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

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

How many consumer protection agencies do we have now?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

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.

Cleveland is a state?

backwoods conservative on January 4, 2012 at 10:48 AM

It is now…Obama passed it into law, by executive fiat. On last friday at midnight, while hiding in a closet./

askwhatif on January 4, 2012 at 12:49 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

Er, maybe because the two main architects of the agency were the two Democrats directly responsible for the economic meltdown? It’s a direct result of Dodd-Frank.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

How many consumer protection agencies do we have now?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

God bless you Cindy, but I think a better question would be, “How many of our existing consumer protection agencies operate with constitutional authority?”

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:51 PM

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

jsunrise on January 4, 2012 at 11:15 AM

Fine by me. I live in the country.

BierManVA on January 4, 2012 at 12:53 PM

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Wouldn’t his appointment only last for the length of the congressional secession? Obviously if The Won loses the election (fingers crossed) it doesn’t make any difference but wouldn’t this man’s appointment last only until January of 2012.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM

What bothers me about the thought that we need more “consumer protection” regulations from DC is that the ones that we had in place before the housing bubble didn’t work! Now, you want MORE regulation even though you witnessed regulation fail before your own eyes? When Barney Frank reassured us that everything was okay (years after Glass-Steagall was weakened, btw), he either knew better and was lying, or he didn’t know better and he was an idiot. Libbies, don’t piss on me and tell me that it’s raining. I’m no idiot even if Barney “Elmer Fudd” Frank is.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Another irresponsible, unconstitutional act by the DICTATOR-in-Chief.
IMPEACH OBOZO NOW !!!!

TeaPartyNation on January 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Another irresponsible, unconstitutional act by the DICTATOR-in-Chief.
IMPEACH OBOZO NOW !!!!

TeaPartyNation on January 4, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Caveat:

The Democratic Party doesn’t have a monopoly on unconstitutional irresponsibility.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Didn’t Obowma give his ‘word‘ he would not make any recess appointments…?

/

Seven Percent Solution on January 4, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Didn’t Obowma give his ‘word‘ he would not make any recess appointments…?

/

Seven Percent Solution on January 4, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I drop objects in the toilet on a near-daily basis that are worth more than Obama’s “word.”

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:55 PM

That’s Washington’s M.O., they don’t ever correct things, they just create more bureaucracies. And don’t they like to exempt themselves from all these things they institute?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM

That’s Washington’s M.O., they don’t ever correct things, they just create more bureaucracies. And don’t they like to exempt themselves from all these things they institute?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Addressing legislative double standards is one of the few accomplishments that can be legitimately credited to Newt Gingrich and the class of ’94. Of course when Gingrich left office under a cloud in 1999, that went out the window.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Ask the right questionsGoogle and you’ll get the right answers.
gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:47 PM

“The bureau’s goals include watching for major violations of mortgage disclosure laws and other infractions at the firms that could cause consumers to unwittingly sign up for risky loans. It also scrutinizes whether credit card forms issued by big banks are misleading.”

You’ve heard of the global financial crisis, right?

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:03 PM

I guess the question should be, is Obama a President or a Dictator?…

PatriotRider on January 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

You’ve heard of the global financial crisis, right?

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:03 PM

And you know that the Dems were complicit in letting it happen, right? Seriously, dude. If the regulations in place weren’t sufficient to address it, what gives you such confidence that MORE diktat from DC will do the trick? Do you have any logical reason for thinking that, or are you just engaging in the usual liberal-masturbatory self-congratulations that come with “doing something” about a problem regardless of counterproductive results?

