Since you people seem to enjoy the sight of elected Senators actually doing...you know...their jobs:
Wouldn't it have been easier just to let her be the head of the Consumer Protection Bureau?
Showing posts with label Financial Regulation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Financial Regulation. Show all posts
Friday, February 15, 2013
Friday, January 6, 2012
More of the Richard Cordray rollout (featuring guest star Barack Obama) (VIDEO)
And on Last Word with Lawrence O'Donnell:
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The President's somewhat confrontational speech in Cleveland, OH (and we LIKE the confrontation!) (VIDEO)
Oh, and while I remember, there's this, too:
It isn’t just Richard Cordray. Obama is also set to use recess appointments to install his picks to the National Labor Relations Board, according to White House officials and others familiar with ongoing discussions.
The move, which is arguably as important as the Cordray appointment, will ratchet up opposition from Republicans and make this an even bigger fight, since they have been attacking the NLRB regularly for its moves to streamline union elections and inform workers of their rights.
Obama is set to appoint Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, and Richard Griffin to the board — something unions have made a big priority for them in the new year. Senate Republicans have opposed the recess appointments to the NLRB on constitutional grounds, but unions charge that Republicans are only interested in rendering the agency inoperative.
Obama’s move, which will help energize unions in advance of the 2012 election, is yet another sign that he is determined to circumvent GOP opposition and make government functional again by any means necessary. It’s another sign that the White House and Dems have abandoned the illusion that anything can be done to secure bipartisan compromise with Republicans on the major items on Obama’s agenda.
And why is this important Talking Point Memo's Brian Beutler??
Republicans were threatening to block Obama’s NLRB nominees in a bid to extinguish the board’s power. So just as with Obama’s decision to recess appoint Richard Cordray to run the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, this move does more than fill vacancies. It actually restores the power the agency was given under the law — power Republicans were hoping to strip without passing new legislation.
Who's going around the Constitution again.
Labels:
Cabinet,
Consumer Protection,
Democrats,
Election 2012,
Financial Regulation,
Labor,
News,
Obama,
Ohio,
Speeches,
U.S.,
Video
Friday, December 9, 2011
The bizarre alternate Universe where Insurance Companies have ASKED for more Federal Regulation is this one!
Uhh...say that again Sarah Kliff of the Washington Post??
A lot of coverage of the Dodd-Frank financial reform law focuses on what isn’t happening: How the White House can’t get a head for its Consumer Financial Protection Bureau through Congress in the face of Republican opposition, how the law could become more vulnerable with the retirement of one of its architects, Massachusetts Rep. Barney Frank. Just this morning, as Suzy reports, former FDIC chair Shelia Bair called for part of the law to be scrapped altogether.
But, quietly, parts of the law are indeed moving forward, albeit with few headlines and little fanfare. This very morning, a new Dodd-Frank office got underway with work to reform one of the country’s most complex regulatory systems: insurance regulation.
The Federal Insurance Office was created by Dodd-Frank to bring a more national voice to how we oversee insurance. Until now, a federal agency to focus on insurance regulation just didn’t exist.
“Despite the sector’s size and important,” said deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin, “the federal government had no central repository for comprehensive insurance expertise.”
The new office doesn’t make many headlines; you won’t see many mentions outside of some trade journals. But industries understand its important: The FIO drew a standing-room-only crowd to its first ever meeting at Treasury this morning. And at that meeting, insurance executives asked the Dodd-Frank agency to bring more federal regulation into their industry — not exactly an everyday affair in Washington.
It’s not a normal request, but insurance isn’t exactly a normal industry when it comes to regulation. States tend to oversee all insurance products, from health to life to homeowners. And that worked fine decades ago, when insurance companies tended to be more localized. But for any national company operating now, having 50 state regulators set 50 different standards has made it a complex system.
“The current system is highly inefficient,” says John Johns, chairman of the Protective Life Corp., which sells life insurance policies. Or, as Consumer Federation of America’s J. Robert Hunter put it, “If Nebraska is regulating hurricane insurance in Florida and flood insurance in Georgia, we have a problem.”
