Tweet
In another edition of Kremlinology, Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard professor seen as a top choice to assume the position of director of the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, stopped by the White House yesterday.
Elizabeth Warren slipped quietly into Washington on Tuesday to talk with President Obama about the possibility of leading the new Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, according to people familiar with the meeting.
An administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the visit had not been publicized, acknowledged that Warren met with Obama but noted Wednesday that the president is still considering multiple candidates for the job.
Other contenders indeed have emerged – namely Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael S. Barr – but Warren is easily the most high-profile and most polarizing among them.
Officials say no decision has been made, but Robert Gibbs wouldn’t rule out an announcement “during the week.” It’s already Thursday, so the logical time for an announcement, if it comes, would be at the scheduled Obama press conference set for tomorrow.
The on-again, off-again nature of this is probably fraying some nerves, but it gives me another opportunity to explain that Elizabeth Warren could be the head of the CFPB today. The President gets to nominate someone to a five-year term subject to Senate confirmation. But the CFPB begins at the Treasury Department before transitioning to the Federal Reserve, and in that time, Treasury can appoint an acting director without Senate action needed. It would make sense to align the President’s nominee with the acting director, and everyone should expect that to happen, on the same day if possible. Given the situation with Obama nominees and Senate gridlock, there should be no reason that Warren languishes when the clear rules of the Dodd-Frank law allow for an acting director to be appointed.
As for the merits, Warren would transform the CFPB at the earliest point in its development, and could remake it into a real defender for the middle class against the illegal, predatory schemes of the banks and other financial firms. There would be no greater champion for ordinary consumers at this agency which Warren literally invented in her head. On the politics, it can only help the President with the base, and in fact, a failure to nominate Warren would be quite damaging.
7 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
I’m laying 5 to 1 against Warren’s appointment.
And I really want to be wrong.
Any takers? (Jellybeans or something – although in person, I would put my money where my mouth is.)
Sticking my neck out here, but IMHO, the reason this appointment wasn’t announced sooner is because Rahm has been waiting for a time when we weren’t paying attention.
I think she will get it.
As long as we’re playing Kremlinology here, I’ll suggest that Warren’s nomination – while she could be appointed to the post straightaway – is being played as part of a policy pressure move by the Administration on the Israelis.
Basically, it’s “If you want to continue to have the major influence you do in our government, and our foreign, domestic and economic policies, then we want to see a meaningful Peace with the Palestinians before the mid-terms.”
So, my guess is that Obama is ready to make wholesale changes to key personnel with respect to his Staff, Wall Steet, the Banksters and AIPAC – which means Rahm, Geithner, and a whole host of over-comfortable Lobbyists are about to find themselves without any influence – unless Israel does the right thing…
If there is any issue that the rank-and-file members on the left and the right agree on – it’s that Wall Street, the Banksters and their Lobbyists need to be reined-in with Oversight and investigatory power – the whole Country would cheer Warren carrying her paddle to her new office!
Either a meaningful Israel/Palestine Peace or a strong move by Obama against Wall Street, imvho, would win back the independents on Main Street for the mid-terms, and possibly avert electoral disaster.
And, to let the Israelis know that I meant business – I’d start by pushing-out Rahm, and announcing Warren, tomorrow.
Jm2c
Nobody wants me to look like an idiot for making that prediction more than I do.
Didn’t Ben Nelson hold up the bill because he didn’t want Warren in the job? I wonder if the President promised Nelson that he wouldn’t appoint Warren if he got on board. Ha ha, if anyone on the planet deserves being double-crossed on national television, its Nebraska’s favorite toupee-wearing son.
David made an excellent point about the bill’s “interim director” procedure. The President can nominate her for the permanent (5 year fixed term) directorship and at the same time order Geithner to appointed her immediately as acting interim director.
If Warren were appointed (by Geithner) interim director at the same time she was nominated by the President for permanent director, the Senate Banking Committee could (and almost certainly, would) sit on her nomination till the end of the year. the President can then recess appoint Warren after the New Year. A recess appointment in January would be valid until the end of 2012, a recess appointment this year would expire at the end of 2011.
Of course, Obama has a gift for doing the most half-assed possible thing at any given moment. I wouldn’t be surprised if did nothing until the end of December and then recess appointed Warren. If Obama runs out the clock this year before recess appointing her, he only has to put up with her for 12 months (versus a possible 30 month term; interim appointment at time of July bill signing July plus 24 month recess appointment in January).
The only way she’ll get the nomination is if the White House is sure that she can’t be confirmed, and that the process can be dragged out past the election (and probably past the convenient “recess” period).
But look at the good side: if I’m wrong, David and his wife get a nice dinner on me at the restaurant of their choice.
(looking at menus)