010.

"A novelty first seen during the waning months of the Bush administration, the pro forma session threatens to become a permanent roadblock in the already dysfunctional appointments process. "

So I guess what democrats once found ok to do is now considered obstructionist? Either it is ok to use this little trick to keep a president from making a recess appointment or it is not. But I guess it all depends on who is in the White House, doesn't it?

You are missing the fundamental point here.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Questioner,

Quote:

Oh come now. The majority of politics today revolves around double-talk, outright lies, and cynicism. If you can't effectively respond to it then might as well hang up the political debate hat now.

I don't consider this to be actual analysis, but instead something that people say when they are too lazy to look at and discuss actual events that are taking place. There's no discussion to be had in it, either. That's fundamentally uninteresting to me.

I also do not believe it to be reflective of the actual ebb-and-flow that we see in electoral politics. The truth is that the things candidates and political parties say and do DOES matter. Many of the independents, who you quote as saying 'I'm not playing anymore,' in fact do 'play.' They vote. And presidential elections are in large part based on getting them to vote for one side or another. I can see no compelling narrative relating to these recess appointments that would convince people to vote for Romney over Obama.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't think I am missing any fundamental point. Either it is a perfectly permissible tactic or it is not. It does not matter what the reason is for the use of the tactic. Either it is ok or it is not.

I guess I should be happy though that we at least both agree that it was obstructionist in both cases. That is saying something at least. lol

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

I don't think I am missing any fundamental point.

Whether you think so or not, you clearly are. Unless you'd like to get into a discussion of the validity and ethics behind the nullification strategy the GOP is pursuing in the Senate, you are concentrating on the wrong part of the story.

Quote:

Either it is a perfectly permissible tactic or it is not. It does not matter what the reason is for the use of the tactic. Either it is ok or it is not.

It in fact does matter, because life works that way. The reasoning and facts that underlie situations DO matter when judging those situations.

Quote:

I guess I should be happy though that we at least both agree that it was obstructionist in both cases. That is saying something at least. lol

This is true, and in many of these instances where our different branches fight with one another, it's just a question of how willing one branch is to push back. In fact, the Bush WH lawyers had prepared memos showing that Bush COULD make recess appointments in the face of these pro-forma sessions; but they chose not to do so. Obama took the opposite route - and it's quite clear that he did so in order to pick a fight with the GOP, who he will be running against as a whole this cycle.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

Cyclo, i think you are ignoring the relative unimportance of independent voters in congressional elections. Members of the House are elected in specific districts, toward the electorates of which they tailor their message. Incumbents have a huge advantage over challengers, and the Republicans currently control the House--so they'll have that incumbency advantage. The aggregate of independent voters within each state can have an important impact on the Presidential election. However, those independents share this with affiliated electorate--they are just as much more likely to vote for an incumbent member of congress as are the affiliated voters.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Cyclo, i think you are ignoring the relative unimportance of independent voters in congressional elections. Members of the House are elected in specific districts, toward the electorates of which they tailor their message. Incumbents have a huge advantage over challengers, and the Republicans currently control the House--so they'll have that incumbency advantage. The aggregate of independent voters within each state can have an important impact on the Presidential election. However, those independents share this with affiliated electorate--they are just as much more likely to vote for an incumbent member of congress as are the affiliated voters.

The GOP has the same problem in the House this cycle as the Dems did in 2010 - as any group has after a wave election - in that they have expanded into MANY districts which are in fact pretty competitive. That spreads the dollars they have to defend each seat out pretty thin. This, combined with waning enthusiasm for so-called 'tea-party' candidates, gives the Dems a good shot to pick up seats in the House this cycle - not that I think they will take the House back, but they can probably narrow the gap to the point where it becomes a lot more difficult for the GOP to reliably steamroll them there.

But, you are correct that the overall Prez election is more subject to the movement of independents than individual races, yes.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

The advantages of incumbency--PACs for financing, political interst groups for volunteer staff, existing media contacts for getting out the sound bites and keeping one's face before the public--are far more important in congressional elections. I'm not making a prediction, i'm just observing that, apparently, the Republican members of the House believe that their narrative will still sell to the public, and they are more concerned with turning out the vote among their "base" than they are appealing to independents. As i've already pointed out, this next national election will tell us whether or not the continued appeal to the far right and the lunatic fringe of their party will succeed.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

So I guess you would look at WHY pro-forma sessions are being used in order to determine whether it is proper to do so? At least that seems to be what you are saying. But that begs the question. Who decides when it is right to use the tactic and when it is wrong? You? Me? Republicans? Democrats?

No Cy, I don't think so. It is either a perfectly good tactic to use for any reason or it should not be used at all. There is no in between.

The problem right now is that democrats never imagined that the tactic would be used against them in this way, so now it is a terrible thing and republicans are not playing fair by using a tactic started by democrats.

One can only hope that this madness from both sides ends at some point. But I doubt it. If (I said IF, mind you) a republican is elected president this year and dems still control the senate, then I think we will continue to see the same type of tactics used from them that repubs are using now. It is a shame.