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Congress could cut the funding for the agency and the new Czar’s paycheck. Don’t hold your breath.

novaculus on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Caveat:

The Democratic Party doesn’t have a monopoly on unconstitutional irresponsibility.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 12:58 PM

In the manner that Barky has operating they certainly do. The US has never seen anything like this. And it has been so since his insane tenure first started. Any of the “other presidents on the dollar bills” would have been impeached, convicted and tossed out for doing any of tens of acts that Barky has done right out in the open. To start, even before this whole nightmare really got underway, Barky held his biggest campaign rally of 2008 in a friggin foreign nation … for foreigners! He has continued to make such repulsive, illegal, and mind-numbingly dumb actions ever since. Any normal person (who didn’t carry the threat of riots in the cities if he were held to account, in any way) would have been out of office long, long ago. His extortion of BP from the Oval Office was pretty cool, too. THey were legally liable for 70 million, but he managed to shake 20 billion from them … on what authority no one will ever know. It’s a Prime Minister of Indonesia sort of thing, I’m sure.

No, what has been happening under Barky has certainly been unprecedented in our history. Irreparable damage has been done to this nation in allowing him to make minced meat of our institutions and traditions with absolute impunity. Sad. Pathetic, really.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

I guess the question should be, is Obama a President or a Dictator?…

PatriotRider on January 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Not even a question. That was settled the first month of his administration.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:06PM

No argument here…

PatriotRider on January 4, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Reid, who used pro forma sessions to block recess appointments by Bush, came out and said he supported Obama’s decision to thumb his nose at the Senate. There really is no word in the English language that encompasses the slimy weaselness of Harry Reid.

Wendya on January 4, 2012 at 1:11 PM

Congress could cut the funding for the agency and the new Czar’s paycheck. Don’t hold your breath.

novaculus on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

As Rockmom pointed out, they did an end-run around that possibility when Dodd-Frank created the CFPB. It’s funded directly from the Fed, even though it’s housed in Treasury.

SD on January 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Didn’t Obowma give his ‘word‘ he would not make any recess appointments…?

/

Seven Percent Solution on January 4, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Technically, he didn’t. Since the Senate is not in recess.

BierManVA on January 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

And you know that the Dems were complicit in letting it happen, right? Seriously, dude. If the regulations in place weren’t sufficient to address it, what gives you such confidence that MORE diktat from DC will do the trick? Do you have any logical reason for thinking that, or are you just engaging in the usual liberal-masturbatory self-congratulations that come with “doing something” about a problem regardless of counterproductive results?
gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

By “complicit” you mean they participated in the deregulation that made this possible, along with Republicans? Sure.

Just a recap for you: the crisis was made possible by excessive incentives for investment (low tax rates on investment income) plus deregulation, which led to banks and brokers to make bad loans so they could collect fat commissions. The loans were then packaged as AAA rated investments. When brokers realized what was happening they encouraged the creation of more of these same investments so they could hedge against them, making even more profit when they failed. All mostly legal thanks to what? Deregulation. Time to re-institute some oversight.

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Yet another of way-too-many (any would be too many) alphabet soup statist organizations that are unConstitutional and undermine Americans and our ever-dwindling freedom.

Their very existence speaks to the overwhelming ignorance of a public that accepts the completely flawed and failed theory that “regulation” is necessary/useful for “protecting” (“economic”) freedom.

Any and all compromises between laissez-faire and statism always have and always will have the same predictible consequences -similar to any compromises between food and poison.

GuitarMark on January 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

No, what has been happening under Barky has certainly been unprecedented in our history. Irreparable damage has been done to this nation in allowing him to make minced meat of our institutions and traditions with absolute impunity. Sad. Pathetic, really.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Absolutely. No argument there. But what Barack Obama is doing isn’t merely “unconsitutionally irresponsible.” That’s putting it lightly. He is the honey badger of American politics.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:18 PM

If the Dems have the majority in the Senate, then how can Obama lay the defeat of his nominee at the feet of his opposition party. Reid is a political tool whose shenanigans are never held up to criticism. Note the contradictions and hypocrisy from this interesting outtake from the Washington Times:

Mr. Obama’s move also contradicts the precedent he and fellow Democrats abided by in 2007 and 2008 when they used the same three-day strategy to prevent Mr. Bush from making his own recess appointments.

