Breaking: National Journal reports Obama to use recess appointment for Cordray

posted at 10:36 am on January 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Exactly one week ago, I warned that Barack Obama would not feel himself constrained from making recess appointments by the pro forma sessions in the Senate, especially on Richard Cordray.  National Journal reports that Obama will announce a recess appointment for Cordray to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — and escalate the division between the Senate and the White House, and Democrats and Republicans:

President Obama will announce today that he will appoint Richard Cordray as head of the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Senate’s recess, the White House said.

The appointment comes to the dismay of Senate Republicans, who blocked Cordray’s nomination in order to weaken the bureau. …

Obama is scheduled to make his first public appearance of 2012 on Wednesday at 1:15 p.m. in the suburbs of Cleveland — Cordray’s home state.

Of all the controversial appointments that the Senate GOP has managed to bottle up, this one had the weakest argument.  The objections of Republicans to Cordray rested mainly on the CFPB itself, not Cordray.  They had already forced Obama to withdraw his first nominee, Elizabeth Warren, who proved inartful at Congressional relations anyway.  The CFPB itself was a battle Republicans lost over a year ago.  Congress passed it into law, and Obama should be able to get a nominee to run it confirmed.  Republicans can win the next election and make the changes they wish in the next session, but it’s unreasonable to simply block the agency from operating with its chosen leadership.

Don’t be surprised if Obama turns to the NLRB next.  The board can’t operate without a quorum, which it now lacks, and the GOP won’t budge after the activism of the NLRB under the influence of his previous recess appointment, Craig Becker.   Cordray won’t cost him much political damage, but Obama will come under fire regardless of which way he goes on this.  Business leaders will erupt in outrage if he forces more activists onto the NLRB, and unions will be just as outraged if he doesn’t.  Obama needs the former for funding and the latter for organization in the coming election, but setting this precedent will make it almost impossible for Obama to resist more recess appointments.

Update: As an aside, the timing on this is rather interesting, too.  Maybe Obama hoped to get this under the radar with all of the attention on Iowa the morning after the caucuses — or maybe steal some of the thunder from the Republicans.  Either works.

However, the lasting impact of this recess appointment will be (a) Republicans blocking even more Obama appointments, and (b) a Republican President ignoring a Democratic block on appointments regardless of the time that the Senate has been out of the chamber.  Expect the GOP to press a charge of Obama as an imperial President in the fall, too.

Update II: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) released a statement saying he is “outraged” by the recess appointment of Cordray:

“This is a very grave decision by this heavy-handed, autocratic White House.  Circumventing the Senate and tossing out decades of precedent to appoint an unaccountable czar to appease its liberal base is beneath the Office of the President.  The legislative branch exists as a check and a balance on the Executive.  By opening this door, the White House is saying it can appoint any person at any time to any position it chooses without the advice and consent of the Senate.  This is not how our Republic was designed to function. The American people deserve to be treated with more respect than this White House is affording them with this blatant power grab.  Senators of both parties should be deeply troubled the President’s actions today – actions which will come back to haunt them. ”

Other than making statements, there is little anyone can do to stop Obama from making these appointments, as I wrote last week.  The only action that can be taken is to make sure that Obama pays a political price for them.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

But seriously, this is about partisanship, not some genuine fear about executive over reach. Which folks could just be honest.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM

No, it’s about anti-Americanism, and about opposing continued, ongoing threats to our nation’s economy. Your vote for Obama won’t ensure that you or those you care about will have enough to eat, a place to live, jobs to attend to or much of anything else. The perspective of “partisanship” is entirely yours.

Lourdes on January 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I love Moe Lane’s take on this: ” This president is doing something that will make the Democrat party curse his name for the next 30 years” “Have you ever heard the term “unanimous consent” President Obama? Because you will be hearing it at awful lot very soon.”

Mord on January 4, 2012 at 11:13 AM

McConnel will stamp his feet and Boehner will cry. All better.

ctmom on January 4, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Imagine a CDPB aimed at MSM exaggerations, like for example, reporting near record high temps in winter on the left coast and in the same breath only wind chill temps on the right coast.

What is wind chill exactly other than an opportunity to exaggerate for effect?

Isn’t that: “unfair,” “deceptive,” “abusive,” and “discriminatory” practices”?

Speakup on January 4, 2012 at 11:14 AM

Here’s some bad news for Obama: The Liberty Legal Foundation has brought lawsuits to keep Obama off the 2012 ballot because “the Supreme Court has defined ‘natural-born-citizen’ as a person with two U.S. citizen parents, and Obama admits that his father was never a U.S. citizen.”

Yesterday, a GA court upheld LLF which could be disastrous news for Der Fuehrer. My favorite scenario involves a ruling removing him from the ballot and the decision comes this summer so that the Dims have no time to react. If GA removes him from the ballot we can be sure that many other states will follow suit.

http://libertylegalfoundation.org/1477/georgia-court-ruled-against-obama/

Samantha on January 4, 2012 at 11:03 AM

Donald?…Donald Trump?…Is that you?

