Will President Obama Appoint Elizabeth Warren to Head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?
President Obama will soon appoint a director to run the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, White House officials said Tuesday morning, but it’s unclear if he’s interviewed any candidates for the job, which will be officially created tomorrow when the president signs the Wall Street reform bill.
“He’ll turn this in fairly short order,” deputy Treasury Secretary Neil Wolin told reporters this morning.
Behind the scenes of the Obama administration there some is something of a storm brewing as liberals, progressives, and labor unions push President Obama to appoint Elizabeth Warren to head the new agency – against the wishes of others in the administration.
Warren chairs the Congressional Oversight Panel of the Troubled Assets Relief Program and has been seen by many on the Left as a force for greater accountability and transparency, and a check against the forces in the Obama administration that are closely allied with the financial sector, most notably Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
Geithner, sources say, has concerns about her appointment given some of the pointed criticisms Warren has made about the Obama administration’s policies.
- In Warren’s April 13 report on Treasury’s $75 billion foreclosure prevention program, she wrote that “Treasury’s programs are not keeping pace with the foreclosure crisis. Treasury is still struggling to get its foreclosure programs off the ground as the crisis continues unabated.”
- In her May 13 report on Treasury’s attempts to help small businesses, she wrote that “Because small businesses play such a critical role in the American economy, there is little doubt that they must be a part of any sustainable recovery. It remains unclear, however, whether Treasury’s programs can or will play a major role in putting small businesses on the path to growth.”
- In her June 10 report on Treasury’s AIG bailout, she wrote, “The government argues that AIG’s failure would have resulted in chaos, so that a wholesale rescue was the only viable choice. The Panel rejects this all-or-nothing reasoning. There is no doubt that orchestrating a private rescue in whole or in part would have been a difficult – perhaps impossible – task, and the effort might have met great resistance from other financial institutions that would have been called on to participate. But if the effort had succeeded, the impact on market confidence would have been extraordinary and the savings to taxpayers would have been immense.”
Warren has been an aggressive watchdog over the Treasury Department and, more personally, a tough questioner of his in oversight hearings, for instance asking why shareholders and officials with US automakers had to make severe sacrifices to continue while recipients of TARP funds have made millions; or pushing Geithner to explain why AIG counterparties such as Goldman Sachs were paid 100 cents on the dollar.
On a conference call with reporters last week, Senior White House Adviser David Axelrod said that Warren was “obviously a candidate to lead this effort, but there are other candidates as well.”
One administration source said that it would be a "bloody battle" in the Senate to get her confirmed, since she would be opposed so strongly by Republicans and conservative Democrats, so the question is whether the president wants a big political battle over her. Warren has good relationships with many administration officials and has intellectual firepower, if not much managerial experience.
Two other candidates, sources say, include deputy Attorney General Eugene Kimmelman, who has worked at Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, and Public Citizen; and Assistant Treasury Secretary Michael Barr.
Today Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont, wrote the president urging him to appoint Warren to the post, noting that Warren “was the first to broach the idea of such a commission in an article published in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas in 2007… Professor Warren has a proven track-record as a smart and tough consumer advocate. As head of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel she is seen, across the breadth of America, as a champion of open, honest and responsive government.”
You can read Warren’s 2007 story HERE.
Sanders notes that he has “no doubt that some in the Senate will oppose her confirmation. Good! It will allow for a serious debate as to the role that government should play in protecting the American people against the outrageous behavior we have seen on Wall Street.”
As first reported by the Huffington Post’s Sam Stein, today AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka released a statement saying “In our view, there is only one candidate who is uniquely qualified and equipped to head this new agency. Harvard Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren originated the idea of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and has proven as Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel to be a strong and fearless advocate for the American public. We therefore strongly urge President Obama to appoint Professor Warren as Director of the new consumer protection bureau. Professor Warren's appointment would make clear that under President Obama's leadership, there truly will be accountability for Wall Street and fair treatment for the American public in the financial marketplace.”
The SEIU issued a statement offering similar support.