“I am keeping the Senate in pro forma to prevent recess appointments until we get this process back on track,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said on Nov. 16, 2007, as he announced his strategy of having the Senate convene twice a week for pro forma sessions.

On Wednesday, though, Mr. Reid said he backed the president’s move.

“I support President Obama’s decision to make sure that in these tough economic times, middle-class families in Nevada and across the country will have the advocate they deserve to fight on their behalf against the reckless practices that denied so many their economic security,” he said.

The only word that Reid failed to put into place is extreme.

onlineanalyst on January 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Technically, he didn’t. Since the Senate is not in recess.

BierManVA on January 4, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I don’t understand, if the Senate is not in recess than how can Obama make a recess appointment?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM

By “complicit” you mean they participated in the deregulation that made this possible, along with Republicans? Sure.

Just a recap for you: the crisis was made possible by excessive incentives for investment (low tax rates on investment income) plus deregulation, which led to banks and brokers to make bad loans so they could collect fat commissions. The loans were then packaged as AAA rated investments. When brokers realized what was happening they encouraged the creation of more of these same investments so they could hedge against them, making even more profit when they failed. All mostly legal thanks to what? Deregulation. Time to re-institute some oversight.

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

No. I mean George W. Bush literally wanted to tighten the regulation up, while Barney Frank literally would not allow it to happen. Less than two years before shit hit the fan, Barney Frank was on C-Span telling us that it would be all right, and that any further attempt to regulate the housing market would “sabotage affordable housing.” I think the de-regulation to which you should direct your attention came with the Community Reinvestment Act which Carter passed, Clinton gave teeth to, and Barney Frank refused to let be touched.

Oversight failed once. So what makes you think it will work again? We’re still doing the same shit that led to this mess, so don’t tell me government can fix it. Government has no interest in fixing it. Government has no interest in fixing anything. Government has an interest in creating problems so that the politicians can tell us they’ll fix it if we vote for them again and again and again. Bullshit. We all know better. Or at least by now we should.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I don’t understand, if the Senate is not in recess than how can Obama make a recess appointment?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 1:21 PM

It’s called “executive fiat.” A concept which many dictatorships recognize, but the constitution of the United States of America does not.

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

It is now…Obama passed it into law, by executive fiat. On last friday at midnight, while hiding in a closet./

askwhatif on January 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Does that mean there are 58 states now?

backwoods conservative on January 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM

And “deregulation” is not the/a problem. “De-regulation” has come to mean something other than de-regulation. Specifically, it has come to refer to a system of “relative and selective” “de-regulation” which takes for granted a statist system.

As always, it is statism which causes the problems… but freedom/capitalism which gets blamed (and used as the rational for more statism which cause more problems, ad infinitum, vicious circle, etc.

For those who’ve never read it, I strongly recommend “Anti-trust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure” -for detailed analyses.

GuitarMark on January 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM

gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Wow, I misread that opening sentence of Ed’s. Has this ever been done before. I know there have been recess appointments but has it been done during a pro forma session?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 1:27 PM

I’m sorry if this has already been posted but my old eyes aren’t up to reading all the posts.
US Constitution
Article II
Section 2.
The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

It seems to me that the way this reads, if the vacancy occurred prior to the end of session then it is continuing business and not subject to recess appointment.

oldernwiser on January 4, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Han’t it dawned on any of the elite in DC that they only thing we need protection from is THEM? They are the reason for the financial melt down and all of the Wall Street abuses, not the average citizen. The only thing they protect in an efficient way is their own jobs!

inspectorudy on January 4, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I don’t understand, if the Senate is not in recess than how can Obama make a recess appointment?

His statement says the Senate is “effectively” in recess. He’s claiming the right to say the Senate is in recess even when the Senate says it is not.

SD on January 4, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Yet another issue that if the GOP in Congress could develop a unified message about it, if they could say the exact same thing — “Obama thinks he’s a king” — over and over and over, all of them together, it would stick. But noooooo. We’ll get the nuanced responses, the lengthy explanations, the boredom. And no one in American will know what obama is doing in plain sight — shredding the United States Constitution.