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Spot on re:lasting impact Ed

cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM

So what recourse does the congress have against the president short of impeachment? Funding doesn’t seem to work.

Kaffa on January 4, 2012 at 10:45 AM

You want to see the cities explode into anarchy , try the impeachment thing.

jsunrise on January 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Read the polls. Obama isn’t seen as the guy standing in the way of progress. Despite what we read here daily about his policies failing.

freshface on January 4, 2012 at 10:43 AM

That’s because outside of political junkies, the mindless masses get their info from the alphabet channels who will paint Obama as a warrior battling the obstructionist GOP.

John Deaux on January 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM

President Obama will announce today that he will appoint Richard Cordray as head of the controversial Consumer Financial Protection Bureau during the Senate’s recess, the White House said.

Sorry, Ed, but trying to defend the indefensible is like being ones own lawyer.

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM

I think the Left, Democrats and whoever else are among the Leftwing — who find Obama appealing or even credible as leadership by policy, belief, goals — can be summed up well by this:

‘they’re looking for vengeance’.

Every time I read comments by people who express enthusiasm about Obama, I read how they “feel” like the U.S. has harmed them via whatever, respective hurt they cite, and how they “feel” Obama is going to somehow deliver the vengeance they seek to them about these perceived harms.

And Obama’s ongoing messages appeal to just such personalities.

Lourdes on January 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM

The Republicans will roll over like always, they don’t have the cajones.

TulsAmerican on January 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Your vote for Obama won’t ensure that you or those you care about will have enough to eat, a place to live, jobs to attend to or much of anything else

Neither will a vote against him for *insert lame GOP politician here,* are you under the impression that the bursting of the housing bubble and the exposure of massive fake wealth throughout the economy is somehow going to be fixed by a Presidential Administration or two? Ha! Not when the masterminds of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs veterans et al continue to run the show in Washington. The solution to a crisis created on Wall Street is Mitt Romney. Lord, part of me almosts wants him to win. Maybe it will finally disabuse you of the notion that American Presidents have *anything* to do with the economy these days.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM

I’m glad some folks are admitting that its not about “an unprecedented Obama overreach of executive power that will tip the U.S. toward fascisms, aieeeee!” and that this is all about opposition to the consumer protections board. Which is fine. For my money, Warren and the consumer protections board is one of the few genuinely leftist things to come out of this Administration. And its protection, along with the Court, are enough for me to pull a level for Obama rather than 3rd party. But seriously, this is about partisanship, not some genuine fear about executive over reach. Which folks could just be honest.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:08 AM

You still haven’t addressed the issue of a president making a recess appointment when there is no recess. You are OK with that? I don’t care about anyone being upset or not about Bolten being a recess appointment. Bush at least respected the rules when he made that appointment. Certainly, if the Senate went into recess the President can make the appointment. But where’s the recess?

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM

ctmom on January 4, 2012 at 11:13 AM

Holy idiocy, Batman. Is it possible for these fascist grievance-mongers to be any more condescending, any more propagadistic, any more infantile than that?

Have at it people, but don’t spend more than five minutes. Those overpaid jokers don’t deserve any more of your time/money than they’re already getting.

winoceros on January 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM

You get the government you deserve, folks.

Obama ’12

TwoShortPlanks on January 4, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Check this out

http://www.whitehouse.gov/consumerstories?utm_source=consumerstories&utm_medium=text2&utm_campaign=cfpb

ctmom on January 4, 2012 at 11:13 AM

I laugh how it was that Obama launched that media campaign (“what does $40. mean to you”) while he lapsed into a Four Million Dollar vacation billed to the taxpayers and played golf, overate luxurious foods and reveled in his beachy-comforts.

He plays the vulnerable people who vote for him like a Master Snake Oil Salesman, Mr. Street Hustler, Barack Obama.

Lourdes on January 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Breaking news: Barack Obama is like most modern Presidents Bush.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Is that what you were trying to say?

Kenosha Kid on January 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Ot:perry heading to SC

Yahoo

cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM

Who is surprised by this? Barky is just doing what he has done over and over and over. He thinks the rules are made to be broken, and he is trying to break our system in the process. Anyone who thinks this is “unprecedented” – like the a$$wipe McConnell – ought to step down and go away because there is ample precdent for this … Barky has done this exact sort of thing time after time. Everyone with a brain knows that Barky doesn’t give a sh#t about the Constitution or anything. He will do whatever the heck he wants to do and the US can go to hell if we have a problem with it.

Barky needs to be impeached, convicted, and then criminally tried and jailed. Otherwise, America is just showing that it doesn’t want to live … to let an ineligible retard who hates us and everything about us take our great nation down like this … in ssuch a stupidly illegal and obvious way.

Unbelievable … not that Barky would continue trying to destroy the US as he has been working towards since the start, but that the GOP and this nation don’t have the self-respect to put such a retarded criminal where he belongs.

Of course, I write this on a site where the main blogger was scared at the idea of Palin becoming VP but felt comfortable with the idea of the Ineligible Idiot from Indonesia in the Oval Office. Great stuff …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 11:21 AM

The Republicans will roll over like always, they don’t have the cajones.

