Where is the US economy headed?

From the NYT:

Elizabeth Warren last week won the endorsements of several dozen Congressional Democrats, two of the nation’s leading labor groups and her hometown newspaper, The Boston Globe.



Elizabeth Warren faces criticism about being too partisan.
One would be forgiven for thinking that the Harvard professor is running for elected office.

Instead, Ms. Warren’s supporters want President Obama to nominate her as the first head of a new consumer financial protection bureau created by the legislation he signed into law last week. They say that Ms. Warren, who conceived the idea and helped shepherd its passage into law, is the only acceptable choice to finish the project.

“It is essential to the bill and very, very important that Elizabeth Warren be appointed,” Representative Barney Frank, Democrat of Massachusetts and an architect of the law, said Friday on MSNBC.

There is little question that Ms. Warren has become a hero to liberals who see her as a scourge of the banking industry.

But the loud, insistent campaign — highly unusual for presidential appointments other than Supreme Court nominees or cabinet positions — also reflects deep anxiety that the work of overhauling financial regulation is shifting from Congress to agencies that are insulated from public pressure and will write and put into effect hundreds of new rules.

Ms. Warren’s supporters regard her as the best person to represent consumers during that process. But they also crave the symbolic value of her appointment, which almost certainly would cause a partisan confirmation battle, as an affirmation that the White House is committed to imposing significant new restrictions on the financial industry.

“A lot of us are terrified about what happens in rule-making,” said Stephen Lerner of the Service Employees International Union, which is pressing the administration to nominate Ms. Warren. “Symbolically, it does seem incredibly important to pick somebody who not only invented the idea, but someone who doesn’t claim to be a neutral.”

Bankers oppose her nomination for exactly that reason. Roger M. Beverage, head of the Oklahoma Bankers Association, said that Ms. Warren was widely respected in Oklahoma, where she was raised and is still remembered as a high school debate champion. But he said that his members did not believe she would understand the needs and concerns of community banks.

“Not that she’s not competent. Goodness gracious, I would never say that. She’s exceptionally bright. We just fear what she might come up with,” Mr. Beverage said. “She’s a partisan and she’s bull-headed and she’s opinionated. And she’s terrific. She’s a great advocate. We just respectfully disagree with her view of the world.”

Ms. Warren herself has not campaigned publicly for the nomination, though people who know her say that she would welcome it.

The debate over her candidacy threatens to sour the celebration of a law that the White House hoped would rally Democrats facing difficult midterm elections. The consumer bureau will be the popular face of the law, which also subjects more financial companies to federal oversight, extends regulation to activities including derivatives trading and creates a new council to detect risks to the financial system and broader economy.

So far, the administration has sought to walk a fine line, embracing Ms. Warren and her supporters while refraining from granting their demand. The White House has vetted Ms. Warren and at least two other candidates for the job, officials say.

“I have the highest regard for Elizabeth. We have not made decisions about who we’re going to appoint yet,” Mr. Obama said Friday on ABC’s “Good Morning America.”

Ms. Warren proposed the creation of a federal agency to protect consumers of financial products, in a 2007 article that said the government put more effort in protecting people who buy toaster ovens than people who borrow money to buy homes.

The idea resonated with Mr. Obama and his senior advisers, and it became a centerpiece of the administration’s proposal to overhaul financial regulation. The White House worked with Ms. Warren to flesh out the details, and it worked with her to win the support of Congress. But some administration officials are not sure that Ms. Warren is the best choice to run the new agency.

There is no doubt about her status as a symbol.

“She represents to a large part of the country — not just people caught up in the damage of the crisis, but people who view this system as being fundamentally broken — she represents one of the most compelling advocates for reform,” Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said at a breakfast with reporters last week.

In an interview Sunday on ABC’s “This Week,” Mr. Geithner cited what he called Ms. Warren’s “enormous credibility” and said that, despite her criticism of the Treasury Department, he had no concerns about her possible appointment.

But others have expressed doubts about Ms. Warren’s qualifications, including some Senate Democrats whose votes would be required to confirm her nomination. Detractors say that Ms. Warren lacks management experience, and that she is too partisan to be an effective referee.

The other known candidates are both consumer advocates who have more experience in government: Michael S. Barr, an assistant Treasury secretary who played a central role in drafting the financial legislation, and Eugene I. Kimmelman, a former consumer advocate, now deputy assistant attorney general in the antitrust division of the Justice Department.

Even some admirers worry that a draining confirmation battle could weaken the new bureau during the critical period when its scope and powers are being defined by its early decisions.

Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut and chairman of the banking committee, warned last week that it would be difficult to gather the 60 votes to confirm Ms. Warren.

But her supporters are spoiling for the fight.

With midterm elections fast approaching, they are itching for a public debate about consumer protection. There also is frustration among some liberals that the White House has in several instances chosen not to take up the issues that they consider most important.

Mr. Frank said that liberals would be justified in holding Mr. Obama accountable for this decision.

“We didn’t get a public option and other things we wanted. That wasn’t his fault,” said Mr. Frank, referring to the removal of a major provision from health care legislation. “The economic recovery bill, the stimulus, it wasn’t as big as it should have been. That wasn’t his fault. He couldn’t get the votes.