1 Reply

But i should add that i agree (more or less) with Questioner's take, that that electoral "base" isn't concerned with subtleties. As i mentioned earlier, a good many of them, most of them probably, are only listening to messages which bring Mr. Obama and his "socialist" party into disrepute.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The advantages of incumbency--PACs for financing, political interst groups for volunteer staff, existing media contacts for getting out the sound bites and keeping one's face before the public--are far more important in congressional elections. I'm not making a prediction, i'm just observing that, apparently, the Republican members of the House believe that their narrative will still sell to the public, and they are more concerned with turning out the vote among their "base" than they are appealing to independents. As i've already pointed out, this next national election will tell us whether or not the continued appeal to the far right and the lunatic fringe of their party will succeed.

I think that Romney's probable nomination for the GOP will not encourage the rabid right-wing base to participate and vote in strength. It certainly won't if the AMAZING number of negative comments I read about the man on right-wing sites - and I do mean every right-wing site I read - are at all reflective of support for him.

I also wonder how much the Ryan budget vote will come back to haunt them. I know the Dems are planning to make this one of the central features of their campaign, and they should - the GOP essentially commited to a plan that lowers taxes on the rich by a ton, raises taxes on everyone else, and eliminates medicare. Polling for the plan was horrendous at the time, which is why they quickly stopped talking about it...

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

So I guess you would look at WHY pro-forma sessions are being used in order to determine whether it is proper to do so? At least that seems to be what you are saying. But that begs the question. Who decides when it is right to use the tactic and when it is wrong? You? Me? Republicans? Democrats?

No Cy, I don't think so. It is either a perfectly good tactic to use for any reason or it should not be used at all. There is no in between.

Sure, I guess in your black-and-white world, everything - no matter what it is - is either justified or it isn't, and none of the factors that lead up to decisions or actions matter in the slightest. I'll happily remain in color-television land, where shades and nuances and motivations in fact do matter, thanks.

Quote:

The problem right now is that democrats never imagined that the tactic would be used against them in this way, so now it is a terrible thing and republicans are not playing fair by using a tactic started by democrats.

One can only hope that this madness from both sides ends at some point. But I doubt it. If (I said IF, mind you) a republican is elected president this year and dems still control the senate, then I think we will continue to see the same type of tactics used from them that repubs are using now. It is a shame.

I highly doubt it. The Dems have NEVER utilized the tactics the GOP is, to anywhere near the same degree. The Dems have NEVER stated their refusal to allow any candidate to be nominated for a position as a sort of nullification strategy; they have never filibustered each and every single bill that came forward. Accusations of equivalence between the two parties on these issues are completely without merit.

It's not that the Dems are saints and the GOP are devils; it's just that the Congressional GOP has shown itself far more willing to play hardball than the Dems have - until now. The Dems are just too ready to compromise to make any hardball strategy a good one in the long run.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think that Romney's probable nomination for the GOP will not encourage the rabid right-wing base to participate and vote in strength.

You may be right about that, although the effect may not be as great as you think. A lot of the far right and the lunatic fringe are older voters, voters who turn out in greater strength than the young "radical" voters who have always failed to provide the support the Democrats need. With those voters, the simplistic "Obama and the Democrats are socialists" narrative works. That's why i think the next election will be interesting, and a possible referendum on that Republican strategy. When you look at vids of tea bagger rallies, the Social Security crowd are always well represented.

I was sitting in a cafe with a friend many years ago (more than 20) discussing how Congress commonly loots the Social Security trust fund. An elderly woman at a nearby table was apparently listening in and became alarmed, asking the men she was sitting with if Congess was going to get rid of Social Security, which was, of course, not at all what we were discussing. One of the men glared at us pugnaciously and informed her that only commies talk like that. Simple black and white messages sell well, subtleties don't.

0 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

Jan. 12, 2012
Chamber backs off attack on consumer protection panel
Kevin G. Hall | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — After doggedly opposing the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010, then fighting all last year to change its composition, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce softened its stance Thursday.

The bureau was a key element of the Dodd-Frank Act, the most sweeping overhaul of financial regulation since the Great Depression. Republicans spent much of last year blocking the Obama administration's efforts to confirm a director for the new agency.

President Barack Obama then used a controversial recess appointment Jan. 4 to install Richard Cordray as its director and to put three new commissioners on the National Labor Relations Board. There'd been intense speculation that the Chamber of Commerce would challenge the legality of those appointments. It raised the question of legality in a harsh statement last week.

On Thursday, however, Thomas Donohue, the CEO of the powerful organization, told reporters that "we are not going to sue today." In toned-down rhetoric, the often-cantankerous Donohue repeated reservations that the new consumer agency has insufficient congressional oversight since it's funded by the Federal Reserve and not appropriations-controlled by lawmakers, but he pledged a wait-and-see approach.