Rational Thought on January 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Oversight failed once. So what makes you think it will work again? We’re still doing the same shit that led to this mess, so don’t tell me government can fix it. Government has no interest in fixing it. Government has no interest in fixing anything. Government has an interest in creating problems so that the politicians can tell us they’ll fix it if we vote for them again and again and again. Bullshit. We all know better. Or at least by now we should.
gryphon202 on January 4, 2012 at 1:22 PM

We’re obviously seeing this differently. You say oversight failed, when actually oversight was removed. When you remove policies that have worked since the Great Depression and disaster occurs, it’s easy to throw up your hands and conclude that government can’t do anything right; but it did, for a while.

The CRA “encouraged commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.” It didn’t authorize banks to make “no income no asset” loans.

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM

I guess the question should be, is Obama a President or a Dictator?…

PatriotRider on January 4, 2012 at 1:05 PM

Or, perhaps the question is, will we continue to let him be (take your pick, a or b)

redgypsy on January 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM

If Obama ever releases his school records we might find that he flunked recess.

backwoods conservative on January 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Obama introduces his un constitutional appointment at a high school, then goes on to bash Republicans.

This is at a high school.

He tells them Cordray will help make sure their mortgages are made honetly.

This is at a high school.

This is not a campaign stop.

MayBee on January 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

I know there have been recess appointments but has it been done during a pro forma session?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 1:27 PM

if the vacancy occurred prior to the end of session then it is continuing business and not subject to recess appointment.

oldernwiser on January 4, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Of course its not constitutionally legal. He’s serving up his version of “triple dog dare you”. If the Pubs think about banging the pots on this ‘technicality’, he knows the sympathetic arm of the MSM will load up for him with the words like “obstructionists” while he’s trying to stand up for the little guy with this ‘protection’.

Another wet paper towel that goes along with shoving granny over the cliff, dirty water and air, ad naseum that the Kool Aid drinkers would love to lap up.

VietVet_Dave on January 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Obama introduces his un constitutional appointment at a high school, then goes on to bash Republicans.

This is at a high school.

He tells them Cordray will help make sure their mortgages are made honetly.

This is at a high school.

This is not a campaign stop.

MayBee on January 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

They’re his intellectual peers. Actually, Barky operates on more of a junior high level, but he’ll take any audience of kids he can get. If he needed TOTUS at an elementary school …

When will America finally have enough of this exceedingly dangerous and destructive joke? What will it finally take?

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Oh oooooow, the senate is not in recess now. This is not good. I am having a hard time thinking our country will make it for one more year.

tinkerthinker on January 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Sure they can SHUT DOWN THE SENATE.

tarpon on January 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM

The CRA “encouraged commercial banks and savings associations to help meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.” It didn’t authorize banks to make “no income no asset” loans.

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM

Did you puncture your eardrums so you can tune out the screaming 800 pound gorilla in the room?

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM

Just a recap for you: the crisis was made possible by excessive incentives for investment (low tax rates on investment income) plus deregulation, which led to banks and brokers to make bad loans so they could collect fat commissions. The loans were then packaged as AAA rated investments. When brokers realized what was happening they encouraged the creation of more of these same investments so they could hedge against them, making even more profit when they failed. All mostly legal thanks to what? Deregulation. Time to re-institute some oversight.

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Ooh, I love the screaming of the Obama defenders.

Problem is, reality slaps the stupid little bigots in the face.

Your lies don’t work any more, pig. You and your Barack Obama Party fully endorse and support outright theft and violation of the regulations by Barack Obama supporters and donors.

So you can just go to hell. You and your Barack Obama ignore regulations. You are lying, stinking bigots who think you can just break any law you want and then scream that anyone who calls you on it is a racist.

northdallasthirty on January 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

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.

Lourdes, let’s not forget the $40 Obama cavalierly dropped at PetSmart for Bo, the family wonder dog and photo op.

onlineanalyst on January 4, 2012 at 1:47 PM

This is not a campaign stop.