TulsAmerican on January 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Absolutely. If you want to catch a pig, you have to be willing to get dirty. If you are unwilling to get dirty, you will never stop the pig.

climbnjump on January 4, 2012 at 11:22 AM

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM

The housing bubble was created in Washington by bad law and policy. It is hard to take you seriously if you don’t even half understand that.

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Ding ding ding
John deauxi

cmsinaz on January 4, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Your vote for Obama won’t ensure that you or those you care about will have enough to eat, a place to live, jobs to attend to or much of anything else…

Lourdes on January 4, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Neither will a vote against him for *insert lame GOP politician here,* are you under the impression that the bursting of the housing bubble and the exposure of massive fake wealth throughout the economy is somehow going to be fixed by a Presidential Administration or two? Ha! Not when the masterminds of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs veterans et al continue to run the show in Washington. The solution to a crisis created on Wall Street is Mitt Romney. Lord, part of me almosts wants him to win. Maybe it will finally disabuse you of the notion that American Presidents have *anything* to do with the economy these days.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:18 AM

When your boat sinks because of those holes you eagerly drilled in the bottom of it, and you’re cheering about Obama, remember that the shark’s name who greets you is Barack. Or Michelle.

Meanwhile, before you jump back into your leaky boat, I’m sure there’s a flag somewhere you can burn.

SOME of us U.S. citizens are concerned about tomorrow and the day after that, not about your silly propaganda seeking to rationalize destroying the land.

Lourdes on January 4, 2012 at 11:24 AM

Breaking news: Barack Obama is like most modern Presidents Bush.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Is that what you were trying to say?

Kenosha Kid on January 4, 2012 at 11:20 AM

The two party’s are different. It’s only people who support the Left who want others to lose faith in the constructive goals of the GOP.

The GOP is certainly not without fault, nor is any President, but people who try to persuade others that Obama is somehow “just like Bush or any other President” are either blind or corrupt, because Obama is clearly not even up to the knees of so many brave men who have held that office, including George Bush.

Faults and failures are one thing but Obama has very destructive plans, goals and ideas as to the United States of America and anyone who claims he doesn’t is not paying attention, or, they’re paying attention and agree with him.

Lourdes on January 4, 2012 at 11:28 AM

When is the RNC going to make an ad out of this? Looks like we’re having a Tianniman(sp)Square moment here. I’m tired of the tools in the senate and house saying he can’t do this. He just did.

Kissmygrits on January 4, 2012 at 11:29 AM

The housing bubble was created in Washington by bad law and policy. It is hard to take you seriously if you don’t even half understand that.

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Yes, economic deregulation passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President opened the floodgates for the housing bubble. But, you know, it is amazing to me the way Republicans think about “personal responsibility.” When it comes to a woman on welfare the argument is that we need to cut those programs so that her kids can “learn to fish” right? Learn some “personal responsibility,” its an American value! But when it comes to the actions of Wall Street financial institutions who lobbied for deregulation, got it, and then used it to make billions of dollars in a speculative housing market that ultimately crippled the U.S. economy suddenly Republicans are like “well we can’t blame them for their actions, they wouldn’t have done it if we hadn’t loosened the regulations. Oh well, boys will be boys.” It’s hard to take *you* seriously until you understand that.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:30 AM

An outraged Orrin Hatch…

Meh.

Valiant on January 4, 2012 at 11:31 AM

Maybe Obama hoped to get this under the radar…

Nothing doing. This is part of Obummer’s act of daily outrage. Perfectly planned and skillfully applied Alinsky tactic, knowing that any GOP response will be highlighted & spun negative by the MSM.

bloviator on January 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM

Sorry, but this is NOT the usual appointment battle. The Dodd-Frank law created the CFPB and gave it many new powers that cannnot be exercised until it has Director in place, and the law itself requires that the Director be a Presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. (And believe me, there is nothing urgent about these new powers, they are powers mostly to harrass banks and provide some federal supervision to nonbanks, of which there used to be many but now are only a few with little market share.)

There is so little other oversight of the CFPB in this law – and that is the beef that Republicans have with it – that Cordray becomes essentially another “czar” answerable only to the President. Yes, he is nominally “qualified” for the job, but that is not the point.

Remember that this President claimed to be a constitutional law professor, but this appointment puts the new powers of the CFPB in constitutional limbo, and any enforcement of them against a major comapny with feep pockets will certainly be challenged as illegal because the agency does not have a legally appointed Director. And this will only make the next Congress even more determined to eliminate the CFPB altogether. Obama simply does not care about that; this is only about scoring a cheap political point.

This ia all of a piece with Obama’s phony fight over a two-month extension of a tiny tax cut, the debt ceiling fight, and many others. He is willing to trash our system of governance, of separation os powers, of longstanding budget and tax policy, just to score cheap political points. Aside from what you may think of him as a person or of his policy views, this alone should get him fired and landed in the dustbin of bad Presidents.

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM

When is the RNC going to make an ad impeachment out of this?