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Rachel Maddow's Interview with Elizabeth Warren (VIDEO)
Frankly, she sounds pissed...at Republicans:
That was from an Atlantic piece that's out today. I would like to note that Nancy Scola made it sound like Obama passed her over for Richard Cordray.
Actually, no, that's exactly what Nancy said:
Uh...no.
And if you watch the interview below, she gets even more specific.
This is a little seen, little read blog. I should not be doing more reporting than Atlantic Monthly professionals.
Rachel wisely held back, and let the Professor do her thing.
UPDATE: 11:57AM Pacific. Watching that last part again. Rachel pretty much asked her "Are you running for Senate", and not only did Dr. Warren not say no, that was as much in the affirmative as I'd seen her say. Dr. Warren still did not say she was running, but this was the closest I've seen her come to saying she was in.
"Let me put it this way," said Warren on yesterday's call. "I'm saving all the rocks in my pockets for Republicans. And if that's too partisan for you, then shame on me."
That was from an Atlantic piece that's out today. I would like to note that Nancy Scola made it sound like Obama passed her over for Richard Cordray.
Actually, no, that's exactly what Nancy said:
Elizabeth Warren is ready to name and shame. After 10 long months spent crafting a brand-new federal agency in her image and likeness, years before that willing the institution into statutory existence, only to be passed over on Sunday in favor of Richard Cordray just as the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is moving out of beta, Warren, on a press call late yesterday afternoon, was eager to share her clarity on who's to blame for the especially precarious position the new federal-friend-to-the-American-consumer now finds itself in.
Uh...no.
Rich will be a strong leader for this agency. He has a proven track record of fighting for families during his time as head of the CFPB enforcement division, as Attorney General of Ohio, and throughout his career. He was one of the first senior executives I recruited for the agency, and his hard work and deep commitment make it clear he can make many important contributions in leading it. Rich is smart, he is tough, and he will make a stellar Director. I am very pleased for him and very pleased for the CFPB.
And if you watch the interview below, she gets even more specific.
This is a little seen, little read blog. I should not be doing more reporting than Atlantic Monthly professionals.
Rachel wisely held back, and let the Professor do her thing.
UPDATE: 11:57AM Pacific. Watching that last part again. Rachel pretty much asked her "Are you running for Senate", and not only did Dr. Warren not say no, that was as much in the affirmative as I'd seen her say. Dr. Warren still did not say she was running, but this was the closest I've seen her come to saying she was in.
Monday, July 18, 2011
Hey! Fellow Lefties! Can we ease up on the Elizabeth Warren obsession for pity's sake?
I've always been fascinated my fellow Liberal's obsession over Elizabeth Warren. It ranks right up there with our (their) collective obsession with Van Jones. It's a broken record already: "If X person is not given Y position, then this is the latest betrayal Barack Obama has given to the Liberal People of America."
Stop it.
I hope I don't have to prove my pro-Dr. Warren bona-fides on this space, but it you need proof, you need only look up my blogpost: Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection...if she wants it. (Written a year ago, just about to the day). Yes, she is that great. Yes, I want her to have the job...
...if she wants it.
Yes. If.
So, we've heard her say it plainly that she wants the job right? I mean that's been all over the place (by which I mean, it hasn't). Does she want another job, say, Scott Brown's? Does she want to go back to Harvard?
SIDEBAR: I mean, I know it's hard to believe but those Academic jobs are pretty damn sweet. Right now, dear ol' Dad goes into the office every day, but mostly does his own thing (which would be Researching Mathematics), teaches three classes, keeps a generous Office Hours schedule (which means his students can actually reach him and ask him questions), and gets well paid for his efforts. He can eat dinner with his wife. Go out on weekends and take vacations as necessary, and can actually shut off his phone from time to time.
And you're saying that Elizabeth Warren wouldn't want this, after all she's been through?? You're suggesting that she should prefer getting grilled by the likes of Senator Richard Shelby from the State of Toyota--errrr, I mean, Alabama.
