Posted on 01/04/2012 11:07:27 AM PST by Justaham
President Barack Obama says he won't take "no" as an answer from Republicans, so he's going around them to appoint the head of a new consumer protection agency. Obama says Republicans would just keep holding Richard Cordray's nomination hostage—and the president says that's inexcusable and wrong.
He says Cordray must be in place in order for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to start helping consumers deal with unscrupulous mortgage companies, dishonest payday lenders, and others.
Obama announced the appointment of Cordray during a stop Wednesday in Ohio, where Cordray once served as attorney general.
Republicans are outraged but Obama says he has an obligation to act when Congress refuses to.
The recess appointment means Cordray stands to serve for at least the next two years.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
With all the legislation that has been passed, that many have not bothered to read, how do we know if this isn't already paid for or funding set aside?
Power of the purse. No money, no agency. The Kenyan lizard cannot spend money not allocated by congress.
Congress has the power of the purse strings..... Simply defund the entire department. He can appoint all he wants, but where will the funds come from?
Unfortunately, this CFPB is the brainchild of the Marxist Elizabeth Warren who was the driving force and presumed nominee for Director's position, and who is now running for Senate in MA against Scott Brown.
She and other leftists in the administration anticipated your plan of attack (Congressional funding and accountability of the standalone agency) so, they imbedded it into the Fed, with "independent" funding through the Fed mechanism and no future accountability to Congress or President. All was done inside of the monstrous Dodd-Frank Act.
That's why the entire Bureau should be de-established / de-authorized, because it is simply a model for destruction without any public accountability, in the name of consumer "protection" - as if the courts, many other public or private agencies or the laws of competition don't already provide it.
Talk about something truly "unconstitutional"! Some of the more eloquent Presidential candidates (e.g., Newt Gingrich) might want to take up this issue in their campaigns and/or the next Presidential debate, to give it a loud public voice.
How to fight this? Relatively easy. The House Committee can call the hearings on the nomination, and invite or subpoena Richard Cordray. During the hearing he should be asked if he knows that his appointment to the position is illegitimate - because he has not been confirmed by the Senate, as required by the law. If he says he doesn't know, he would be lying, but at least he will be heretofore "informed" of it. If he says he does know it, then trying to execute the duties of the Director will make him in violation of "impersonating a public official" laws and "contempt of Congress" and subject to arrest and imprisonment (until Obama rescinds his "recess" appointment).
This would be playing by Queensbury rules (hitting the glass jaw of an opponent who keeps trying to hit below the belt) and can make a playbook for the future, so this could be the last time President will try something like this.
From The Danger of an Unaccountable 'Consumer-Protection' Czar | Why should one person have sweeping powers over the economy? - WSJ, by Richard Shelby (R-AL), 2011 July 21
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. ..... < snip > ..... 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. ..... < snip > ..... 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. ..... < snip > 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?
How the Bureau came into existence an the whys and hows of its structure:
From Fight Over Consumer Agency Looms as Overhaul Is Signed - WSJ, by Damian Paletta, 2010 July 22
Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, supporting a new agency, drove it through a balky House of Representatives. In the end, its structure — and the compromise that smoothed its passage — sprang from an off-the-cuff suggestion from one of its critics, Republican Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee. Early last year aides to Mr. Obama, searching for ideas, dusted off a 2007 paper by Ms. Warren envisioning the new bureaucracy. A Harvard law professor born poor in Oklahoma 61 years ago, Ms. Warren was the granddaughter of a couple who lost their savings in the Depression after a bank failure. In the 1990s, after serving as an adviser to a bankruptcy review commission set up by President Bill Clinton, she waged a long battle against efforts to make personal bankruptcy laws more business-friendly. ..... < snip > ..... In April 2009, White House chief economic adviser Lawrence Summers and Ms. Warren, longtime acquaintances from Harvard, met for three hours at an Indian restaurant in Washington, hashing out ideas about the possible design of such an agency. Playing a devil's-advocate role he often employs in policy debates, Mr. Summers questioned how such a bureau could be insulated from political influence. Ms. Warren left with a sense she had Mr. Summers's support of the agency. Two months later, Mr. Obama appeared in the East Room of the White House before lobbyists, consumer activists and lawmakers and outlined his vision for the new consumer agency. Many were taken by surprise. Consolidating powers of multiple regulators, it would write and enforce rules affecting a range of companies, from Wall Street banks to payday-loan stores. Almost any company that offered a financial product to consumers would have to answer to it. ..... < snip > < snip > ..... The bureau survived when a handful of activists, politicians and administration officials were able to splinter the opposition with a mixture of canny politics and luck.
There are a lot of financial and other "consumer" institutions in MA who don't like what Elizabeth Warren has wrought and how underhanded the process was and how "stealthy" (funding, accountability etc.) this "government non-agency" is.