Kissmygrits on January 4, 2012 at 11:29 AM

The GOP are gutless cowards who are happy to let the Indonesian Imbecile tear our nation to shreds without them raising a finger. It is the Vichy Right who are quick to attack Bachmann and hound her until she’s out of the race but they won’t open their pathetic little mouths about the perversion and destruction of our system that has come from the White House (and the ineligible idiot there) for years, now.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Yes, economic deregulation passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Democratic President opened the floodgates for the housing bubble.

Please list for us the policies, laws and other checks that were enacted by “economic deregulation.”

Then show us the data indicating that increasing regulations exponentially improves economic output and performance. \

Thanks.

Good Lt on January 4, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Shorter Barry: “Etat? C’est moi!”

SD on January 4, 2012 at 11:35 AM

Constitution? What Constitution?

Yakko77 on January 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM

ctmom on January 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM

As if being nice now will make our appointments any easier. Come on. You are dreaming.

antisocial on January 4, 2012 at 11:36 AM

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Lol. Your cute when you puke your ignorance.

The housing bubble had nothing to do with deregulation and everything to do with lenders being forced to make loans they would never do even if stoned out of their minds. And once every loser could buy a house because the government forced lenders to lend to them, housing values inflated exponentially. So, we have inflated prices because of all the easy money created through bad regulations that forced this easy money into the market and the bad loanees end up being unable to pay their mortgages…hmm, one wonders what the outcome of that might be.

Why are you ignoring my question about a recess appointment when there is no recess? No good answer for it?

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 11:37 AM

It’s GOOD to be The King!

GarandFan on January 4, 2012 at 11:37 AM

There is no way Obama will be removed from office through impeachment proceedings given that Democrats control the Senate. The only way to remove Obama from office is through the 2012 election.

qq1985 on January 4, 2012 at 11:38 AM

Share your stories – Have you been surprised or confused by the fine print on an agreement for a mortgage or credit card:

No. Unlike the democrat congress I actually read thoroughly anything I am signing my name to.

ctmom on January 4, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Please list for us the policies, laws and other checks that were enacted by “economic deregulation.”

Gramm Leach Billy Act, 1999. Allowed investment banks, insurance companies and securities companies to merge. Do I have to explain in detail how the effective repealing of parts of Glass Steagil in this bill gave us the housing bubble or do you need to be taken through it step by step?

Then show us the data indicating that increasing regulations exponentially improves economic output and performance.

That is not the role of economic regulation. The role of regulatory policy, at least since the Great Depression, has been to produce stable, sustainable economic growth. The country experienced massive growth in the 1990s and 2000s, but all of those major booms (tech, telecom and eventually housing) were followed by busts. The first two were relatively contained within their sectors of the economy, self corrected and moved on. The “Financial Modernization Act” ensured that the housing bubble would come with institutions that were “too big too fail.”

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:41 AM

How in the heck can you lower spending in washington when you keep adding more and more and more and more new parts of the govt and more and more positions to fill them?!

TheBlueSite on January 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Do I have to explain in detail how the effective repealing of parts of Glass Steagil in this bill gave us the housing bubble or do you need to be taken through it step by step?

Yes. I await your dissertation with giddy anticipation.

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The housing bubble had nothing to do with deregulation and everything to do with lenders being forced to make loans they would never do even if stoned out of their minds.

Oh the Fannie-Freddie caused the market to invest in sub-prime lie. How cute. Why didn’t the SEC agree?

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

If I’m not mistaken, there legally has to be at least a brief adjournment between the sessions of Congress. I don’t think the Republicans had a choice but to adjourn at least briefly, thus their “strongly worded letter” to Obama last week.

Shump on January 4, 2012 at 10:50 AM

That break between sessions occured yesterday, so it doesn’t apply in this case.

SD on January 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM

you know, I think the only good thing to come out of the prequels was this line:

“So this is how democracy dies, to thunderous applause.” – Sen Amadala

Who knew it would be such a predictive statement.

todler on January 4, 2012 at 11:44 AM

The CFPB itself was a battle Republicans lost over a year ago. Congress passed it into law, and Obama should be able to get a nominee to run it confirmed.

The only action that can be taken is to make sure that Obama pays a political price for them.

Ed, you seem to agree that Republicans are acting unreasonably by blocking the confirmation of Cordray, so by inference Obama is acting reasonably by making this recess appointment–what other choice does he have, really?

So I guess my question is, why should he pay a political price for this?

Tom_Shipley on January 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM

The only action that can be taken is to make sure that Obama pays a political price for them.

Does it appear that anyone has figured out how that will happen?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

CORRUPTION

TX-96 on January 4, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Update: As an aside, the timing on this is rather interesting, too. Maybe Obama hoped to get this under the radar

That’s pretty stupid. Barky doesn’t do this stuff to get it “under the radar”. He does this on purpose and as publicly as possible to stress and destroy our nation and system. If you haven’t figured this out by now, then you aren’t really equipped to be opining on anything …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 11:52 AM

And of course, now we will get treated to Richard Cordray acting as a campaign surrogate for Barack Obama, all at our expense.

The House should respond by calling Cordray to testify every single week until the election.

