Yesterday, President Obama made 4 recess appointments. He appointed 3 people to the Board of Labor Relations and 1 to the newly formed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The CFPB appointment is the most contentious.
The new head, Richard Cordray, received an appointment even though the chamber was technically only in session every few days. Technically seems to be the big IF. The senate technically did not recess over the holiday, so there was no precedent for what President Obama did.
When Republicans took control of the House, going into pro forma sessions became the norm since neither chamber can recess for longer than three days without the consent of the other.
But now that Obama has decided that pro forma sessions don’t matter much, Republicans warn there is no stopping presidents from undermining the Senate’s traditional advise-and-consent role.
Senators who live close by in Maryland and Virginia are usually the ones who come in and gavel a session into formal existence and then close the session. The pro forma sessions only last minutes.
I cannot locate what it is that the Republicans want changed from the CFPB law – but they filibustered his appointment vote because they want changes. If the law is broken fix the law. No one is happy that the banks were bailed out, that investment bankers were over leveraged, that lack of oversight allowed Bernie Madoff, that predatory lenders exist, etc – but trying to prevent an agency from functioning that is trying to prevent some of that from occurring is also not acceptable – it makes no sense to me.
The financial industry has proven that it will not police itself.
And you expect the same people that caused the problem last time, Dodd and Frank, to actually write bills that can effective police it now? The Congress can’t police itself.
The agency is set up to unaccountable. The director is give vague and comprehensive powers. The agency allows for more bailouts, according to THEIR standards.
This isn’t about helping the average joe. Its another advance in building more structural control of the free market.
That is such a crock of crap! Dodd and Frank ’caused the problem’ last time? Before I explode, explain exactly what problem each man caused ‘last time.’ Which last time are we talking about?
@Cargo
I find it interesting that the President would call it a gimmick when the practice was started by Senator Reid when President Bush was in office. I am sure that Senator Obama didn’t think it was a gimmick back then. (Brought it up since your link opened the page after Politico discussed the history of the practice–no doubt you used the copied and pasted the link at the end of reading, thus page 1 didn’t come up.)
If anyone thought we had a dysfunctional government before, it may not compare to 2012. We should be insisting that the bickering must stop and make it clear to both sides that we don’t care who they want to portray as responsible, they both are. (Like when we were raised as kids and most of us have raised our own kids the same way.)
The only way to do it is for all Americans to clearly tell elected officials that we are not going to take sides regardless of our opinions but we will hold everyone responsible.
@Clinton, I will fix that link. I did it in the middle of the night so everyone would have something fresh to attack. It probably has all sorts of mistakes.
I heard on TV this mornign that by this time in his presidency, Bush had made 61 recess appointments, compared to Obama’s 28. Obama needs to get busy. [sarcasm button on]
There is a shrieking woman on Fox News deafening me about what Clinton said about the recess.
I dont care who started it, pro forma is so bogus. The senate isn’t in session. Reindeer games, regardless of who is playing it. The Senate needs to stop blocking the appointments.
I want all of the house to get fired and most of the senators. I will keep Mark Warner. Maybe I will think of someone else as the day wears on.
Dodd and Frank were on the banking committee that advocated the sub-prime loans and then stymied further regulation of Freddie and Fannie. This new agency does nothing to reform or fix Fannie and Freddie. We’re still bailing them out. Dodd and Frank and the banking committee wrote the rules under which the banks operated during this recent crisis.
@Moon-howler
I am not sure we can give the President a pass either. Seems to me he has been pretty partisan since the beginning starting with “I won, you lost”.
@Clinton
The only choice is for everyone to just sit down, fold their hands and do nothing. Ever. I don’t know what the answer is. I am giving him a pass because I support what he is doing with the Consumer group. What is he supposed to do?
I don’t remember I won, you lost. Refresh my memory. (not that I mind that mentality at times)
President Obama stated, “I won.” when he was in negotiations about the stimulus package. Taking the cue from the President, the Democrats then shut out all Republicans from input to the bill.
It may be bogus but the Senate IS in session. Personally, I think ALL of the Republicans should show up and start offering bills.
Furthermore, the law states the director of the new Consumer Protection Agency MUST be confirmed by the Senate before they can operate.
Its very bogus. They can get their arses back in those seats before I count them as present or in session.
No one will ever be confirmed by the senate for the consumer protection agency. The R’s couldnt keep it from forming so they will try to keep it from operating. Reindeer games.
Doesn’t that MUST change like judgeships during a recess? I think so.
And finally, this is way down on my list of priorities. It is the typical D/R games that make everyone furious. There is so much important going on in the world. There are so many needs in the country. These fools all spend time getting into a pissing contest with each other over consumer protection.
What they need to be worrying about it going from war time to peace and how our military personnel is going to be eased into civilian life.
They all need to study the post WWII mistakes that were made. We are still sorting them out, 66 plus years later.
They need to check out Harry Truman on American Experience to see what happens when you cut back the military too much, even in peacetime.
Anyone who thinks we don’t need consumer protection simply hasn’t been a consumer.
Clinton – can you give a link to that quote? The nearest I can find is this – http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2009/01/i-won-president/ – which was not meant in a partisan way.
Has Congress put a bill forward to change what is wrong with the agency? Is Congress really in session – a 1 minute session on Tuesday – really? If Congress was still in session before Christmas, why did they have the debate over the SS tax reduction?
It is hard to talk BiPartisanship, when LEADERS (used loosely) of the other Party say – My number one priority is to make him a one term President.
Totally and completely agree, Pat. There is no BiPartisan after hearing that statement.
Its like hearing, we have come to bury you.
Congress can find time to talk about reducing the NPR budget, defund Big Bird, defund White House maintenance, defund Planned Parenthood, defund Acorn, etc – but they cannot find the time to legislate issues that really matter. Funny is that it was Obama that did not want to raise the debt limit when times were good (and the US should have been saving money, reducing debt and the deficit), but now that revenues are down, and the job of Government is to spend money when the private sector is not, the same people that had no problem spending money like drunken sailors, are now the people who say that we need to reduce spending.
Going to War and reducing taxes was a mistake. Unfunded Medicare Part D was a mistake. But, none of our problems can be attributed to a single Republican idea, vote or bill – because….Frank and Dodd had a special potion that they used to trick the other 533 members of Congress into doing what they wanted. I guess Bush had nothing to do with extending home ownership to minorities – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkAtUq0OJ68
@Moon-howler
But I can’t give him a pass for the same reason that I can’t give the Republicans a pass. Rancor is developed from both sides, pure and simple. This has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with a position.
There are right and wrong ways to do things and even if right, if you do it wrong, it isn’t right. The end does not justify the means when you trample on the basic precepts. That is why we have a constitutional government with checks and balances. You can still do it right.
I just did research about the consumer agency issues since you posted this. It appears that the Republicans want the budget submitted to Congress, just like all the other Federal agencies. Right now, it is handled through the Federal Reserve which apparently is not required to submit the budgets to Congress. They also want the decisions of the agency to be subject to judicial review, just like most Federal agencies and to have some Congressional oversight, which is also common for Federal agencies. So I can’t jump on a bandwagon that just says, “they are anti-consumer” unless you can show me. Reading minds has never been a strong point for me (my wife however seems to think she can read mine even when it is normally empty).
I am not sure about “pro forma” sessions but it doesn’t matter. Holding up a nomination is one means of forcing the other side to listen to your (legitimate or illegitimate) concerns and it is even done within the same party. Democrats have also held up the President’s nominees when it is to have their respective state’s issues considered. Taking unilateral action without seeing what changes can be made is what is called the “nuclear option” but more importantly, it also says, “your opinion means nothing to me.”
One would be to have discussions about what can or can’t be done rather than everything is a massive battle. And I am not singling one person or group out. The battles are joined by both entities, since you can’t have a war without both parties being involved.
Both sides were sent and paid to do a job. Political games is not something I hired them to do, regardless of who is right or wrong. I refuse to believe that either side is entirely right or wrong, they have different approaches. Unless you have the discussion, you will always have battles.
So, for the most part, I consider all parties to be disingenuous.
@Clinton,
Pat speaks to this issue far better than I do. McConnell tipped his hat. Why would I possibly believe any Republican senator wanted to be bi-partisan? I don’t.
@Pat.Herve
I am sorry but it was from my recollection at the time and it did sound partisan to me no matter what spin a blogger on abc may say about it. it was my perception and I think my opinion is as valid as someone else’s because it is my opinion.
I am also not one who wants to make lists of wrongs to support my opinion about another especially when I know that just as many soundbites can be drawn up to show the other side as being at fault. So I don’t read from some songsheet.
But what it shows is that my opinion is correct so far–both sides are equally at fault.
I do apologize to you Pat.Herve, but I am not going to participate in the partisan bomb lobbing by quoting a litany of the actions to show how awful someone is–I think of that as “demonization” especially when an equal number can be lobbed from the other side. Just my own personal approach to opinion sharing.
By the way, if one wants to see what bills have been proposed in Congress, even those not acted on, it is best to go to thomas.loc.gov. It is a site I use frequently to actually read the legislation being commented on but it also tells me if bills are introduced on the subject that aren’t being reported on because they are never debated.
@Moon-howler
I don’t think I said that Senator McConnell wasn’t being partisan. it still proves my point, both sides are partisan and we can’t get anything done unless the electorate makes it clear that we view each equally at fault no matter who we agree with.
Until then, we are all being put into our own little corners and become the foot soldiers to continue the battle. So it won’t end.
@Clinton S. Long
I don’t think I originally had a stated opinion on the rightness or wrongness of the maneuvers going on in the Senate. My concern was why the Republicans didn’t want the Consumer Protection agency in the first place.
Actually, I think the whole thing is absurd. Cargo, however, has a way of making the moderates come down on the side of the D’s each and every time because he comes out swinging and it is always their fault, entirely.
@Clinton S. Long
Clinton – I do respect your opinion, but show me where Obama said – “I won, You Lost” – it did not happen as far as I can tell from research.
I also blame all of our politicians collectively for the mess we are in – and the refusal of both sides to do anything realistic to get us out of this mess. All political gamesmanship.
@Pat, I have never seen that in print either.
I certainly did not mean to offend anyone and I apologize if I did. I just get tired of seeing the same arguments each and every time–he/she did this, well a couple of years ago, she/he did the same thing.
The point is that they both do it and it will only get worse this year because we have no quick way to voice our displeasure other than “polls” which can be swayed simply by the wording of a sentence.
Has there always been partisanship? Sure. But the internet age has given voice to many more people who continue to use the same tired and frankly incomplete arguments. All of it adds up to the perception that the electorate in this country truly hates people who are on the other side. Sure hope that isn’t the case.
Back to the subject at hand, the picture being painted is the one side hates consumers. The other says, “all we want is accountability for this new agency like every other Federal agency has, and the Republican House has already passed something that is not even being considered in the Democratic Senate.” (not a real quote, just a paraphrase).
The point is that we should probably have a functioning consumer protection apparatus but it should also be subject to the same oversight (both points put together). But instead the rhetoric is “they hate consumers” and “they want to be dictators over the economy.” So who is lying or at least misleading by omission? Guess what, both are.
@Clinton,
I don’t think anyone was offended, just frustrated because how do we put a stop to it?
@Pat.Herve
By the way, my latest comment was not an answer to your recent post, it was done at the same time.
As I said, I watched the comments after the meetings from the different participants, including the President as I recall. That was my recollection because I thought to myself, “boy, that is going to foster bi-partisanship.” It wasn’t formed by listening to pundits talk about it.
My recollection was further cemented by my memory that shortly thereafter, it was reported that the Republicans were locked out of the room.
So, that is why I thought it was extremely partisan and frankly confrontational when it didn’t have to be.
The beef is that the agency is funded by the Federal Reserve, not the Congress. This means that you will have a very powerful government agency making important decisions with absolutely no congressional oversight.
I’m surprised we aren’t hearing any impeachment talk.
@Cato the Elder
Thanks Cato – is it because Congress wants to be able to hold the purse strings, and hamper the CFPB like it does with the IRS, SEC and other regulators? Seeing how Congress has failed in its oversight responsibilities over many other things – maybe it is a good thing?
Actually, the first level of supervision should always be the President since they are in the Executive Branch.
I know you didn’t ask me….but now you are starting to see the symptoms of something that has been broken beyond repair. It ain’t pretty!
@pokie
I don’t think I just stumbled on the problem. I think the problem has been getting worse and worse. over time.
To the complaint that the Pro Forma session are somehow “fake.” Not true. Business gets done.
http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2012/01/05/the-white-house-is-wrong-the-senate-conducted-business-during-its-recess/2/
Excerpt:
___________________________________________
Most senators left D.C. on Dec. 17 after scheduling pro forma sessions for December and January. The CR for Dec. 17 shows that Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR) received unanimous consent to schedule Dec. 23 as a pro forma session.
The CR for Dec. 23 shows that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid specifically asked for unanimous consent for H.R. 3765 so “that if the House passes and sends to the Senate a bill which is identical to the text extension of the reduced payroll tax, unemployment insurance, TANF, and the Medicare payment fix, the bill be considered read three times and passed.”
In that pro forma session, Reid received unanimous consent and the two-month extension of the payroll tax break that had caused such a political commotion in Washington was considered read and passed in the Senate after the House acted. That’s not a “gimmick.” That’s legislating.
________________________________
Their conclusions and mine:
Contrary to White House assertions, the Senate unquestionably conducted actual business during at least one of its supposedly pro forma sessions. This simple fact makes President Obama’s actions even more indefensible.
The president’s ends don’t justify his means. Politics should not trump the principle that we – and particularly the president – operate under the rule of law and the bounds of the Constitution. When a president disregards the facts and shows such contempt for this principle, it is more than disappointing, it threatens the foundations of our republic. Leaders who believe they need not abide by the rules and the law have led more than one republic down the road to tyranny.
It probably wouldn’t have happened if one person after the other hadn’t been rejected to head up up the consumer protection agency. the way I look at it, if they can’t run with the big dogs, they need to stay on the porch. Life goes on. Don’t force someone’s hand.
@Cargo
As Clinton said, this is a way to force changes.
However, I would support this. http://www.qando.net/?p=12253
What they need to do is repeal this monstrosity and start over with something under Congressional control and isn’t a automatic bail out for banks.
It’s new legislation. Why do we have to keep reinventing the wheel? Why do you think it is an automatic bailout for banks? How would that help the consumer?
MH
Maybe I can shed some light on the I won you lost quote you guys are talking about:
I believe it was in a meeting with John McCain etal soon after the election, McCain was complaining to Obama about his insistence on some point in their meeting, and Obama said the reason was that he won and McCain lost
Thanks Bear! Why were they even meeting? Nothing wrong with I won you lost.