Skip to main content

constitution

James Fallows and Steve Benen write about how radical and dangerous the effort behind the Senate Republicans opposition to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau head Richard Cordray is.

They demonstrate with this segment from Meet the Press of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

So this consumer bureau that they want to pass is under the Federal Reserve. No appropriation oversight, no board.  It is something out of the Stalinist era.

The reason Republicans don't want to vote for it is we want a board, not one person, making all the regulatory decisions, and there's no oversight under this person.  He gets a check from the Federal Reserve.  We want him under the Congress so we can oversee the overseer.

And this on Fox News Sunday from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):

“[W]hat we are saying to the president is: join with us and reform this agency, make it accountable to someone, the people elected the Congress for its funding and for its oversight, and then send up somebody and we’ll be happy to confirm them. There’s nothing wrong with Mr. Cordray personally. This is about an unaccountable, unelected czar. And we’re simply not going to appoint him, or confirm him, or anybody else to this agency that shouldn’t exist in its current form.”

What are both men ignoring? The fact that the CFPB is law. Graham says it particularly blatantly—the "consumer bureau they want to pass"—and McConnell a little less so, with his agency that "shouldn't exist in its current form." The agency does exist, under law, in the form in which the Congress passed it and the president signed it. Changing the form of the agency requires a new law, constitutionally. Instead, Republicans are trying to change it via extortion.

Benen:

[W]hat Republicans are embracing in this case is, in effect, nullification.

Congress passed a bill that was signed into law by the president. Last week, a Senate minority — not a majority, a minority — decided it simply won’t allow that law that’s already on the books to be executed.

In case this isn’t obvious, the American system of government isn’t supposed to work this way. Indeed, it’s pretty much the antithesis of our constitutional process.

Republicans may not care about this, but you should.

The GOP minority isn’t even questioning Cordray’s qualifications. Rather, Republicans are saying they refuse to allow existing law to function until Democrats meet the GOP’s demands and does Wall Street’s bidding. When the Senate minority is satisfied, they’ll consider allowing the law to function—if they feel like it.

But this is now basically accepted as business as usual, just as every filibuster isn't reported as the extraordinary event it should be, but as simple failure of a bill to pass. Fallows:

This strategy depends absolutely for its success on its not being called what it is: Constitutional radicalism, or nullification. This is an extension of the media normalization of the filibuster, through stories that say a bill has "failed" if it doesn't get 60 votes. And on this program, neither Senate Democratic Majority Leader Dick Durbin nor moderator David Gregory noted the extraordinary claim that Graham had just made, treating it instead as normal election-year positioning.

We've been talking about this basically since the Supreme Court appointed George W. Bush president: a completely radicalized Republican party that doesn't care about governing, doesn't care about the Constitution. It's apparently not polite to talk about the country's dirty little secret, but the opposition party—the party that is in control of the House of Representatives—isn't just bat-shit insane, it's subversive and the tactics they've escalated in the last two years aren't just politics as usual, but dangerous to the basic functioning of this country.

Now, one wouldn't expect David Gregory to actually be able to piece that together for himself, but Sen. Dick Durbin certainly could, and should have called Graham and Gregory out on it. At some point, Democrats are going to have to stop being polite about this, stop acting as if it's business as usual and start screaming bloody murder.

Originally posted to Joan McCarter on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 10:46 AM PST.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yep, and this is the key: (26+ / 0-)
    At some point, Democrats are going to have to stop being polite about this, stop acting as if it's business as usual, and start screaming bloody murder.

    Now is the time. We're waiting.