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Morriswey, you’re finally showing your true colors. So Obambo won the election and he gets to do whatever he wants? I always suspected your liberal leanings and now you have shown them to everyone. Puke!

rjulio on January 4, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Oh the Fannie-Freddie caused the market to invest in sub-prime lie. How cute. Why didn’t the SEC agree?

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

For the very same reason they conveniently escaped last year’s fiscal legislation. Do you know who is guarding the chicken coop? If F&F were not GSE’s how do you think they’d grade on the Tier 1 Cap ratios?

VietVet_Dave on January 4, 2012 at 11:56 AM

So I guess my question is, why should he pay a political price for this?

Tom_Shipley on January 4, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Oh, I don’t know, maybe because he is repeatedly trashing laws, precedents, longstanding budget and tax policymaking procedures, the separation of powers, and even defying his own campaign promises, just to score cheap political points?

Ot how about, this is just small and petty, especially for the guy who was going to Change Everything In Washington.

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Ot:perry heading to SC

Yahoo

cmsinaz on January 4, 2012

YESSSSSSSSSSSSS !!

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 4, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Oh the Fannie-Freddie caused the market to invest in sub-prime lie. How cute. Why didn’t the SEC agree?

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

That’s it? Are you running for office?

Link.

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 11:59 AM

And its protection, along with the Court, are enough for me to pull a level for Obama rather than 3rd party.

LOL

So you support the one genuinely leftist thing to come out of the administration, and it’s enough for you to pull the lever for Obama rather than (some candidate you weren’t ever going to vote for).

Yeah.

You’re “independent.”

Good Lt on January 4, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Technically, a true Socialist or Marxist is “independent” of the Democratic Party. She is enjoying that rarified political air that exists considerably left of Obama and his flavor of incompetent leftist political stew.

LarryinLA on January 4, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Arrogant ba5tard.

crosspatch on January 4, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Is the CFPB another one of those concoctions like Obamacare where all the laws and regulations are to be filled in later by the Commissioner? Instead of having to pass the Bill to find out what is in it, this time you have to install a commissioner to get the scoop?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

You can’t defend the indefensible. But that sure won’t stop some (like libfreeordie) from trying.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Yes. I await your dissertation with giddy anticipation.

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Well first, you may want to familiarize yourself with what GLB was and how it changed the financial markets. Also you may want to figure out who lobbied for its passage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%E2%80%93Leach%E2%80%93Bliley_Act

Now we also need to disabuse you of the idea that Fannie and Freddie was behind the sub-prime crisis. Luckily, there’s actual data on that question.

Between 2004 and 2006, when subprime lending was exploding, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of the subprime loans that were sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication. One reason is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated players in the private sector who weakened lending standards, most of whom have gone bankrupt or are now in deep trouble.During those same explosive three years, private investment banks — not Fannie and Freddie — dominated the mortgage loans that were packaged and sold into the secondary mortgage market. In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie, according to a number of specialty publications that track this data.

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A#storylink=cpy

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Ed, you seem to agree that Republicans are acting unreasonably by blocking the confirmation of Cordray, so by inference Obama is acting reasonably by making this recess appointment–what other choice does he have, really?

So I guess my question is, why should he pay a political price for this?

Tom_Shipley

If you haven’t noticed over the past 3 years, Democrats do not pay for ANYTHING. $1.5 Trillion deficits, Rangel/Geithner and their taxes. Of course they think there is no political price to further ignoring and denigrating the Constitution. The silence from the leftist media will be deafening.

LarryinLA on January 4, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Oh the Fannie-Freddie caused the market to invest in sub-prime lie. How cute. Why didn’t the SEC agree?

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Fannie and Freddie were DIRECTLY responsible for the packages of bad loans that were securitized. The Community Reinvestment Act signed by Jimmuh Cartuh, and given teeth by Bill Clinton, was responsible for the creation of most of that bad debt. When George W. Bush tried to rein in Freddie and Fanny and tighten up the rules about what kind of loans could be securitized, he was accused by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd of wanting to “sabotage affordable housing.” Is that plain enough for you, libtard?

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM

More from McClatchey

Fannie and Freddie, however, didn’t pressure lenders to sell them more loans; they struggled to keep pace with their private sector competitors. In fact, their regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.What’s more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don’t, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren’t subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans.In a speech last March, Janet Yellen, the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, debunked the notion that the push for affordable housing created today’s problems.”Most of the loans made by depository institutions examined under the CRA have not been higher-priced loans,” she said. “The CRA has increased the volume of responsible lending to low- and moderate-income households.”In a book on the sub-prime lending collapse published in June 2007, the late Federal Reserve Governor Ed Gramlich wrote that only one-third of all CRA loans had interest rates high enough to be considered sub-prime and that to the pleasant surprise of commercial banks there were low default rates. Banks that participated in CRA lending had found, he wrote, “that this new lending is good business.”

No one was “stoned” and very few people were “coerced” this was about profit, pure and simple. And the constant ignoring of evidence that things were not quite right.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Other than making statements, there is little anyone can do to stop Obama from making these appointments, as I wrote last week.