-Jake Tapper and Matthew Jaffe
Email
Sen. DeMint: GOP Race Could Go Until Convention
Obama Avoids Questions on Contraception Rule
Why are the SEIU and UAW so strongly in support of her? That seems worth knowing.
Posted by: MayBee | July 20, 2010, 12:30 pm 12:30 pm
Why are the SEIU and UAW so strongly in support of her? That seems worth knowing.
Posted by: MayBee |
Yep. It also telegraphs Barry’s move.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | July 20, 2010, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
Sorry, meant to say AFL CIO rather than UAW.
Posted by: MayBee | July 20, 2010, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
This is one area where left and right can agree. It really is a case of the working classes against the monied classes, and party affiliation has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Flash Override | July 20, 2010, 12:43 pm 12:43 pm
we have been told repeatably everything changed after 911 … everything also change when the US Taxpayer was REQUIRED to bail out the global economy to save the status quao, which Geithner our Treasury Secretary works for… the BIS/IMF have there plug into WE THE PEOPLEs government in Geither/Bernanke/Summers and our elected officials …
WE THE PEOPLE need input to the current act of centering the new mainstream views.
Elizabeth Warren will be a voice for the People.
The President is and has been listening to people that operate in a sphere of influence beyond teh reach of the voting public ~ the TARP COP has proven on which side of the line she stands …
She is with the People.
Mr. President there is a cumulative affect to you decisions, we elected you to work for us. If you FEAR the OverLook Hotel folks … then you are not the Man for the job you said you were.
Implicit with Change is stopping what was. It is not what you say but what you do … and what you are doing is the same old same old.
Take a moment Mr. President, look at yourself in the mirror … think about MLK … reach for his strength.
Do what you know is your heart is right for the People.
Posted by: enough | July 20, 2010, 12:48 pm 12:48 pm
Appoint Elizabeth Warren. As Bernie Sanders wrote, “Warren “was the first to broach the idea of such a commission in an article published in Democracy: A Journal of Ideas in 2007… Professor Warren has a proven track-record as a smart and tough consumer advocate. As head of the TARP Congressional Oversight Panel she is seen, across the breadth of America, as a champion of open, honest and responsive government.”
Posted by: conservatives or con artists? | July 20, 2010, 12:58 pm 12:58 pm
Elizabeth Warren is a very popular choice. There will be a lot of disappointment if she doesn’t end up in the position.
Posted by: jane | July 20, 2010, 1:03 pm 1:03 pm
It really is a case of the working classes against the monied classes, and party affiliation has nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Flash Override |
I guess if you are inclined to believe what you are told then you could see it that way.
Another interpretation is that Ms Warren is predisposed to favoring unions.
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | July 20, 2010, 1:06 pm 1:06 pm
Where’s the protection?, is my question.
As long as usurious interest rates of up to 36% are permitted by bank cards, there is no such thing, as PROTECTION!
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | July 20, 2010, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm
Were there any of ABC’s staff members of Journolist? I have checked your main site and I see no mention of this group which consisted of “journalists” who shaped news to support Obama. Will ABC address this group’s activities or will you sweep this under the rug like the Black Panther story? In other words,does this news organization plan to report news or be a house organ for the Obama administration? Just wondering…
Posted by: bobmac | July 20, 2010, 1:34 pm 1:34 pm
Sounds like she’s too conservative for Obama.
Posted by: LongT | July 20, 2010, 1:57 pm 1:57 pm
Geithner has too much of a Wall St. image and no matter his intentions…people just don’t see him as being the image of Main St.
Elizabeth Warren would be a better representative of the People, of Main St.