"One has to see what he (Cordray) does and what the three new guys at the NLRB do," Donohue said, adding that the Chamber of Commerce could yet decide to challenge the appointments. "We have not taken a decision on that at all."

Critics of the recess appointments contend that they were made while Congress technically was still in session — even though most members were out of town for the holidays — thus invalidating them.

The Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion Jan. 6 at the request of the White House that said so-called "pro forma sessions" of the Senate didn't constitute legitimate sessions that would preclude presidential recess appointments.

"Although the Senate will have held pro forma sessions regularly from January 3 through January 23, in our judgment those sessions do not interrupt the intrasession recess in a manner" that would prevent recess appointments, the opinion said. "Thus, the president has the authority under the Recess Appointments Clause (of the Constitution) to make appointments during this period."

The Chamber of Commerce's subdued approach to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — created to protect against the sort of abusive and shoddy lending for mortgages, cars and payday loans that helped cause the 2008 financial crisis — is noteworthy. In August 2010, it immediately challenged another key element of the regulatory overhaul that would've allowed dissident shareholders to run their own slates of candidates for seats on corporate boards.

The Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable joined forces, hiring lawyer Eugene Scalia, the son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, to challenge the new rules from the Securities and Exchange Commission. A three-judge District of Columbia appeals panel vacated the SEC's "boardroom democracy" rules last July, and the SEC said in September that it wouldn't seek a rehearing.

Shortly after Donohue spoke Thursday, across town Cordray held his first news conference and also struck a conciliatory tone, noting that he'd already met with Donohue twice.

"I am a member of my local Chamber of Commerce in Grove City, Ohio; have been for 20 years," said Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general and state treasurer, adding that he established a business advisory council in Ohio and is sensitive to the challenges that business owners face. "I know it's not easy to run a business and be successful."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce's members benefit from effective policing of lending and a better-educated consumer, Cordray said, adding that the new consumer agency will put great emphasis on promoting financial literacy. The agency on Wednesday announced new rules for examining non-bank lending, which hadn't been regulated federally before the finance overhaul passed.

1 Reply

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

Jan. 17, 2012
Wall Street gets a sheriff
The following editorial appeared in the Miami Herald on Monday, Jan. 16:

Eighteen months after Congress passed a financial regulation act, President Obama cleared the way for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to do its job, but he had to resort to a recess appointment that's raising Republican hackles on Capitol Hill.

The appointment of Richard Cordray to become the so-called sheriff of Wall Street is good news for consumers. It allows the agency to exercise its full authority to regulate non-bank financial companies - payday lenders, credit bureaus and the like. The law places authority for enforcing nearly 20 consumer financial laws under one roof and allows consumers to comparison shop for credit cards and related financial activities.

Congress passed the law after more than a year of hearings. All sides, including the financial industry, had ample opportunity to be heard. In the end, Congress dared not reject a bill to protect consumers from the abuses of the financial industry. Still, detractors stubbornly sought to undermine the new agency's effectiveness by refusing to confirm a nominee to run it. Without a permanent leader, it remained unable to carry out fundamental duties, such as writing new regulations for mortgages.

Cordray's qualifications were never the issue. He has a strong pro-consumer record as attorney general of Ohio. If anything, his credentials were too good, which is why his nomination was opposed by Wall Street.

As a rule, recess appointments are a bad idea. Too often, they represent an exercise in unilateral executive authority that denies lawmakers their proper constitutional role. In this instance, however, opposition senators were using the appointment process to fight the battle against regulation all over again after they'd already lost.

In selecting Cordray, the president bypassed the deserving Elizabeth Warren, the driving force behind the new agency, because she was seen as a lightning rod by Republicans. There was no compromise to be had. Opponents wouldn't budge.

Nor has Obama made recess appointments a general way of doing business - some 74 nominees are still awaiting a vote on the Senate floor and over 100 more are stuck in committee, many of them judges. In the case of Cordray and three nominations to fill labor board vacancies, however, Obama was left with no choice if the agencies were to function effectively.

It is one thing for the Senate to be stingy in the approval of lifetime judicial appointments as a way of limiting the influence of a president on another branch of government, the federal judiciary. It harms the ability of the courts to deliver swift justice, but still the system keeps operating. Blocking appointments to federal agencies is altogether different. This obstructs the president's ability to execute his duties and thwarts the work of agencies approved by law.

Objecting Republicans say the Senate was technically in session, thus barring recess appointments. But the Senate sessions were a sham, a transparently obstructionist maneuver designed to exercise an unwarranted legislative veto on the president's powers.

If Senate Republicans have issues with the Consumer Protection Financial Bureau and the extent of its authority, they should resort to the customary legislative process. The issues should be hashed out in committee deliberations and public hearings. Proposed changes should come to the floor for a vote under the Senate's generous debate rules. Throwing a monkey wrench into the system by refusing to consider a nominee is the wrong way to go about it.

0 Replies

HURRAY!!! Obama makes recess appointment of Cordray to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know