Ezra had similar thoughts:
Dr. Warren seems high on the choice (because it looks like she's the one who made it):
And she is clear eyed in what's ahead:
Oh yeah. Veto threat. That's a total betrayal.
And how seriously should we take the idea of Dr. Warren running for Senate? Well, she took the time to meet with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to Roll Call.
Stop it.
I hope I don't have to prove my pro-Dr. Warren bona-fides on this space, but it you need proof, you need only look up my blogpost: Elizabeth Warren for Consumer Protection...if she wants it. (Written a year ago, just about to the day). Yes, she is that great. Yes, I want her to have the job...
...if she wants it.
Yes. If.
So, we've heard her say it plainly that she wants the job right? I mean that's been all over the place (by which I mean, it hasn't). Does she want another job, say, Scott Brown's? Does she want to go back to Harvard?
SIDEBAR: I mean, I know it's hard to believe but those Academic jobs are pretty damn sweet. Right now, dear ol' Dad goes into the office every day, but mostly does his own thing (which would be Researching Mathematics), teaches three classes, keeps a generous Office Hours schedule (which means his students can actually reach him and ask him questions), and gets well paid for his efforts. He can eat dinner with his wife. Go out on weekends and take vacations as necessary, and can actually shut off his phone from time to time.
And you're saying that Elizabeth Warren wouldn't want this, after all she's been through?? You're suggesting that she should prefer getting grilled by the likes of Senator Richard Shelby from the State of Toyota--errrr, I mean, Alabama.
Ezra had similar thoughts:
Whoever is nominated to lead the CFPB is going to spend the next year of his life being filibustered by Republicans. The very best he can hope for is a recess appointment, in which case his tenure in the position would be relatively swift. So the question isn’t who you want leading the CFPB for the foreseeable future. It’s who you want spending his or her time being stopped from leading the CFPB for the foreseeable future. And it’s not clear that the answer to that question is “Elizabeth Warren.”
Warren, after all, has another option that she appears to be taking seriously: challenging Scott Brown in the 2012 election. For reasons I’ve outlined here and Bob Kuttner elaborates on here, there’s reason to think she would be a very effective candidate. But if she wants to do that, she can’t spend the next year being blocked from leading the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. She has to spend at least part of it preparing for her candidacy.
Now, I don’t think there’s any doubt that Warren would prefer to lead the agency she’s built than launch a Senate campaign that may or may not succeed. But launching a Senate campaign that may or may not succeed seems like a clearly more effective way to protect her agency and further her ideas than being blocked from leading the agency she’s built.
Meanwhile, Richard Cordray is actually in a very good position to spend the next year or two being blocked from running the CFPB. Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general with a great reputation in consumer-protection circles and Warren’s blessing, doesn’t have anything to run for until Ohio’s governorship opens in 2014. By all accounts, he’s a good choice to lead the agency now, if he can somehow get past the Republicans, and spending a few years publicly fighting to protect consumers is unlikely to hurt him back home.
Dr. Warren seems high on the choice (because it looks like she's the one who made it):
Rich will be a strong leader for this agency. He has a proven track record of fighting for families during his time as head of the CFPB enforcement division, as Attorney General of Ohio, and throughout his career. He was one of the first senior executives I recruited for the agency, and his hard work and deep commitment make it clear he can make many important contributions in leading it. Rich is smart, he is tough, and he will make a stellar Director. I am very pleased for him and very pleased for the CFPB.
And she is clear eyed in what's ahead:
Make no mistake: this agency still has enemies in Washington, D.C. And they have a plan.
In May, forty-four Republican Senators wrote a letter saying that they will block anyone from serving as CFPB Director. Many of them don't like the agency or the ideas that led to its creation. They lost that fight last summer in a straight-up vote, but they say they will use a filibuster over a Director nomination to undercut the agency. Without a Director, however, the agency's authority over payday lenders, debt collectors and other non-bank financial companies can be challenged. The Republicans say that they will permit a Director only if the agency is amended to make it less independent and less likely to act.