    202-224-3121 to Congress in D.C. USE it! You can tell how big a person is by what it takes to discourage them.

    by cany on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 10:50:46 AM PST

    •  Well the 1980's is the Time But Better Late (9+ / 0-)

      than never.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:22:22 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  And this is quite a statement coming from the (7+ / 0-)

      distinguished Senator Huckleberry Graham:

      The reason Republicans don't want to vote for it is that we want a board, not one person making all the regulatory decisions, and there's no oversight under this person... We want him under the Congress so we can oversee the overseer.
      First of all, they already voted on it, and they lost. That game is over.
         If they wanted a board and not an individual, they should've worked in a bi-partisan manner to set it up that way. They chose instead to try to obstruct, and they did, save for one defector.
        The vote now is for him (Cordray), not it, the CFPB.

         There's no oversight under this person? That doesn't even make sense (not that any of his "argument" does.)
         Their objection seems to be not so much in allowing an agency dedicated to consumer financial protection, but for this agency to have any real power to do its job.

         Time for the "Nuclear" option?

      "We the People of the United States...." -U.S. Constitution

      by elwior on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:09:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And don't forget the real motives... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        COBALT1928, pengiep, cany, elwior

        behind the McConnell et al assertions that this agency would be "accountable to nobody" and have unlimited powers.

        In fact, what the GOP is ripped about is that Congress wouldn't be able to pull its usual shenanigans with regulatory agencies...namely gut their budgets and staffing so they can't effectively regulate.  This legislation gave the new agency a degree of protection from political interference and the GOP HATES that.

        A good example of what happens with agencies the GOP doesn't like....the SEC.  Another....Dept. of the Interior Mine Regulation.

        In this case, if the GOP can't the Consumer body from existing, they will do their damndest to make its life miserable and short.

        Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

        by dweb8231 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:21:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The Democrats had their chance (17+ / 0-)

    To reform the filibuster rules and get rid of this absurd 60 vote threshold for any and all legislation, but they punted.
    It's hard to see why, other than it gives them a great excuse for not actually accomplishing anything. Now they can run on an "obstructionist" Republican party even though they had the power to remove most of the obstructions.
    Certainly the Republicans are abdicating their responsibility to govern by this refusal to confirm anyone, but the Democrats saw this coming, had in fact been frustrated by it regularly, and still refused to take any action to stop it.
    So, the Democrats pass a weak tea bill that has very little real regulation worth a damn except the consumer agency. Then the Republicans block implementation of that one workable part and the Dems throw up their hands and cry "we're helpless!"
    Bait and switch, kabuki theater, call it what you will, but in the end the result is the same, the wealthy and connected win, we lose and nothing changes.
    Should we really expect any different from a body full of mostly old white millionaires?

    •  What can we expect from politicians (7+ / 0-)

      who are bought and paid for by the same monied interests?  No matter what the party, Wall Street, the banks, the mega corporations, and wealthy people are buying everyone in sight.  On top of this, they're feathering their own nests for a nice, cushy corporate job when they leave office.

      Until we get the money out of politics and our elections, we're just going to get more of the same.

      There already is class warfare in America. Unfortunately, the rich are winning.

      by Puddytat on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:36:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Non-conspiracy explanation: (6+ / 0-)

      The current debate rules empower not just Senate minorities, but individual senators.  Eliminating these rules would make the powers of each individual senator more like those of individual House members - which is to say, much weaker.

      You don't need a doschloss legend to explain why it would be hard to get a majority of senators to vote to make themselves weaker.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:36:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Empower individual (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        jts327

        senators to do what?

        I'm not sure you're really disagreeing.

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:45:27 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The filibuster empowers ONE Senator (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          pengiep

          With veto power greater than the power of 59 other Senators.  The filibuster rule is fundamentally unconstitutional and should be eliminated.  It's not even a LAW, it's just a rule that the Senate has agreed to operate under.  All it takes to eliminate the rule is 50 Senators.  You want to unlock the gridlock?  Here is your key.  The fact that we can't get 50 Senators to eliminate the filibuster says very clearly that they are just fine with it.

        •  Formally, to block legislation by extending debate (0+ / 0-)

          In practice, it empowers them to demand tweaks to legislation and get stuff in exchange for their vote.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:24:35 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Can we expect any better from 2010 apsthetics (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jts327

      who did not vote?