MayBee on January 4, 2012 at 1:35 PM

Everything and everywhere is a campaign stop.

Yakko77 on January 4, 2012 at 1:49 PM

The Generalissimo has spoken!!!!

tomshup on January 4, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Thank goodness!

I was worried that this much needed bureau would not have a capable captain at the helm. Now it can focus all of it’s efforts into protection ME (and other consumers) from the big, evil, blood-sucking, companies who ONLY exist to destroy our lives.

I was real worried there, I felt this gap in my life, where I actually had some personal accountability, now I feel much better that Uncle Sam has stepped in here and held my hand as well.

My only hope is that in a few more years I can have all personal responsibility removed and I can just grab my blankie and my binkie and take a long nap in the lap of The Great Nanny.

reaganaut on January 4, 2012 at 2:04 PM

How many consumer protection agencies do we have now?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

FTC, Consumer Product Safety Commission, etc.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2012 at 2:12 PM

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 1:41 PM

northdallasthirty on January 4, 2012 at 1:46 PM

The Troll Class of 2011 gets Frank Rich-Slapped again! Well done.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM

I won.

This is very small potatoes compared to the things Obama will do if reelected. Imagine an Obama totally unconcerned with political consequences. His actions following reelection will make his first term look Reaganesque.

Aplombed on January 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM

The Troll Class of 2011 gets Frank Rich-Slapped again! Well done.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2012 at 2:14 PM

*bows*

I find it fascinating that these guys continue to push the deregulation meme when it was hardcore regulations to begin with that forced us into this mess. I guess it was the “wrong” kind of regulation? Markets only work if there is the “right” kind of regulation?

They probably also nod their heads vigorously when Pelosi and the like proclaim unemployment benefits to be economic stimulus…

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 2:23 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

I didn’t think so.
But then, some people are thinking too hard, or not enough.

The obvious is like a hard slap in the face.
Their eyes are so full of brimming tears they can’t see who’s been b!tch slapping them.

Badger40 on January 4, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Why would be believe that Obama was against irresponsible borrowing when we have Solyndra staring us in the face? And it’s not the only bad investment this administration has made. It’s not his money and he is getting kickbacks in the form of campaign donations, I don’t think you can paint him as the savior of the taxpayers.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I guess it was the “wrong” kind of regulation? Markets only work if there is the “right” kind of regulation?

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Well at least black markets will still always thrive.

Badger40 on January 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM

I for one, applaud the new emperor.
He should retrofit the White House with some Roman columns & have a big party announcing his official usurpation of the Constitution.

Badger40 on January 4, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Markets only work if there is the “right” kind of regulation?

NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Don’t go too far. There is a “right” sort of very limited regulation. That was the original intent of the Commerce Clause. Of course, those were generally intended to be regulations on State governmental actions! Heh.

But certain centralized measurement standards and the like (again, a limited lot for governmental centralization, generally measures that the government relies on, for military, monetary, etc… needs) have long been important parts of advancing societies.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 2:33 PM

The Failed President is both a liar, loser, and is destroying America. Secret Service personnel have stated he is a dishonest person and his wife hates white people. He is a very dangerous man and ignores the law in general, the will of the American people, Congress, and the Constitution.

There are no longer massive adoring crowds to deceive. For the first time in Barack Obama’s life, he is accountable. He has repeatedly shown that he cannot deal with, and will never be able to shoulder responsibility, as he is at his core a self-absorbed man, and a very dishonest human being.

Obama has never stood for individualism, capitalism, or liberty. The citizens of our country naively gave the reins of power to a tyrant. The White House has been marginalized and he has proven himself to be the most inept president in modern history. He is symbolic of a man who has downgraded the White House, the Constitution, human life, foreign policy, race relations, and America herself.

His resignation from office would be a great first step toward economic recovery. The majority of Americans are sick of his condescension, his policies, his racist bigotry, and his incompetence. Obama is “the most disastrous president in our history.”