“With regard to appointing Elizabeth Warren, that’s his decision. No one can stop him from making it.”

What do they mean by the "too" in "too partisan"? Elizabeth Warren isn't appointed to be a mediator. She's appointed to head an institution for consumer protection---to assert the interests of consumers against the banking industry. That's a partisan office; it takes a partisan to run it well. For this job, there's no such thing as "too partisan".

There's plenty of other partisan offices in government. For example, take the District Attorneys in the local and state justice systems. A DA's job is to prosecute as many criminal suspects as possible, and get them punished as draconically as possible. Nobody dismisses a DA candidate for having an anti-defendant bias and being "too partisan" about it. That's because anti-defendant partisanship is essential to a DA's job. Similarly, heading the Financial Consumer Protection Bureau is a partisan job as well. One may dislike the whole idea of there being a Financial Concumer Protection Bureau in the first place. But if one does like it, I don't see how one can object to it being run by a pro-consumer, anti-bank partisan.

Is Elizabeth Warren a partisan? I, for one, sure hope so!

Elizabeth Warren is an extremely popular person, admired by many, from tons of women to Dr. Phil (surprise!). I have had some personal dealings with her and she is as she appears on television, kind, upbeat, analytical, even tempered and intelligent.

Doesn't mean she can't be a partisan. I continue to hope for the best.

Nobody is too partisan to help run a Fascist State.

I think okie is referencing O'Brien in 1984--



A prophet is one who sees the flowering destiny in the germinating seed.

I'm all sold out. I don't give a ****. Big Brother would chuck me under the chin.

I saw some slavering at the prospect of bringing BP down.

And I wouldn't like to have to write a book about all the wonderful things that company has done for us and which we have encouraged it to do by monetary inducements in a similar way we encouraged the Roman Catholic church to grow into splendour (give or take a few glitches).

Did Jesus see the final destiny of exchange rate dealings when he overturned the tables in the Temple?

spendi, You still don't "get it." The bible was written by the so-called theologians who thought they knew science and the world, but god was never there to inform them that some day, we will learn more about this planet and universe than they ever dreamed.

There are over ten billion suns out there; when they find other life forms, what will christians do?

The idea of Christ dying for our sins always bothered me. When I was about 15 (perhaps younger but I know I mentally left the church at 15), I asked my irish and Hungarian mother (no one is more superstitious than a woman who is part Irish and part Hungarian) if there were life on other planets, would each planet have had its own crucifixion (because that seemed a lot to ask of Jesus) or whether the crucifixion was a simultaneous event throughout the universe (I knew even less about physics then).

My mother said that maybe all the other people on other planets were so good that they didn't need the crucifixion. That pretty much killed religion for me.

What a laugh that you are trying to scare me to think that banking is difficult? It uses mostly arithmetic and maybe statistics. I got A's in accounting. If you look at Net Capital Rule it is just a simple ratio but if you read the definition these financial folks use disinformation to cover up the simplicity by making up all kinds of nonsensical terms viz.

Me to. If the problem is that humans are sinners, how does God sacrificing his son solve anything? And: if God wants humans to be forgiven for their sins, why not just forgive them and leave poor Jesus alone? Who was God trying to impress? Mystery upon mystery. Luckily, the American economy and where it's headed is somewhat simpler.

Then go for it, talk. Walk the walk instead of just talking the talk.

You are absolutely right. The idea of a savior dying to make better lives for others solves nothing. In so many cultures, the sacrifice is repeated annually. That is not a celebration but blood lust.

what makes you think that christians dont believe that there is other life in the universe. Think of all the conversions christians could acquire.

Hey people, making pointless drivel about your ideas on religion does nothing to divert the real subject here, Where is the economy headed other than staying in the tank, and the fact that Obama has not a single clue about what he is doing.

I think it is plainly obvious that he does in fact have a clue about what he is doing. What more, people are more supportive of his economic policies than they are of the previous administrations' policies, who bear the primary blame for the mess that we find ourselves in.

Cycloptichorn

You do live in a fantasy world, don't you cyclops? Unemployment about as high as ever, debts and the deficit out of all control, and the administration continues to have no practical policies or solutions. Meanwhile the crooks that helped cause this whole thing in Fannie and Freddie continue to be protected by Obama and his corrupt buddies.

Yes, because we are still dealing with the crisis that started on Bush's watch. Nobody expects it to get better overnight.


See above.



Both actual economists AND the public disagree with you.



For the last ******* time, Fannie and Freddie had nothing to do with the mortgage collapse. Nothing. What you have written is a lie, you have been patiently explained over and over again how it is a lie, and if you keep repeating it, you are a liar, Okie. And you know it - from time to time you've made posts which show that you know the truth of the matter.

Cycloptichorn

You are a nutcase living in denial and in a liberal fantasy world. If you detect I am mad about that scenario, yes you are correct, I resent cheap corrupt Democrat politicians that do nothing about the real problems and protect their own. The Democrats are the most corrupt party I have ever witnessed in my entire lifetime.