    •  We will see an end to the Filibuster (0+ / 0-)

      Just as soon as the Republicans have a 51 vote Majority!

      Impeach Grover Norquist! Defeat a Republican!

      by NM Ray on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:44:22 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The whole Republican approach to government is (10+ / 0-)

    that it shouldn't exist, and if it does, they'll make sure it is as ineffective and inefficient as possible, simply to prove point 1.  I believe a fair definition of that approach in any other time or place would be "treason".

    •  Well Not Really, Since Treason is Explicitly (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, confitesprit, m00finsan, jts327

      defined in the Constitution.

      This is a fundamental system design problem. A list of those sufficient to threaten the nation would be sizeable.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:23:49 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  How about racketeering? (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        createpeace, bear83, COBALT1928

        For years now, the modern GOP has been a criminal conspiracy against a huge hunk olf this country.

        That its activities aren't quite treasonous dones't change that it should be fought as a criminal organization.

        Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

        by textus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:47:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  dont quibble (0+ / 0-)

        over semantics, its figuratively treasonous. but i always enjoy your comments gooserock, thanks for what you put forward here.

        ...sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport,whereas Virtue, if a pauper is stopped at all frontiers. from The Sermon, Moby Dick

        by jts327 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:07:33 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Chris Hayes spoke to all this on Rachel last (9+ / 0-)

    Friday night. Glad to see multiple voices addressing it. Need to hear a lot more, and loud ones to boot.

    You can bet if the shoe were on the other foot the GOP would be screaming non-stop about it.

    Maybe Dems need to get more creative and see what current law they might be able to invalidate that would piss off the GOP and use to point to their blatant hypocrasy.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:05:40 AM PST

    •  Yep, If Republicans Retake The Senate ... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      COBALT1928

      ... you can bet $10,000 that the Republicans will be wailing about "up and down votes"!  And the corporate media will be there helping them push the "up and down" votes without a peep about what the Republicans were saying/doing just months previously.

      Poor man wants to be rich. Rich man wants to king. And the king ain't satisifed until he rules everything. B.Springsteen

      by howd on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:07:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It should have happened in 2009 (8+ / 0-)

    when there was a clear Democratic majority in  the Senate and the filibuster could have been killed.

    After two more years of seeing the damage the filibuster caused, it should have been done in 2011 when there was still a Democratic majority.

    Can it be done in 2012 when the new session starts?  I don't know the rules, but doubt that anyone wants to address it.

    I'd be willing to be that if the Senate is 51/49 Republican, or even 50/50 with a GOP VP casting the tiebreaking vote, the rules will change in a heartbeat.

    Dems exect to share power.  Reps expect to take it by force.  

    why I'm a Democrat - Isaiah 58:6-12, Matthew 25:31-46

    by marking time on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:12:12 AM PST

    •  I don't think Republicans would change the rules. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jts327

      The debate rules in the Senate don't just empower legislative minorities.  They empower individual senators.

      Party politics aside, I think it would be very difficult to get a majority of senators to vote to limit their own power under any conditions.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:38:56 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  They might not change the rules (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        COBALT1928

        but they would threaten to, and would exact a price from Democrats for not doing so, as in the Gang of 14 agreement where Dems agreed not to filibuster.

        As a result, the Republicans get what they wanted - right wing nominees and judges - without having to change the rules at all.

        The question is - Why won't Democrats try the same thing? Go ahead and threaten the ol' nuclear option and see if the Republicans will blink.

        "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." Franklin D. Roosevelt

        by bear83 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:05:48 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Radical Republicans also agreed not to (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          COBALT1928

          filibuster with the Gang of 14 agreement, but you can see that they welsh on whatever deal they make if the outcome of that deal in some way can hurt Obama or Democrats in general.

          Republicans love to make deals, they pray to the altar of contract law, but they really don't give a damn if they hold up their end of the deal because they are duplicitous, devious and depraved.

          Power is all they want, and they will screw the American people and the constitution to get it.