I remain hopeful that those who want to cripple this consumer bureau will think again and remember that the financial crisis -- and the recession and job losses that it sparked -- began one lousy mortgage at a time. I also hope that when those Senators next go home, they ask their constituents how they feel about fine print, about signing contracts with terms that are incomprehensible, and about learning the true costs of a financial transaction only later when fees are piled on or interest rates are reset. I hope they will ask the people in their districts if they are opposed to an agency that is working to make prices clear or if they think budgets should be cut for an agency that is trying to make sure that trillion-dollar banks follow the law. I hope they will ask their constituents if they are opposed to the confirmation of someone who saved $2 billion for retirees, investors, and business owners as Ohio Attorney General and who has worked hard on the front lines fighting against fraudulent foreclosures and abusive lending practices.
This week is the culmination of two years of hard battles. The President put the consumer agency in his first outline of financial regulatory reform, and he never wavered in his support for it. The agency was declared dead several times, and weak versions and lousy bargains were offered again and again, but he stood fast. When he signed Dodd-Frank into law, creating the new agency, he offered me the chance to stand it up -- something for which I will always be grateful. The fights continued, and again, the President never wavered in his support. In fact, just last week he issued a veto threat if the Republicans try to move the agency's funding to the political process, and I know that in the future he won't allow opponents of reform to succeed in weakening the CFPB.
Oh yeah. Veto threat. That's a total betrayal.
And how seriously should we take the idea of Dr. Warren running for Senate? Well, she took the time to meet with the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, according to Roll Call.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Sunday, October 31, 2010
The Fireside chat for October 30, 2010 (VIDEO)
Ahead of the elections, the President says no matter what happens both parties must work together to boost the economy, and expresses concern about statements to the contrary from Republican Leaders.
Labels:
Congress,
Conservatives,
Democrats,
Election 2010,
Ethics,
Financial Regulation,
Fireside,
House,
Ideology,
News,
Obama,
Regulation,
Republicans,
Senate,
Speeches,
U.S.,
Video
Saturday, October 23, 2010
The Fireside chat for October 23, 2010 (VIDEO)
The President hones in on the passage of Wall Street Reform over the ferocious lobbying of Wall Street banks as a pivotal moment in the last two years, and condemns Republicans in Congress for vowing to repeal it.
Count this among the many, many consequences for sitting on your hands and not voting this November.
Count this among the many, many consequences for sitting on your hands and not voting this November.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Elizabeth Warren on the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (VIDEO)
And here I thought this was going to be a slow news day:
Monday, September 20, 2010
Friday, September 17, 2010
Ezra Klein: Things that were once considered "Pipe Dreams"
I almost forgot this, a really nice bit of writing from Ezra Klein:
I disagree with him about the Financial Regulation (I actually liked it, and liked the attempt), but that's just me.
The White House held a conference call today for Elizabeth Warren and various bloggers and writers. Most of it was what you'd expect, but Warren did mention that Rep. Barney Frank once told her that getting a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was a "pipe dream."
I think some people will see that as a mark against Frank, but he was right, at least judging by Washington's record over the previous 20 or 30 years. In fact, a lot of the Obama administration's accomplishments were pipe dreams.
A near-universal health-care system? Why would Obama and the Democrats succeed when Truman, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton had all failed, and politicians as adept as FDR and LBJ refused to even make the attempt? They've seen the numbers, right? The health-care industry is bigger now, and richer, and there are no more liberal Republicans. There's no way.
A $787 billion stimulus? Yes, it was too small. But everything Washington does is always too small. And within the confines of that stimulus, the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress managed to make a host of long-term investments that would've been considered huge accomplishments in any other context, but are largely unknown inside this one. Huge investments in green energy, in health information technology, in high-speed rail, in universal broadband, in medical research, in infrastructure. The Making Work Pay tax cut. The Race to the Top education reform program. No recent president has invested in the country on anything like that level.
