This Week in the Mercury
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
$$$ / Politics Obama to Name Consumer Protection Chief While Congress Is Out of Town
Posted by Eli Sanders on Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 9:59 AM
President Obama will challenge Senate Republican foes of the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by naming Richard Cordray as its director while Congress is out of town, according to a senior administration official.That would allow the agency to establish new regulations over financial institutions, putting into effect elements of the financial regulatory overhaul that was one of the administration’s main achievements in Congress.
3
I'd love EW to run, too, but that misses the point.
The glaring lesson of the last two decades has been that if one party chooses to be obstructionist, virtually no substantive change can pass Congress and be signed into law by the Prez unless one party controls the House and a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate. Unless the party controls 2/3 of House AND Senate (and can thus override presidential vetoes), it needs to hold the presidency as well. Even if one party manages to do all of the above, they could STILL have their legislation invalidated by the dead hand control of prior party administrations expressed in the makeup of the Supreme Court.
This deeply conservative system worked (depending on your perspective) while our population was more homogenous ideologically, but it quite plainly doesn't work anymore.
Without significant structural change (e.g. Senate rule reform), it's going to continue to be basically impossible for either party to advance ANY agenda in a meaningful way for the foreseeable future, and we'll keep on this ludicrous treadmill of pointlessly hoping that if we change some of the faces/party affiliations at regular intervals (because that last group of bums couldn't get anything done, dadgummit!), the structural problem will disappear and national government will actually function in some decisive, satisfying way.
The identities basically don't matter, only the math demanded by the structure.
The glaring lesson of the last two decades has been that if one party chooses to be obstructionist, virtually no substantive change can pass Congress and be signed into law by the Prez unless one party controls the House and a supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate. Unless the party controls 2/3 of House AND Senate (and can thus override presidential vetoes), it needs to hold the presidency as well. Even if one party manages to do all of the above, they could STILL have their legislation invalidated by the dead hand control of prior party administrations expressed in the makeup of the Supreme Court.
This deeply conservative system worked (depending on your perspective) while our population was more homogenous ideologically, but it quite plainly doesn't work anymore.
Without significant structural change (e.g. Senate rule reform), it's going to continue to be basically impossible for either party to advance ANY agenda in a meaningful way for the foreseeable future, and we'll keep on this ludicrous treadmill of pointlessly hoping that if we change some of the faces/party affiliations at regular intervals (because that last group of bums couldn't get anything done, dadgummit!), the structural problem will disappear and national government will actually function in some decisive, satisfying way.
The identities basically don't matter, only the math demanded by the structure.
4
@CC, you have a very pretty way of saying, "smash the state." Kidding aside, I agree with you. Though meaningful reforms to our gov't seems like it's a long way off; I can't see any practical way to achieve it. The ingrained politicians aren't going to do anything that may effect the system that keeps them in power.
6
@ Fruit Cup, the hair-tearing thing is that the state doesn't really need to be smashed, it needs three basic tweaks, only one of which require amending the Const. (thanks to Citizens United):
1) Senate rule reform (I'd even be in favor of getting rid of the Senate entirely) that allows a simple majority to prevail on all matters that don't involve amending the Const. (e.g. 2/3 for treaties and confirmations)
2) Truly meaningful campaign finance reform.
3) Mandatory voting accompanied by a mid-week federal holiday for the purpose.
If you can contain the effect of big money on politics and let majorities actually rule (as checked by the Senate, where two senators from Rhode Island can negate the two senators from California), a) majority parties will actually be able to govern, thus b) they will be truly accountable for the results of those policies, which can c) then be ratified or rejected each election cycle by all the voters of the land.
1) Senate rule reform (I'd even be in favor of getting rid of the Senate entirely) that allows a simple majority to prevail on all matters that don't involve amending the Const. (e.g. 2/3 for treaties and confirmations)
2) Truly meaningful campaign finance reform.
3) Mandatory voting accompanied by a mid-week federal holiday for the purpose.
If you can contain the effect of big money on politics and let majorities actually rule (as checked by the Senate, where two senators from Rhode Island can negate the two senators from California), a) majority parties will actually be able to govern, thus b) they will be truly accountable for the results of those policies, which can c) then be ratified or rejected each election cycle by all the voters of the land.
7
The most cry-worthy part of the whole thing is that of all people, our fucking Constitutional Law professor President should have known how critical Senate rule reform was, and it should have been his very first piece of business.
If he could have convincingly made the case and achieved this in the first 6 months of his presidency, we might have actually had the administration many Democrats dared to hope for when they prevailed in 2008.
If he could have convincingly made the case and achieved this in the first 6 months of his presidency, we might have actually had the administration many Democrats dared to hope for when they prevailed in 2008.
Most Commented on Blogtown, PDX
-
City's "Overnight Sleeping" Program Finds First Host—and Neighbors React in Ugly Fashion by Denis C. Theriault
-
Oh, Did You Think The Great Gatsby Movie Was Going to Be Good? by Alison Hallett
-
Happy World Goth Day! by Marjorie Skinner
-
Feds Dish Out $745.2 Million to the Light Rail by Alex Zielinski
-
Game of Thrones Recap: Calm Before the Storm Edition by Joe Streckert
-
Good Morning, News! by Wm.™ Steven Humphrey
-
Portland Button Works Opens on Killingsworth by Alison Hallett
-
Ye Olde Underground Loo by Alex Zielinski
-
We're Number One! by Alex Zielinski
-
Mapping Destruction: City Releases Locations of Portland Hazards by Nathan Gilles
Our Friends
- UrbanHonking
- Culture Shock
- Portland Roundball Society
- Steph Cassano
- Cort and Fatboy
- Street Roots
- Powell's Books Blog
- Portland Transport
- Portland Afoot
- Bike Portland
- Eater: PDX
- Portland Food and Drink
- Mr. Movie
- Sunday Softball
- BlueOregon
- Sightline Institute
- Ultra: Arts Portland
- Bitch Magazine
- Blazer's Edge
- Reading Local: Portland
- Portland Food Carts
- Stumptown Vegans
Our Enemies
The Handyman Pro - Your Honey-Do Specialist
Don’t let our name fool you. The Handyman Pro, LLC is a repair and remodel service provider with over 25-years experience. We cover all aspects of construction and repairs for residential and commercial clients.
Bands Page
Housing
Jobs
Musicians
For Sale
Wheels
Services
Health
The Arts
Friends 'N' Neighbors
Bulletin Board
Personals
Adult
RSSGoing to Seattle?
Comments (8) RSS