Why not defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until an approved nominee heads it?

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Oh, I don’t know, maybe because he is repeatedly trashing laws, precedents…

Actually, this is exactly what the GOP is doing by not confirming a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFRB was enacted into law last year. Opposition to Richard Cordray is not based on qualifications, but based on the fact that the GOP doesn’t think the CFRB should exist (sorry, but you lost that battle).

So, they are circumventing the law by not confirming the person to run the program which results in the Bureau not being able to function. This move is without precedent.

And even you agree with the GOP that this is a good plan of action, you can’t bitch when Obama uses the recess appointment to get around it. It’s like a thief complaining that a woman used pepper spray on him when he tried to grab her purse.

Tom_Shipley on January 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM

Why not defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until an approved nominee heads it?

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 12:07 PM

That actually sounds like a really good idea to me. I wouldn’t shed a single tear if it was never funded again, but in the current political climate it’s just a pipe dream to begin with. You’d have libtards whining left and right about predatory lending practices and how Republicans supposedly want to do some sort of wrong by the nation’s financial institutions or something.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Do I have to explain in detail how the effective repealing of parts of Glass Steagil in this bill gave us the housing bubble or do you need to be taken through it step by step?
libfreeordie

And I thought Obama was arrogant. I bet he could spell “Steagall” though. Probably hard to give a lesson on the intricacies of an act when you don’t even know the name.

LarryinLA on January 4, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Get ready for the theatrics…..Boehner is going to cry and pretend to be upset but we’re being played once again. The GOP is in total agreement with anything Obama does. This just gives them cover to allow us to think they really are trying to represent our interests. What a farce!! They’re all PROGRESSIVES and this is all Kabuki theater for our benefit. If most of us average joes knew what would happen over the holiday recess, then shouldn’t these gutless wonders have figured it out? Once again, the GOP is betraying us. No surprise here….

MONACO1121 on January 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Lourdes on January 4, 2012 at 11:28 AM

and that’s why I like it when you comment!

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM

I suspect Wesley Mouch will be the next Obama Administration appointee.

MichaelGabriel on January 4, 2012 at 12:14 PM

No one was “stoned” and very few people were “coerced” this was about profit, pure and simple. And the constant ignoring of evidence that things were not quite right.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM

You are comparing apples and oranges, just like comparing Bolten to Clatchey.

Investment banks don’t create mortgages, so of course they weren’t forced to make these bad loans. But the bad loans were made (because of regulation, not in spite of it) and thus the housing bubble was created. The inflated prices of homes was a direct result of this forced lending. The bubble was going to burst whether or not investment banks tried to make lemonade out of lemons.

Nobody wanted this bad debt on their books, so we got these high risk investment vehicles as a response. Whether investment houses acted irresponsibly or not, there never would have been an opportunity to do so if these bad loans did not exist in the first place.

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but the facts is da facts.

And what about recess appointments when there is no recess? Still waiting…

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 12:16 PM

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM

and again!
Nobody like the veterans here!

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2012 at 12:16 PM

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Err, Cordray, not Clatchey.

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

You can stick your head in the sand all you want, but the facts is da facts.

And what about recess appointments when there is no recess? Still waiting…

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 12:16 PM

/crickets

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:17 PM

And even you agree with the GOP that this is a good plan of action, you can’t bitch when Obama uses the recess appointment to get around it. It’s like a thief complaining that a woman used pepper spray on him when he tried to grab her purse.

Tom_Shipley on January 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM

In order for there to be a recess appointment there needs to be a recess.

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Why not defund the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau until an approved nominee heads it?

JohnTant on January 4, 2012 at 12:07 PM

That’s part of the problem. Congress set this thing up so it can’t be controlled through the budget process; it is funded through the Fed which prints its own money. So the anserr is No, Congress can’r defund it. That is one of several issues Republicans have with the way it was designed in the law.

Is the CFPB another one of those concoctions like Obamacare where all the laws and regulations are to be filled in later by the Commissioner? Instead of having to pass the Bill to find out what is in it, this time you have to install a commissioner to get the scoop?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Not exactly, it isn’t quite as bad as the Obamacare delegations of everything to the executive branch. But the law gives the CFPB examination and enforcement powers over nonbanks (examples of nonbanks are Capital One and Quicken Loans), which previously were regulated by the states because they are not federally-chartered nor federally insured. These new powers cannot be exercised until the CFPB has a director, and the law specifically says the director shall be a Presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. And there is no Congressional review authority over any of its new regulations or examination procedures that it might write to exercise this new power. (The examination manual it recently issued for bank examinations is 800 pages long.)

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Romney would have done the exact same thing.

angryed on January 4, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Read the polls. Obama isn’t seen as the guy standing in the way of progress. Despite what we read here daily about his policies failing.

freshface on January 4, 2012 at 10:43 AM

That’s because outside of political junkies, the mindless masses get their info from the alphabet channels who will paint Obama as a warrior battling the obstructionist GOP.