The fact of financial reform is less impressive given the fact of the financial crisis, and readers know that I'm skeptical about the final design of the bill. But the consumer protection agency really is an important addition that might not have been included if the White House was occupied by a different team.
There are the smaller items that, in any other administration, would be seen as achievements. Menu labeling in chain restaurants. The Independent Payment Advisory Board to bring down Medicare costs. Ted Kennedy's SERVE America Act.
And then there's what didn't happen: The financial system didn't collapse. Henry Paulson, Ben Bernanke and George W. Bush deserve some of the credit for that -- though they also deserve some of the blame for not preventing the crisis in the first place. But as Ben Smith says, TARP, which was begun by Bush and implemented by Obama, is probably one of the most successful policies in American history -- and it's also one of the least popular.
The Obama administration is also unpopular, though still more popular than the Democrats or Republicans in Congress. Many of its achievements -- notably health-care reform and the stimulus -- are similarly unpopular. That makes it difficult for the administration to run the midterm campaign that would've been the natural extension of this record: We have fulfilled almost all of the major promises we made in the 2008 election, and we're the most accomplished White House in a generation.
Those things are true, of course. And I think that the labor market will eventually recover, and the health-care reform plan will cover 32 million people and make the system better and more secure for a lot of people beyond that, and Obama, like Reagan before him, will be considered an extremely successful president despite struggling with his popularity in the early years of his first term. But for now, that kind of popularity is, well, a pipe dream. And the Obama administration is left running on exactly the record it hoped and promised to have in 2008, but without the level of economic recovery and thus popularity that would've helped convince the American people to deliver a favorable initial review.
I disagree with him about the Financial Regulation (I actually liked it, and liked the attempt), but that's just me.
"Things said by Elizabeth Warren tend to be more interesting than things said about Elizabeth Warren..." (VIDEO)
Fine, this is the President talking about Elizabeth Warren. Still, the man's got to introduce her.
From President Obama's prepared remarks:
I have known Elizabeth Warren since law school. She’s a native of Oklahoma. She’s a janitor’s daughter who has become one of the country’s fiercest advocates for the middle class. She has seen financial struggles and foreclosures affect her own family.
Long before this crisis hit, she had written eloquently, passionately, forcefully, about the growing financial pressures on working families and the need to put in place stronger consumer protections. And three years ago she came up with an idea for a new independent agency that would have one simple overriding mission: standing up for consumers and middle-class families.
Thanks to Elizabeth’s efforts, as well as the dedication and persistence of the person to my right, Secretary of Treasury Geithner, as well as leaders in Congress like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, that agency will soon become a reality.
And we got to hear from Elizabeth Warren herself:
President Obama understands the importance of leveling the playing field again for families and creating protections that work not just for the wealthy or connected, but for every American. The new consumer bureau is based on a pretty simple idea: people ought to be able to read their credit card and mortgage contracts and know the deal. They shouldn’t learn about an unfair rule or practice only when it bites them—way too late for them to do anything about it. The new law creates a chance to put a tough cop on the beat and provide real accountability and oversight of the consumer credit market. The time for hiding tricks and traps in the fine print is over. This new bureau is based on the simple idea that if the playing field is level and families can see what’s going on, they will have better tools to make better choices.
This is the best part of Elizabeth Warren taking on the special advisory role. She gets to set up the CFPB. She gets to pick the staff. And because she's not going through Senate confirmation, she gets to start talking to the American people about the CFPB right now, and not go into the cone of silence that apparently Senator Dodd demands.
Liberals seem very happy about even this temporary appointment, because I think they have a better job for her in mind.
Of course, as Ezra Klein says: "things said by Elizabeth Warren tend to be more interesting than things said about Elizabeth Warren."
Elizabeth Warren on Consumer Protection (MMBM) from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.
Video taken from the Make Markets Be Markets conference, March 3, 2010, New York City.
Labels:
Democrats,
Election 2010,
Ethics,
Federal Reserve,
Financial Regulation,
News,
Obama,
Regulation,
U.S.,
Video
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Why is it that the major opposition to Warren seems to be Chris Dodd?