This is the most corrupt, incompetent, dangerous tyrannical administration in American history.

Brushjumper on January 4, 2012 at 2:33 PM

How many consumer protection agencies do we have now?

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 12:49 PM

If you think about it, every single government agency, from your local dog catcher, to the federal executive branch, are “consumer protection agencies.”

So there are about 128,467,013 consumer protection agencies – one for ever 3 people now living in the US.

As a consumer, don’t you feel safe and protected now that you know this?

Thank you Government for protecting me from myself.

Rod on January 4, 2012 at 2:34 PM

All mostly legal thanks to what? Deregulation. Time to re-institute some oversight.

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Delusional at best imo.

Mimzey on January 4, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Well at least black markets will still always thrive.

Badger40 on January 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Racist!
/

Mimzey on January 4, 2012 at 2:39 PM

I find it fascinating that these guys continue to push the deregulation meme when it was hardcore regulations to begin with that forced us into this mess.
NotCoach on January 4, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Exactly.

Mimzey on January 4, 2012 at 2:41 PM

No actually, hypocrisy is a word whose definition does not change. Democrats supporting recess appointments now are also hypocrites (as I’ve said a few times, I’m an independent). I, for one, don’t have a strong opinion about the Senate’s advise and consent powers. Or rather, I guess I feel since the Senate is a useless body, with too much power that the President should be able to appoint people he/she thinks would be best in a given situation. Presidential appointments are one of the few areas where I think the executive should have a bit more power.

libfreeordie on January 4, 2012 at 10:57 AM

Now I see why you and BHO are on the same page. All you two need next is a fire at the Reichstag Congress, and your plan for the Wall Street friendly Imperial Presidency will be complete. When you see a strong senate as an enemy of your goals, then you couldn’t be more extreme in opposition to checks and balances. You’ve now extended yourself beyond a partisan position and into anti-democratic ideas.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on January 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM

I guess I am being very Pollyanna but I am really stunned by this.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM

From NRO The Corner:

Mark Calabria explains at Cato:

More importantly the “recess” appointment of Cordray doesn’t solve the President’s problem. The Dodd-Frank Act is very clear, even a law professor can probably under this section, that authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is “confirmed by the Senate”. A recess appointment is not a Senate confirmation. Now don’t ask me why Dodd and Frank included such unusual language, they could have just given the Bureau the new authorities, but they didn’t. So even with this appointment, the CFPB won’t be able to go after all those non-banks, like the pay-day lenders and check-cashiers that caused the financial crisis (oh wait, those industries didn’t have anything to do with the crisis).

2ndMAW68 on January 4, 2012 at 3:12 PM

For those who’ve never read it, I strongly recommend “Anti-trust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure” -for detailed analyses.

GuitarMark on January 4, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I’m going to check that out, thanks.

visions on January 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Wake up people… It is NOT certain that there will be an election this November. It also isn’t certain that Hussein will RESPECT the outcome if it isn’t what he wants.

wildcat72 on January 4, 2012 at 10:43 AM

This has only crossed my mind about 1000 times…..scares the cr*p out of me.

redlucy on January 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM

even a law professor can probably under this section, that authorities under the Act remain with the Treasury Secretary until the Director is “confirmed by the Senate”. A recess appointment is not a Senate confirmation.” — Mark Calabria

How cute. Anyone remember DemonPass? “Tax cuts” that were welfare payments? The ObamaCare individual mandate that was definitely not a tax … until it had to turn into a tax for the court case … and yet, the court accepted the government’s argument and description without noting the contempt of court shown by such blatant intellectual offense and evidence of lying to either the public or the court or both. And that doesn’t even go into any Commerce Clause insanity …

There is no perversion of language or logic that is beyond lawyers and the left. No matter how obvious it is.

Impeachment is the only way to rein this out-of-control Indonesian in. Otherwise, he’ll keep going until it’s all broken, which has always been his single aim.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 3:25 PM

“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.