John Deaux on January 4, 2012 at 11:16 AM

Exactly right. And remember, O’bama supporters aren’t particularly bright to begin with.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2012 at 12:24 PM

We need this CSPB to protect the middle class NOW!

Sort of like how Sarbanes-Oxley expertly protected the middle class from MF Global!

/sarc

shanimal on January 4, 2012 at 12:25 PM

Not surprised.

Obama wants desperately to run against a “Do-Nothing” Congress. By poking his thumb in the eye of the Senate, he will provoke Republicans into throwing hissy-fits and withholding unanimous consent on mundane matters. That plays exactly into his re-election strategy.

It would have been better to allow Mr. Cordray to go to committee and be publicly vetted so that Republicans could further expose this President’s agenda.

Way to go there, R-Team….always just thinking like you’re playing checkers with this White House when they’re whipping you at 3-dimensional chess…

powerpickle on January 4, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Actually, this is exactly what the GOP is doing by not confirming a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFRB was enacted into law last year. Opposition to Richard Cordray is not based on qualifications, but based on the fact that the GOP doesn’t think the CFRB should exist (sorry, but you lost that battle).

So, they are circumventing the law by not confirming the person to run the program which results in the Bureau not being able to function. This move is without precedent.

And even you agree with the GOP that this is a good plan of action, you can’t bitch when Obama uses the recess appointment to get around it. It’s like a thief complaining that a woman used pepper spray on him when he tried to grab her purse.

Tom_Shipley on January 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I haven’t commented on the Republicans’ strategy here, and I would not ordinarily approve of it. But the law was passed by the LAST Congress; its primary defenders were defeated in the last election or are retiring before the next one. It’s a bad law that should be rewritten completely. (Just wait until the s— hits the fan over the Volcker rule.)

There is a lot in this law that was written, like major parts of Obamacare, at the last munite, behind closed doors, with no committee hearings. They circumvented a conference committee on this law in order to shove some stuff into it at the last minute, including funding the CFPB through the Fed. There is practically no Congressional oversight of this agency inj the law, which itself is unprecedneted for an agency of this magnitude. So Democrats should neither be surprised nor whine about Republicans using some unprecedented tactics to try to stop its implementation.

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 12:26 PM

“Recess appointments are bad. I will never do this.”

-Candidate Obama, 2008.

portlandon on January 4, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Hey! hey…you are screwing with the other sides memory!
When you screw with the “selective” part of that…you know they get all batsheet crazy! Careful with that!

KOOLAID2 on January 4, 2012 at 12:27 PM

From today’s American Banker:

The entire point of giving Cordray a recess appointment is so the CFPB can use its full authority to regulate nonbanks as well as banks. But it’s not legally clear whether that can happen. Forget whether President Obama has the right to make a recess appointment. What matters is the Dodd-Frank law, which gave the CFPB power over banks immediately but said it needed a Senate-confirmed director to exercise any new authorities over nonbanks. Notice I said “Senate-confirmed.”

Does a recess appointment count as “Senate-confirmed?” Republicans don’t think so, and privately, a lot of Democrats don’t either.

This is a double whammy for Cordray. Not only will the legality of his appointment be under fire but — even if it is perfectly legal — it’s not clear he can actually exercise the full powers of his office. And if he can’t, what’s the point? Even if Cordray and the White House think there’s no problem here, the agency is going to spend the first years of its existence mired in lawsuits that it may ultimately lose.

Of course, none of this matters to President Petty, when he can score a cheap political point.

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Expect the GOP to press a charge of Obama as an imperial President in the fall,

press a charge?! Why wait ’til the fall?
I expect the GOP to lay down on this. All of these ads, just writing themselves, yet the GOP lets them fall to the editing room floor.

Hey…I know…let’s write them (Dems) a strongly worded letter/s

askwhatif on January 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM

And if he can’t, what’s the point?

Politics.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Good Lt on January 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM

And if he can’t, what’s the point?

To cause as much damage to America, our institutions and processes as possible. Just as Barky’s been doing since the first day he slimed into office.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM

It would have been better to allow Mr. Cordray to go to committee and be publicly vetted so that Republicans could further expose this President’s agenda.

Way to go there, R-Team….always just thinking like you’re playing checkers with this White House when they’re whipping you at 3-dimensional chess…

powerpickle on January 4, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Cordray had a full confirmation hearing with the Senate Banking Committee. His nomination was approved on a party-line vote. Democrats tried to get cloture on his nomination and failed to get 60 votes.

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 12:34 PM

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I agree with everything you say here, except about Capital One. It’s not a non-bank; it’s a bank holding company, so is federally regulated.

SD on January 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM

the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, imposed new restrictions in 2006 that led to Fannie and Freddie losing even more market share in the booming subprime market.

aka, EVIL REPUBLICANS INCREASING REGULATION AND OVERSIGHT.

Not exactly consistent with REPUBLICANS WANT NO REGULATIONS AND COMPLETE ANARCHY LOL!@!!1!

Pick one.