          If we force a constitutional crisis to make the Radical Republicans behave in a manner consistent with the constitution, what level of confidence do we have that the current version of the Supreme Court of the United States of America will come down on the side of the Constitution?

          I have a feeling that it is going to come down to this, but that is the question that we must ponder before forcing it.  But this law seems to be a good place to make that stand.  It is a law, and because the Radical Republicans don't like it doesn't give them the power to attempt to nullify it.

          I believe President Obama, Vice President Biden and Senate Majority Leader Reid should put the Cordray nomination back up for a vote, and if the Republicans filibuster it, the Vice President, in his role as President of the Senate, should invoke the Constitutional Option, declare the filibuster rule unconstitutional and force the up or down vote for Richard Cordray to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  End of story.

          If the Radical Republicans won't do their job, it's time to force the issue.  It's time to get their attention.  It's time.

          Republicans are like alligators. All mouth and no ears.

          by Ohiodem1 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:43:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The only reason Republicans agreed (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ohiodem1

            to the Gang of 14 agreement was that they had the Senate majority and W in the White House. They wanted to pack the courts with as many rightwingers as possible, and a few Democratic filibusters were getting in the way.

            Now that the shoe is on the other foot, Dems need to pitch the same fit Republicans did then - agree to stop the filibusters or we will invoke the constitutional option.

            Would the GOP cave in? Who knows. But for once I would like to see the Dems call their bluff.

            "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by bear83 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:04:12 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

      •  i agree that (0+ / 0-)

        the way power shifts in the senate both sides would be reluctant to change the rules, if the republicans change it they will live with it for a long long time, of course the democrats may acquiesce and change it back if requested.

        ...sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport,whereas Virtue, if a pauper is stopped at all frontiers. from The Sermon, Moby Dick

        by jts327 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:10:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Why aren't the filibuster and super-majority rules (0+ / 0-)

        a violation of one man, one vote?

        Mitch McConnell's party doesn't have a Senate majority....the Democrats won the Senate.  But Mitch does have cloture which means that his minority Republicans have votes with a power greater than one and the Democrats have a vote less than one.

        That's unconstitutional in my mind.  Where am I wrong?

        Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

        by dweb8231 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 02:38:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  There is no one-man-one-vote rule in the Const. (0+ / 0-)

          It doesn't say anywhere in the document that it has to work that way.

          On the other hand, there is a line in the Constitution stating that each house may determine its own rules.

          So, if the Senate voted to make the most junior senator handle all business by himself, so everyone else could go out for beers, that would be perfectly constitutional.

          Art is the handmaid of human good.

          by joe from Lowell on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 11:23:09 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  You are correct re. the Constitution... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            joe from Lowell

            it was in fact brought into common usage once again by the Warren Court in its rulings on equal representation....but that concept is thus coded in the law.

            And yes, the Senate can make rules, but supposedly it should not be able to make laws which violate the law.  For example, you couldn't have a Senate rule stating that anyone who kills someone in the well of the Senate is immune from prosecution for murder.

            Nor should you be able to invoke a law which says defacto, I am giving YOUR side a more powerful vote than I am giving to your opponent.

            Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

            by dweb8231 on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 07:33:27 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I think you hit the heart of the matter (18+ / 0-)

    with this

    It's apparently not polite to talk about the country's dirty little secret, but the opposition party—the party that is in control of the House of Representatives—isn't just bat-shit insane, it's subversive and the tactics they've escalated in the last two years aren't just politics as usual, but dangerous to the basic functioning of this country.

    The republican party has decided upon a strategy of subversion.  They cannot win a national election through a democratic process, and they cannot accept the democratic policies that benefit the majority.  The Democratic party needs to fight this subversion of democracy tooth and nail.

  •  Also need to look into HR10 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    2laneIA, Cordyc, COBALT1928, ColoTim

    which is a bill that as I read it essentially allows either House to kill any new rule proposed by any Federal agency by requiring Congress to vote approval for the rule to take effect where previously the rule took effect as the default unless Congress rounded up a disapproval. Huge difference.