Ya’ think? Could anyone argue that Zero is truly beneath the Office of the President? Can’t we have him arrested for impersonating a public officer?

NOMOBO on January 4, 2012 at 3:26 PM

2ndMAW68 on January 4, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Calabria is right. This is all for show, so Obama has (a) another club to beat Congress with, and (b) something else he can claim he is doing to “help the middle class.” Makes him look all Presidenty or something.

If CFPB makes any enforcement action using its new powers, they will be challenged in court immediately. So my guess is that Cordray will make a lot of speeches and write a few new regulations, but not actually do anything substantive.

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 3:29 PM

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Wouldn’t his appointment only last for the length of the congressional secession? Obviously if The Won loses the election (fingers crossed) it doesn’t make any difference but wouldn’t this man’s appointment last only until January of 2012.

Cindy Munford on January 4, 2012 at 12:54 PM

January 20, 2013

Dasher on January 4, 2012 at 3:34 PM

All mostly legal thanks to what? Deregulation. Time to re-institute some oversight.

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM

C’mon Constantine put the kool aid down. This is 2012 and you are trying to preach the entirely discredited “deregulation” line to a bunch of educated people who aren’t going to just grab hold of a leftist talking point because you read it on the Daily Kos 3 years ago. It makes me have pity towards you. To ignore the massive regulations in the banking industry is just plain stupid. Free money, no risk creates bad things, it had nothing to do with deregulation of any sort.

Ellis on January 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Woot!

House Republicans may not have confirmation powers, but that’s not stopping them from putting up a fight against President Barack Obama’s appointment of Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) said Wednesday that he has asked Cordray to appear before his House subcommittee on Jan. 24 so lawmakers can question him on what McHenry called his “unparalleled powers” as the CFPB’s leader.

“President Obama’s appointment of you as director of the agency – in apparent contravention of constitutional requirements for a recess appointment – now gives you the enormous authority to invalidate any consumer financial product in the United States,” McHenry wrote in a letter to Cordray. “In addition, your unprecedented recess appointment provides the CFPB with new powers to broadly regulate consumer financial products and services with minimal oversight. As you begin your tenure as the director of the CFPB, the subcommittee is deeply interested in how you will implement and enforce the unparalleled powers of your new office.”

McHenry requested an answer from Cordray by Friday. If he says no, he could be subpoenaed. A spokeswoman for the CFPB declined comment.

McHenry chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs.

He famously sparred with Elizabeth Warren – the original architect of the CFPB who is now running for the Senate – during a May subcommittee hearing, accusing her of misleading Congress and lying about how long she would be available to testify before lawmakers. The full Republican-led House voted in July to strip the agency of a single director and put in its place a five-member oversight panel. That legislation also would make it easier to overturn regulations imposed by the CFPB.

rockmom on January 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Ellis on January 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Seems most of you never heard of the Financial Services Modernization Act that made the current debacle possible, and instead choose to focus on the CRA, legislation that required banks to make lending available in their own communities. Your premise seems to be that institutions were forced to make fraudulent loans to people without income and, as an unintended consequence of this practice made huge profits then passed the liability on to investors. No responsibility of the banks or borrowers there? It was all the evil government that forced peoples’ hands? Smell what you’re shoveling. Or smoking.

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

It is now…Obama passed it into law, by executive fiat. On last friday at midnight, while hiding in a closet./

lolzingers…

MooCowBang on January 4, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

I call B.S. shenanigans…Derpocrats forced the law to make banks give out loans to unqualified people. And when those loans went belly-up, and people were not able to pay, we were stuck with the bill, also by Derpocrat fiat. It is not, as you say,

legislation that required banks to make lending available in their own communities.

Dont tell lies, or half truths here, Constatine…take that horsepuckey somewhere else…

MooCowBang on January 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Smell what you’re shoveling. Or smoking.

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

You need another shovel-one for each hand.

Desperately trying to shift the blame from the Democrats to the Republicans? That’s Folk Economics at best.