I'm not getting this at all. The first major resistance to Elizabeth Warren's nomination to head of Consumer Protection was Chris Dodd. The first word about a potential filibuster came not from Republicans, but from Chris Dodd. Now, the first person out the gate downplaying her power in the position created for her by the President not a Republican, but Chris Dodd.
Is this a filibuster of one?
Is this a filibuster of one?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
On Warren, "It's always nice to see someone rewarded for being right, for a change."
Wow. Lotsa Rachel Maddow tonight.
In addition to the interview with the Vice-President, Rachel also covered the President's Tax speech, and Elizabeth Warren's appointment with Chris Hayes.
I hope Josh and Matt were paying attention to this.
In addition to the interview with the Vice-President, Rachel also covered the President's Tax speech, and Elizabeth Warren's appointment with Chris Hayes.
I hope Josh and Matt were paying attention to this.
Elizabeth Warren is doing exactly what, again??
Jake Tapper over at ABC has apparently gotten himself a bit of a scoop:
A Democratic Senator I used to have some respect for has been going out of his friggin' way to trash a potential Warren nomination with virtually every last breath he takes while still in office:
What? Does he want the job himself? Beats Bank Lobbying, I suppose. I'll never understand why he's so focused on pissing all over this nomination. Needless to say, I won't miss Dodd when he's gone.
Needless to say, Josh Marshall (at TPM) is confused:
And Matthew Yglesias (at Think Progress) tweeted this, apparently pissed off:
The Elizabeth Warren P.R. Firm of Huffington Post is spiking the ball like they...say...scored the only touchdown in the Dallas-Washington Game from Sunday night.
(I hate to rub it in Cowboys fans, but I am like that).
But this is why you've got to read the whole piece. Josh and Matt didn't horn in on the last part of Jake's story which said:
Truth be told, this sounds exactly like the Interim posting story that we've been hearing about all week. So finally, allow me to fire up the wayback machine from the distant past of Tuesday, and quote, myself:
President Obama will announce this week that Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law School professor who first proposed the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will be named to a special position reporting to both him and to the Treasury Department and tasked with heading the effort to get the new federal agency standing, a knowledgeable Democrat told ABC News.
A Democratic Senator I used to have some respect for has been going out of his friggin' way to trash a potential Warren nomination with virtually every last breath he takes while still in office:
Outgoing Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) warned Tuesday that an interim appointment of Elizabeth Warren to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau "jeopardizes the existence" of the nascent agency.
The White House is considering naming Warren interim head, as the law establishing the CFPB allows, in order to get her into place immediately and head off a Senate filibuster of her nomination. Once she's in place, Obama could nominate her for the permanent position.
"I'm not enthusiastic about that and I think it'll be met with a lot of opposition," Dodd told reporters after coming off the Senate floor.
Dodd said that an interim appointment would deprive the director of the legitimacy that comes with Senate confirmation. He added that such an appointment could create a backlash that would lead Congress to defund the bureau.
"This is a big job, an important job, and it needs to be -- you've got to build the support for that institutionally or the next Congress - and none of us know what the outcome's going to be politically -- you could gut this before it even gets off the ground. If you don't have someone running it early on, it jeopardizes the existence of the consumer protection bureau," he said. Asked how Congress would gut it, he said: "Money. Take away the money. That's how you always do it."
What? Does he want the job himself? Beats Bank Lobbying, I suppose. I'll never understand why he's so focused on pissing all over this nomination. Needless to say, I won't miss Dodd when he's gone.
Needless to say, Josh Marshall (at TPM) is confused:
We're seeking more clarification now, but it sounds like the White House has decided that instead of nominating Warren to head up the new consumer financial protection bureau, or alternatively avoiding the confirmation process and appointing her as interim director, the President will take a third way and make her a special adviser to help set the bureau up.
And Matthew Yglesias (at Think Progress) tweeted this, apparently pissed off:
With Warren, Obama showing real innovation in developing odd, satisfying to nobody compromises.