    This is a means where the legislators can kill regulation they don't like also by merely sitting on it for 70 days

    As the Congressional Budget Office states

    Therefore, H.R. 10 would make major regulations dependent on future legislation.

    “Human kindness has never weakened the stamina or softened the fiber of a free people. A nation does not have to be cruel to be tough.” FDR

    by Phoebe Loosinhouse on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:18:26 AM PST

  •  Two words (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    willrob, m00finsan, COBALT1928

    Recess appointment.

  •  I don't really understand the objection. (0+ / 0-)

    (I mean, other than it's terrible for the country.)

    The law says the agency exists. The law say that the Republicans have the power to prevent it from doing anything by opposing Cordray.

    'Extortion' is illegal. This is political pressure. Yeah, they're shits, but that's hardly news.

    "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

    by GussieFN on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:24:12 AM PST

    •  Their leashholders want to stel the rest. (0+ / 0-)

      we're up against, among other things, the huge secret half of the $16 trillion in tax money given to them without strings. They clearly used it to buy more power.

      Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

      by textus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:50:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not exactly (0+ / 0-)
      The law say that the Republicans have the power to prevent it from doing anything by opposing Cordray.

      The filibuster is simply a Senate rule. It's not the law. It's not in the constitution.

      "Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by bear83 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:08:51 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, maybe I shouldn't (0+ / 0-)

        have said 'law', as if there's an law explicitly saying they may do this. (Though of course not all laws are in the constitution.) My point is that they're acting entirely within their legal rights to do this. They have this power. They are using it.

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:15:58 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Someday there will be a Republican President (10+ / 0-)

    And one thing we ought to be asking of our Democratic Senators is that at that point they will filibuster the opening prayer, the pledge of Allegiance, the calling of the roll, and every other possible event. Without supplying a reason - just because they can.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:35:55 AM PST

  •  If Obama doesn't do anything about it... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jts327, COBALT1928

    ...then it ought to finally be clear that he shares their goals.

    I'm not holding my breath.

    Barack Obama: So morally bankrupt that he thinks people who tortured other people to death should get a pass. Likes to prosecute whistleblowers and pot smokers, though.

    by expatjourno on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:36:12 AM PST

  •  What Republicans in Congress are embracing is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bluegrass50

    breaking their oath to the U.S Constitution aka treason.

    Best. President. Ever.

    by Little Lulu on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:43:33 AM PST

    •  Not quite treason - more like blatant fraud, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jts327

      conspiracy, subversion and sabotage.

      For it to be "treason", the multinational corporations would have to be officially declared "enemies of the United States" (probably also involving a declaration of war), and nobody's going to go there.

      But there's lots of next-rank-down stuff that applies and could be made to stick.

      Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

      by TheOtherMaven on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:49:52 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, that's abuse of office or power (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jts327

      I agree with poster above. It isn't quite treason. That doesn't make it something that hsouldn't be destroyed.

      Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

      by textus on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:52:51 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is really nothing new (0+ / 0-)

    For years now  many federal agencies have never had a real approved budget and have had to rely on continuing resolutions. The Enviromental Protection Agency has been told not to expect to get an approved budget for fiscal year 2012 once again.

    Basic items like travel expenses to inspect industrial sites are once again limited or even eliminated. Ronald Reagan started this method of starving regulatory agencies that right wing nuts don't approve of, and the deems have been unable to stop it for any great length of time.

    “I never bought a man who wasn't for sale.” Senator William Clark D-MT 1901-1907

    by Ed in Montana on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:44:39 AM PST

  •  Screaming's not enough, they gotta kick ass (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jts327, COBALT1928

    Elephant ass, to be specific.

    Mundus vult decipi, decipiatur

    by TheOtherMaven on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 11:45:17 AM PST

    •  well they (0+ / 0-)

      would have to put down the shovel and bucket to do that.