If GLB created the debacle, please prove it with credible cites. It never deregulated anything. In fact, GLB established The Fed as a superregulator.

Remember the S & L crisis in the late 1980s? After that happened, the Democrats who controlled Congress placed a good part of the blame on real estate appraisers, and enacted a Licensure System whereby all appraisers had to have certain qualifications. This created several additional layers of bureaucracy, but guess what? Those appraisers still got much of the blame for the 2007 meltdown, despite increased regulation.

Del Dolemonte on January 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

I fully expect the Congress to go immediately to court and also begin actions to defund the agencies involved…

JIMV on January 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM

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.

That is an absurd notion…Congress can go to court (too gutless) and simply remove funding from the agancies involved (again too inept). There is a difference between what Congress CAN do and what it WILL do…when push comes to shove, they will dither.

JIMV on January 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Congress can go to court (too gutless)

JIMV on January 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM

This is not for the court. Congress needs to impeach.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 4:30 PM

this needs an update…

he’s on a roll now

golfmann on January 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

And now for the Update III, NLRB appointments followed shortly thereafter. Sharon Block, Terence Flynn, Richard Griffin. Now to find who they are and which unions they came from.

John Kettlewell on January 4, 2012 at 4:35 PM

What good is impeaching if you can’t convict?

What Congress can and should do is totally cut the funding, which should be done anyway. And while they have the scissors out, the EPA could use a trim as well.

KorlaPundit on January 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

The NLRB can be totally defunded as well.

We need Reps with guts, who can go tell the Dem controlled Senate to stuff a sock in it.

KorlaPundit on January 4, 2012 at 4:38 PM

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.

Or maybe, Ed, he just does whatever in the hell he wants to do, like all fledgling dictators.

labrat on January 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

What good is impeaching if you can’t convict?

KorlaPundit on January 4, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Because if you don’t, then you show how truly weak you are and that’s that. What is the GOP goign to do? SHut down the federal government? LOL. They already slinked away in defeat from that possibility like a bunch of whining Frenchmen (even with the dems and Barky being the ones that would have done it).

The fact is – there is no law in the US. It has been surrendered to an Ineligible Indonesian Idiot. End of story.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 4:52 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

Think Ford Motor Credit and any care dealers that offer financing. Ford Motor Credit was denied bank status by the Feds even though GMAC was given bank status at the same time. GMAC is now Ally. This all occurred around the time of the government take-over of GM and Chrysler. I can’t recall what happened with Chrysler’s financing arm, or if they used GMAC, too.

totherightofthem on January 4, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Obama is literally today in Ohio telling a picked audience how he held the Congress’ feet to the fire by keeping them from taking their vacations in order to extend the FICA payroll tax break. THAT ought to be part of the question statement – ‘how can the President boast he kept Congress in session, AND make a ‘recess’ appointment??’

rayra on January 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM

THAT ought to be part of the question statement – ‘how can the President boast he kept Congress in session, AND make a ‘recess’ appointment??’

rayra on January 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM

Heh. Good catch.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Oops. car dealers.

totherightofthem on January 4, 2012 at 5:09 PM

Samantha on January 4, 2012 at 11:03 AM

This has as much meaning as the birther lawsuits – none.

independentvoice on January 4, 2012 at 5:14 PM

theCork on January 4, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Impeachment means nothing. Conviction is all that matters. Chance of that – absolute zero.

independentvoice on January 4, 2012 at 5:17 PM

“The bureau’s goals include watching for major violations of mortgage disclosure laws and other infractions at the firms that could cause consumers to unwittingly sign up for risky loans. It also scrutinizes whether credit card forms issued by big banks are misleading.”

You’ve heard of the global financial crisis, right?

Constantine on January 4, 2012 at 1:03 PM

LOL, Consumers have to be protected from unwittingly taking out risky loans? You don’t see anything wrong with that statement? So someone needs to stop evil banks from forcing people to borrow money they can’t pay back?

mbs on January 4, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4