The Elizabeth Warren P.R. Firm of Huffington Post is spiking the ball like they...say...scored the only touchdown in the Dallas-Washington Game from Sunday night.
The White House has tapped Elizabeth Warren as a special adviser to help set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, ABC News is reporting. The move allows her to act as an interim head of the CFPB and will enable her to begin setting up the agency immediately and prevent the GOP from filibustering her nomination. Warren could serve until Obama nominates a permanent director -- a nomination he's not required to make for some time. Obama could also nominate her as the permanent director in the near future, a prospect that has been discussed among top aides, according to a person familiar with the White House deliberations. Warren will also be named as a special adviser directly to Obama, ABC reported.
(I hate to rub it in Cowboys fans, but I am like that).
But this is why you've got to read the whole piece. Josh and Matt didn't horn in on the last part of Jake's story which said:
Naming Warren as an assistant or counselor to both the president and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner would allow the president to bypass a Senate confirmation process that could prove lengthy and contentious.
“I’m concerned about all Senate confirmations these days” including if he were to “nominate somebody for dog catcher,” the president said Friday when asked if he was concerned about Warren’s ability to be confirmed. “I’ve got people who have been waiting for six months to get confirmed who nobody has an official objection to and who were voted out of committee unanimously, and I can’t get a vote on them.”
Since nominees facing the confirmation process also enter a period of public silence, avoiding the confirmation process would also allow Warren to publicly discuss the agency and its benefits, which the president is eager for her to do.
Truth be told, this sounds exactly like the Interim posting story that we've been hearing about all week. So finally, allow me to fire up the wayback machine from the distant past of Tuesday, and quote, myself:
He appoints Elizabeth Warren to the position on an Interim basis. If the Senate continues to act like...you know...the Senate...and resists her nomination, we get both the benefit of a fight where Republicans are tarnished as people against protecting consumers, and she gets to do her job in the meantime.
Excellent.
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
TPM: False Alarm.
On Elizabeth Warren. Never mind. Everyone's walking it back now.
Of course, the original reportage came from Fox News.
I still think it's going to be her, though.
Of course, the original reportage came from Fox News.
I still think it's going to be her, though.
It's Elizabeth Warren...
Looks like she wanted it after all.
I think the reasons highlighted on September 10th (mostly through Noam Scheiber's excellent work) came to pass, but there's no absolute proof of this. Just a hunch.
Now understand, she's being named Interim Head of the Consumer Protection Bureau. This is key.
Because the Senate can't get its act together, and pass the large number of other appointments waiting on their desk because of Republican obstructionism, the President has taken on a new tactic.
He appoints Elizabeth Warren to the position on an Interim basis. If the Senate continues to act like...you know...the Senate...and resists her nomination, we get both the benefit of a fight where Republicans are tarnished as people against protecting consumers, and she gets to do her job in the meantime.
Excellent.
Time to start throwing knuckleballs high and inside. If someone gets hit, tough @#$!!
(Yeah, that was a Baseball reference. It means that...never mind.)
Anyway, I'm glad she got the job. I'm glad she wanted the job. I think this is a good thing for America.
I think the reasons highlighted on September 10th (mostly through Noam Scheiber's excellent work) came to pass, but there's no absolute proof of this. Just a hunch.
Now understand, she's being named Interim Head of the Consumer Protection Bureau. This is key.
Because the Senate can't get its act together, and pass the large number of other appointments waiting on their desk because of Republican obstructionism, the President has taken on a new tactic.
He appoints Elizabeth Warren to the position on an Interim basis. If the Senate continues to act like...you know...the Senate...and resists her nomination, we get both the benefit of a fight where Republicans are tarnished as people against protecting consumers, and she gets to do her job in the meantime.
Excellent.
Time to start throwing knuckleballs high and inside. If someone gets hit, tough @#$!!
(Yeah, that was a Baseball reference. It means that...never mind.)
Anyway, I'm glad she got the job. I'm glad she wanted the job. I think this is a good thing for America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)