Scott Brown can make this an issue in his campaign against Warren. Presidential candidates can make this an issue against Obama.
You're kidding, right?
Obama is a social experiment... which I believe ALL the power-brokers (dems and repubs alike) in Washington will protect to the end.
“This appointment should be challenged on those ground but I doubt we’ll see anything from the spineless Repubs.”
And even less from obammy’s useful idiots in the “media”.
Remember when Bush was President for his last two years with a Dem Congress. The Dems kept Congress fake “in session” so that Bush couldn’t make recess appointments. He should have done so anyway.
No, the Republicans are going to have a good laugh with their Democrat pals as they shred whats left that out-of-date 19th century antique known as the Constitution. The Republicans aren't stupid or spineless - they are in on it!
Pictured: CONgressmen laughing about how easy it is to fool the rubes. They have a 5% approval rating yet have a 95% reelection rate.
I really wish you were right, but sadly the Supreme Court disagrees with you. (Evans v. Stephans)
Currently there are no differences between an inter-session and intra-session recess in Congress. The second the gavel falls for people to go to lunch the President can install people.
Usually the sacrosanct amount of time passing was 10 days, however, there is no actual legal basis for that.
Since this particular title was already agreed to in Congress the President had the ability to fill the position.
To be honest this is probably a good thing for most of Congress, now they can go on their vacations without having to come back repeatedly just to try to block provisions they had already agreed upon.
I recently replied to someone saying it was the Supreme Court that made this legal (Evans v. Stephans). I was incorrect.
This was made legal by the 11th circuit court. It was never brought to the Supreme Court.
To that end it was Bush 43rd that brought this legal challenge to the forefront. Basically....once again we can thank him for another horribly bad decision that is being used against us.
Most of what Obama does is superficial. The FTC as a government agency and an NGO known as Open Secrets already have a list of documented business frauds both in terms of general corporate as well as in terms of financial issues, they even record officially where various organizations contribute in elections. The big problem is that so many Americans don’t have the guts to find that these organizations exist to inform them already, and instead buy into what this president does as great when in reality, it’s a case of getting away with redundancy. While I do get a chuckle out of your sarcasm, the fact is, politicians drop a lot of B.S. about how innovative and heroic they really are, and unless enough people actually fact-check what is said, it just sounds so great to hear.
The constitution is only as good as the people in this country who vote are informed, or care about it. The problem, which either isn’t emphasized or is edited out by news media, and I can’t tell which, is the fact that adding a new consumer advocate is redundant. There’s already plenty of official consumer databases with the FTC. Perhaps check for updates in the FTC or something, but the general infrastructure is here to list off what is good or bad for consumers, someone just needs to bother seeking out the information to get it though.
Thanks for that explanation of how we got here.
And the suggestions of how the GOP might deal with it.
The use of it as a weapon during the upcoming campaign is smart. We are about to witness the dirtiest and most underhanded efforts by the left. They know we are on to their tricks and they will do ANYTHING to survive and say in power.
It is our duty as citizens to destroy these enemies of the nation we all love.
Choose your battles, and this isn’t it. Unfortunately, we’ll have to let this slide.....and remember what Bubba said back in ‘92? “It’s the Economy, Stupid!” So we have to stay on the message.
Are you sure your reply was meant for me? It doesn’t match up w anything I posted.
Regards.
Even if Corday is deemed to be recess-appointed, he may have another problem.
The text of the Dodd-Frank law [that created the CFPB] states that the director’s powers will not take effect until the CFPB director “is confirmed by the Senate.”
If it is a recess appointment, the Senate is not in session and he was not confirmed. His recess appointment lasts until the end of the current Congress.
No confirmation = no powers to perform duties through the end of the current Congress.
Obama cannot have it both ways - he cannot claim a recess appointment AND claim that Corday was confirmed by the Senate.
King Putz!.....Big A-hole!
I think that’s been his (leftists’) plan all along. We cons need to be burning up the phone and fax lines on this issue. Are we? Nope. Just like Obamacare....
no big deal.
“I guess in Obama’s mind, he knows he will lose the general election so he is going to do everything he can to rip this country apart to shreds so even when he loses, he knows the next guy wont be able to fix the damage he has done,”
Yet still, like the typical leftist he IS, he’ll try.
Are “We, the People”, really going to sit back, do nothing and allow this BS to stand?
“Obama cannot have it both ways - he cannot claim a recess appointment AND claim that Corday was confirmed by the Senate.”
And why, exactly, do we “have to” let this slide???
“Choose your battles, and this isn’t it. Unfortunately, we’ll have to let this slide.....and remember what Bubba said back in ‘92? “It’s the Economy, Stupid!” So we have to stay on the message.”
Agreed!
“It is our duty as citizens to destroy these enemies of the nation we all love.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.