Warren to Unofficially Lead Consumer Agency (NYT)

[jefferson_dem]

Yes, yet another post on the Warren appointment. Here's the NYT write-up for edification purposes...

Warren to Unofficially Lead Consumer Agency
By SEWELL CHAN

WASHINGTON — Elizabeth Warren, who conceived of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, will oversee its establishment as an assistant to President Obama, an official briefed on the decision said Wednesday evening.

The decision, which Mr. Obama is to announce this week, would allow Ms. Warren, a Harvard law professor, to effectively run the new agency without having to go through a potentially contentious confirmation battle in the Senate. The creation of the bureau is a centerpiece of the Wall Street financial overhaul that Mr. Obama signed in July.

Ms. Warren will be named an assistant to the president, a designation that is held by senior White House staff members, including Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff. She will also be a special adviser to the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and report jointly to Mr. Obama and Mr. Geithner. The financial regulation law delegated to the Treasury Department the powers of the bureau until a permanent director was appointed and confirmed by the Senate to a five-year term.

The decision does not preclude the possibility that Ms. Warren could eventually be named director, and at the least, she would play a pivotal role in deciding whom to appoint to the job, according to the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so as not to pre-empt the formal announcement. Several organizations, including ABC, reported the news of Ms. Warren’s impending appointment on Wednesday.

Ms. Warren, 61, an authority on bankruptcy law, has developed a following among liberals for her writings and advocacy on behalf of working-class and middle-class families. She has described their financial strains in two books, one of them written with her daughter.

But she has drawn fire from financial institutions for her persistent attacks on abusive, deceptive and unfair lending practices; some banking executives believe she has been overly broad in criticizing those practices.

<SNIP>

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/16/business/16consumer.html?src=twt&twt=nytimes&pagewanted=print

[John Q. Citizen]

1. If this occurs, this is a good thing, IMHO.

I hope we get some human sided people in government.

I've had it with supply side.

I've had it with the free flow of capital, goods and services but the capturing of labor.

[Cant trust em]

2. See, giving people higher salaries would be inefficient use of capital.

:puke:

[John Q. Citizen]

15. I'm thinking eating the rich would be a good source of protean.

[NoSheep]

3. Why don't they just give her the fucking job?

[DFLforever]

4. Because there is fucking opposition in the Senate?

enough to kill the nomination?

[NoSheep]

6. I suppose my question was completely rhetorical. It amazes me

that we have all these controversial figures in this administration yet the one person qualified to really make things happen for the people who are affected in a grave way by the financial institutions is having an epic saga of a time getting appointed to the job.

[Pirate Smile]

7. Oh, details, details. It is so much funnier to just call Obama a sell-out then try to

understand the actual constraints imposed on the President by the Senate confirmation process.

[NoSheep]

8. I'm not one of those people. This particular situation frustrates me.

[Cha]

14. Exactly..those pesky little

details that people like President Obama are aware of.

[NoSheep]

10. Operative word being "nomination". Big old GONG rings in NoSheep's ear.

[Nancy Waterman]

5. The GOP abuses the filibuster

and would never let her through the Senate. So the president has decided to bypass
what would be an unserious partisan process.

[NoSheep]

9. I stand uninformed. I was not clear about this process and I'm really glad I asked the question now!

[AtomicKitten]

11. Chris Hayes on Rachel tonight has your answer.

Basically this avoids horseshit from the GOP who will undoubtedly take their sweetass time blocking her appointment for months that turns into years for some. During that process, she goes into the "Cone of Silence" and stays out of the public eye. This way she can set up the agency and do the job and still remain a public figure and talk to her heart's content about what she is doing, something that GOP wants to avoid like the clap.

The story really has some substance and it's worth noting. Or you can descend into the pointless malaise of complaining that Pres Obama isn't being sensitive to your needs and you're not having it.

[Peace Patriot]

12. "BUT she has drawn fire for her persistent attacks on abusive, deceptive & unfair lending practices"

"But..."???

I don't call them the "New York Slimes" for nothing. Nasty little journalistic trick here, this "but." It overrides her representation of the interests of the vast majority of people in this country--"working-class and middle-class families"--which they had already tried to sabotage with, "has developed a following among liberals"--by saying, "BUT" 'she doesn't represent us rich guys, the ones with the power to fire you and foreclose on your house, the strong, the greedy, who don't sweat "abuses" and who have nerves of steel, and hearts to match, for riding out "over broad" criticism of our criminal practices. Look out! Debtors' prisons are back! And this lily-livered liberal can't do anything to help you! Ha-ha!'

Slimes!

[denimgirly]

13. Is this the 1st Genuine Progressive Move by Obama?

Here is hoping this isn't an election stunt and she becomes the official director after election time. I am a bit surprised though since Obama's decisions seem to always lean in the favor of the right. Its nice to see a real progressive move at least this once. Here is hoping for another 1 before another 2 years is up! :hi: