I'm starting to see why the Whitehouse is hesitating to appoint Warren as a permanent director.

[BzaDem]

And no, this is not a conspiracy theory "Obama the devil's span works for Goldman Sachs" post.

I have been hoping Obama would name her permanent director, because I think the fight over it would unambiguously help Democrats. No one like's being screwed by their credit card company, and having Republicans argue for the ability to use fine print to screw customers would have been a sight to behold. (I still believe this.)

I wasn't worried about her getting 60 votes, because I thought the bill contained a provision to appoint an interim director until she was confirmed. In that case, Republican filibustering means she stays, not that she goes.

But I think I was wrong about the bill. It looks like the bill gives Treasury (and by extension, Warren herself, given today's appointment) a lot of power to shape the creation of the agency. This includes staffing, research, policy direction, etc. This is a vital function, and if done incorrectly could doom the agency to irrelevance.

However, the bill does NOT allow anyone in a non-Senate-confirmed position to actually write the rules. The rules are the main component of the agency -- they have the force of law, and will say things like "Credit card companies MUST ...," "Banks are FORBIDDEN from doing the following..." etc. This is not a problem right now, because when an agency is being created, the focus is on setting up the agency on a sound footing for the future (not the technical work of writing the rules). Warren basically seems to have full authority for her stated mission, which is setting up the agency (and the only thing being done right now in any case).

But eventually (i.e. end of 2011), the rules will need to be written or the agency will be useless.

Republicans oppose the agency in general. They did not want the agency to be created, and they will oppose its continued existence. I believe Republicans will filibuster ANY director. If they do that, the agency will be useless and won't be able to do anything it was set up to do (unless I am misinterpreting the law, which is certainly possible). The question is: will they be able to sustain such a filibuster?

My guess is that right now or in the lame duck session, Obama would be able to appoint basically anyone that isn't Warren, and get the requisite Republican vote to block a filibuster. This appointment will be valid for 5 years, and will give the agency the key to doing everything it was intended to do. But the additions to next year's Senate are mostly Rand Paul/Marco Rubio/Joe Miller types. They want to shut down the government, and they certainly want to kill the agency. I cannot imagine the Republicans allowing a permanent director to be confirmed in the next Congress (or, looking at what Senate seats are up for election in 2012 and 2014, at any point thereafter).

So the Whitehouse has a choice. Does it start a great political fight, and risk losing the agency for the foreseeable future? Or does it forgo a great political fight, and try to get someone in the director's position so that rules can be formulated and enforced over the next 5 years?

[Cha]

1. The Whitehouse is going for what helps America and Americans..

thanks for your analysis, BzaDem.

And, it turns out Elizabeth Warren doesn't want a permanent appointment. She and the President know what they're doing.

ttp://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=445049&mesg_id=445049

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Very interesting summation of the picture, for which I thank you.

due to some family issues, I have less time to follow this important topic, found your comments very helpful.

can Obama make a recess appointment?
Or does he even want to?

[BzaDem]

3. A recess appointment would only last a year, after which Republicans will have at least 48 seats

(which is more than enough to filibuster anyone at that point).

If Republicans only have 48-50 Senate seats, Reid can continue to put the Senate in recess, which allows Obama to reappoint her each year. But if Republicans take 51 Senate seats (which they almost certainly will by 2012, given the seats up for election then), they could just have someone open the Senate each day and prevent ANY further recess appointments. That usually happens in divided government.

[BzaDem]

4. kick