Good Lt on January 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Yet this powerful CFPB, under the leadership of its Chair, is insulated from all the traditional checks and balances of government agencies.  Its budget, for example, is not dependent on appropriations — it determines how much it needs, and it gets the money directly from the Federal Reserve.  The CFPB has no dedicated Inspector General.  It has no Commission or Board, and its Chairman is not subject to dismissal at will by the President.   I could go on, but you get the picture.
Under this dangerous structure, the identity of the Chair is of paramount importance.  And this Chairman gives us every reason to suspect that he would be the plaintiff’s bar’s dream.   Forbes Magazine has detailed the numerous campaign contributions he received, when running for the position of Ohio attorney general, from out-of-state law firms with no seeming interest in Ohio.   The Wall Street Journal separately observed that,

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/tort_lawyers_dream_economys_scourge_richard_cordray_and_the_cfpb.html#ixzz1iVoaYGSn

I think this appointment and the CFPB is most frightening. They are not accountable to anyone.

FLconservative on January 4, 2012 at 12:40 PM

It’s official: Every single thing the left complained about w/r/t Bush was a lie. Obama has now completely surpassed anything Bush ever did.

MayBee on January 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/10/12/53802/private-sector-loans-not-fannie.html#ixzz12xTyWY91A#storylink=cpy

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 12:04 PM

LOL, citing the Leftist “news” organization McLatchy won’t give you any traction here. They’re a Joke, except to the Brain-Dead Leftists who think they’re telling the truth. Last time I checked, the company’s “value” was 75 cents a share.

Newsbusters has been busting them for their “journalistic” Bias for years; as when McLatchy staffers in Iraq actively cheered the dude who threw the shoe at Chimpy Bush:

Employees of McClatchy publishing in Iraq were in an unusually good mood recently. The occasion was the aftermath of the Iraqi journalist who tossed his shoes at President Bush at a press conference in Baghdad as you can see in these quotes from Inside Iraq, a blog for McClatchy journalists working in that country. The first quote was from McClatchy employee, “Laith,” who was talking about his colleagues:

Some of the guys were happy and they were talking about the bravery of the journalist who threw his shoes at the American president. When I tried to explain my opinion, I was trying to tell the guys that I don’t agree with the way the journalist behaved, but I was attacked by them. One of them said “come on Laith, Bush destroyed Iraq”. Another said “he deserves more” while a third one said “he is an occupier.” I tried to tell to tell they guys that this is an inslut for Maliki.

Newsbusters also had a devastating expose on how a McLatchy “reporter” covered the infamous Tea Party rally in DC. You remember that rally. Here’s the McLatchy Propaganda Piece from that day:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/03/20/90772/rep-john-lewis-charges-protesters.html

BTW, there is still a $10,000 reward for video proof of what McLatchy claimed happened. No one has claimed it because it never did.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2012 at 12:41 PM

No one was “stoned” and very few people were “coerced” this was about profit, pure and simple. And the constant ignoring of evidence that things were not quite right.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM

According to McLatchy.

But they also “reported” falsely that Tea Party people hurled racial slurs.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2012 at 12:43 PM

This is the natural response to conservatives trying to block every apointee because they don’t want the agency to exist in the first place. Because really, how does consumer protection help the Corporate Masters?

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM

No one was “stoned” and very few people were “coerced” this was about profit, pure and simple. And the constant ignoring of evidence that things were not quite right.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Who wanted things to change? (George W. Bush)

Who wanted to maintain the status quo? (Barney Frank)

It’s really not that hard.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:46 PM

This is the natural response to conservatives trying to block every apointee because they don’t want the agency to exist in the first place. Because really, how does consumer protection help the Corporate Masters actually benefit consumers?

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Ask the right questions and you’ll get the right answers.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Seems like this one is ready made for a court challenge on grounds of the arguably improper recess appointment and the wording of the law that seems to specifically require a Senate confirmation. Release the lawyers, Smithers!

M. Scott Eiland on January 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

I agree with everything you say here, except about Capital One. It’s not a non-bank; it’s a bank holding company, so is federally regulated.

SD on January 4, 2012 at 12:36 PM

You are right. Thanks! I was trying to think of a couple of well-known nonbanks so people could understand. There aren’t many left. The MSM acts like there is still this huge gap in regulation, but pretty much everyone that survived 2008 became a bank and is already subject to CFPB examination and enforcement.

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Actually, this is exactly what the GOP is doing by not confirming a head for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFRB was enacted into law last year. Opposition to Richard Cordray is not based on qualifications, but based on the fact that the GOP doesn’t think the CFRB should exist (sorry, but you lost that battle).

So, they are circumventing the law by not confirming the person to run the program which results in the Bureau not being able to function. This move is without precedent.

And even you agree with the GOP that this is a good plan of action, you can’t bitch when Obama uses the recess appointment to get around it. It’s like a thief complaining that a woman used pepper spray on him when he tried to grab her purse.

Tom_Shipley on January 4, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I don’t recall much concern from you when the Democrats pushed an unpopular health care takeover by breaking the rules with reconciliation. Now that Republicans use a legitimate method (as previously championed by the same said Democrats) to stop an aggressive, possibly unconstitutional agenda, you want to start crying about “rules”.

specialkayel on January 4, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4