      ...sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport,whereas Virtue, if a pauper is stopped at all frontiers. from The Sermon, Moby Dick

      by jts327 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:21:20 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  imagine if you will a liberal congress (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    createpeace, tb mare, jts327

    that refused to approve a Repub nominee for Sec of Defense saying that the whole enterprise is bad.  Imagine.

    •  but i dont think that was (0+ / 0-)

      a filibuster, i think you are referring to John Tower, but it was an up or down vote, i think, i could be wrong, please correct me if i am.

      ...sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport,whereas Virtue, if a pauper is stopped at all frontiers. from The Sermon, Moby Dick

      by jts327 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:23:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  the President should call an address to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    createpeace, tb mare

    the nation on this.  In clear and forceful terms he needs to call this out, in a very big way. this is something voters can understand

  •  Repubs are all for restrictions and regs.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, dksbook

    for the CONSUMER protection agency but NOT for the corps and Big banks that are F'in the consumers in the first place?

    .....  there are no words  - well there are but my parents raised a lady so I can't say them on the inner tubes :)

    "Orwell was an optimist"

    by KnotIookin on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:01:31 PM PST

  •  this is the problem with the democrats (4+ / 0-)

    they just cannot message, they cannot challenge such statements, i am sure Durbin thinks Graham is his friend, but i seriously doubt that the friendship is mutual.  nothing will change until we get democrats who can speak forcefully to lies.

    ...sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport,whereas Virtue, if a pauper is stopped at all frontiers. from The Sermon, Moby Dick

    by jts327 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:02:02 PM PST

  •  Fascism (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare, maryabein, Ohiodem1, COBALT1928
    "It is something out of the Stalinist era." -L. Graham

    This from the guy who argued for indefinite detentions of American citizens just the other day.

    Sen. Graham apparently wants fascist totalitarianism, not socialist totalitarianism.

    If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    by stewarjt on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:07:27 PM PST

    •  Not a lot of difference, is there. One repressive (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      COBALT1928

      government from the right, the other from the left, but both repressive.

      The Radical Republicans are forcing a constitutional crisis, but I think we should force it on our terms.  They won't back down until we back them down.  So let's do it.

      Republicans are like alligators. All mouth and no ears.

      by Ohiodem1 on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:47:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Make the case why Republican Objections are wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OldDragon, hmi

    The public will not be sympathetic to Democrats on the confirmation without the case why Republicans are wrong on policy.

    Make the case why these Republican objections are wrong or not important:

    • why, a single person as decision maker is better than a board
    • why no need for congressional approval of a budget for the agency is good policy.
    • why no congressional oversight is good policy.

    The most important way to protect the environment is not to have more than one child.

    by nextstep on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 12:08:35 PM PST

  •  Oh lordy yes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    COBALT1928
    Now, one wouldn't expect David Gregory to actually be able to piece that together for himself, but Sen. Dick Durbin certainly could, and should have called Graham and Gregory out on it. At some point, Democrats are going to have to stop being polite about this, stop acting as if it's business as usual and start screaming bloody murder.
  •  I have a question. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hmi

    I'm fully in support of Cordray's confirmation and getting this agency off the ground.

    However, I wonder what the back story is about putting it under the Fed?  The Fed is a private entity and run by the banks not any part of "We the People".  Is this some kind of Trojan Horse?  Did anyone follow the writing of this closely enough to be able to explain the reasons why this ended up under the Fed and not say the Treasury or standalone?

    Something smells.

  •  Today's Essay Question (0+ / 0-)

    How does Congressional nullification via the budget compare to DOJ nullification via refusal to enforce certain laws it deems undesirable? Make no stray marks. Show your work.

  •  "This is about an unaccountable, unelected czar." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NM Ray

    Oh, you mean like Grover Norquist?

    Yes I'm in a perpetually shitty mood. I use a Mac.

    by here4tehbeer on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 01:34:02 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site