HuffPo – Maria Cantwell: I’m “Not Sure” Why Geithner Still Has Job (VIDEO)
Cantwell ‘not sure’ why Geithner has job – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room

Cantwell sits on Senate Finance. I’ve been no big fan of hers ever since she decided to vote for cloture on the Alito appointment, but I’d have her back if she’s trying to do something here. Not sure what she can do.

I suggest we follow the lead of Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank and hope to fix the fundamentals of the

ROTFLMAO… oh the irony..

I do not see how you can craft regulations that would be able to discern executive-driven legislating against an honest collaboration.

Have any of you all ever had to work with a public sector white collar regulatory agency? Given the disparity between the public sector regulators and the high priced attorneys and accountants, there really is no contest and the pricey lawyers run circles around the hapless private sector rejects.

Any regulatory framework capable of figuring out what freshly and uniquely rolled turds the smarty pantses are trying to foist off as grade-AAA investments is going to need to be staffed and run by a team of professional forensics investigators as well as talented financial wizards. That is going to cost money, and if the conflicts can be managed, that would be a good investment.

Incidentally, ever since [George] Washington it has been regularly seen as an important job of the President to be THE primary legislator. Though he doesn’t vote he can write legislation, promote it and have friendly members of Congress submit it on his behalf.

Got any examples or cites to back up this “regularly seen ever since Washington” assertion?

I take it you are appovingly referring here, not to the obvious, good government practice (itself a great rarity anymore on Capitol Hill) of those who write the laws in our legislature requesting Executive Branch input and feedback on legislation, whether proposed or enacted, from those who actually do the work, but instead to what it sounds like you’re promoting: the antithesis of an independent Legislative Branch of government.

And I also take it that you personally disagree with Rousseau (whom Church was quoting in 1938), and Montesquieu, and the other 18th Century thinkers whom the creators of our three-branch (not our Parliament with Prime Minister) Constitutional system of government attended to, and learned lessons from to add to their own hard-earned experiences of the ever-present danger of executive tyranny?

So that when you speak of “following the lead of Sen. Dodd and Rep. Frank” what you really mean is “following the lead of” Barack Obama and Timothy Geithner, or anyone else Obama privately selects in the Executive Branch, who will and should “write legislation (to fix the fundamentals of the system), promote it and have friendly members of Congress submit it on [their] behalf.” If so, you’re in luck – that seems to be exactly the way that Barney Frank operates. [And it's certainly the way that Chris Dodd operated during the TARP bailout a year ago; Dodd's latest reform proposals may differ from Geithner's enough to be worth something - if so, Dodd'll be fighting "THE primary legislator" every step of the way to get his (genuine) reforms enacted into law.]

Montesquieu, in 1748:

“When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.”

But MarkH thinks the executive power should have all but final rubberstamping legislative power, for the good of the nation, no need for the poor saps warming the seats of our federal legislature to think or act for themselves until the executive tells them what to do, and how to do it?

I profoundly disagree.

I think we’re all clear on question 1, although Nathan broadens the issue to encompass the legitimacy of the transactions being taxed. But unless someone definitively refutes the comment by keng @32, which certainly sounds credible, I’m withholding judgment on question 2.