She’s a little fighter who doesn’t seem to mind speaking up for what is right…
Posted by: theafalcon200 | July 20, 2010, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
Warren would be a great choice..she will know where every dollar has been spent and where it is going. So what if the republicans will fight her…that is nothing new they have fought everything else who why would this be different? Where were all those fighters for less spending when they had two wars unpaid for, Bush economic policies which added to the deficit and was no help to the economy. If we allow the republicans to continue these policies it will add 3.5 trillion dollars more to the deficit they already are yelling about. Forget the fact that 1.3 trillion came from their administration…so subtract that from Obama’s debt and it does not seem so bad as we have a lot of things to show for it. What do the republicans have…failed banks, insurance companies which controlled us, finance reform which did not reform, unemployment..yes it started in 2007, housing crisis same start year, no health care and the one they did put through for prescription drugs was not paid for. I can’t believe that they expect intelligent people to forget the last eight years of spending. They are spinning their wheels if they think we have….x-republican.
Posted by: talmag | July 20, 2010, 2:04 pm 2:04 pm
Where’s the protection?, is my question.
As long as usurious interest rates of up to 36% are permitted by bank cards, there is no such thing, as PROTECTION!
Posted by: Rick McDaniel |
The protection is right where the banksters want it….with the banks.
You aren’t buying any of that populist garbage are you?
Posted by: Foghorn Leghorn | July 20, 2010, 2:25 pm 2:25 pm
Maybe David Axelrod has already usurped Rahm’s duties as COS.
Posted by: Dontget818 | July 20, 2010, 2:39 pm 2:39 pm
Warren would be a great choice..she will know where every dollar has been spent and where it is going
Posted by: talmag
—————————————-
Kind of like Deputy Dawg Joe Biden and the stimulus money huh?
Radical left wing posting gives me a good laugh in the afternoon
Posted by: Yep I said that | July 20, 2010, 3:40 pm 3:40 pm
She certainly would be an Excellent choice. Not only with her understanding, but her ability to speak about it to many in a language that is understandable — whether it’s on the Charlie Rose show or the John Stewart show I have found her to be very informative, frank and personable. She certainly would be a pleasant face and I am sure the President would benefit from having her on board; as she is more ready to deal with the media than Geitner ever was — She is an aggressive advocate if they let her be.
Posted by: Paulet | July 20, 2010, 4:08 pm 4:08 pm
This is nothing more than a ramping up of the democrat’s build Bigger Government machine.
We don’t need a “consumer’s affairs” bureaucracy, and we don’t need all the “Affirmative Action quotas” that Surprise! came along with this bill.
Disgusting excuse for governing…
Posted by: Bill Sanford | July 20, 2010, 4:21 pm 4:21 pm
Re: Bill Sanford’s comment of “Disgusting excuse for governing . . .”
What then were the last 8 years with Bush and those that preceded him (and Yes, Clinton too). That’s what contributed to and caused our current economic debacle — a lack of governing.
Perhaps THAT period was a “Disgusting excuse for NOT governing . . .”
With Elizabeth Warren at the helm, at least I would feel that this new agency would have some teeth. Without her, it is likely just to be a pretty looking window dressing.
Posted by: Kris | July 20, 2010, 5:59 pm 5:59 pm
To yep I said that: You would be the first to ask if some money had not been accounted for. People like you talk out of both sides of your mouth. If it is what you like it is o.k. If not it is wrong. This woman has proved she is intelligent, honest and able to keep track of the finances of our country. I would rather have someone like her than have no one like during the last eight years when they cannot even account for the 1.3 surplus they were given.
Posted by: talmag | July 20, 2010, 6:42 pm 6:42 pm
Note to enough: You are absolutely correct…she would be a voice for the people as her integrity would stand firm and she would require answere even to the government. People alway say there is too much government until something happens and they their cry is “why didn’t government do something about it.” Putting her in charge will keep everyone on their toes as she takes no guff from anyone.
Posted by: talmag | July 20, 2010, 6:54 pm 6:54 pm
I think she would be an excellent choice. However it bothers me very much that she is being strongly pushed by the labor unions.
I do not know the reason for that and would hope soneone will dig up some information that may give us a clue as to why labor unions are pushing so hard for her.
Posted by: calif guy | July 21, 2010, 1:54 am 1:54 am
Why do labor unions only support the most radical liberal officials who stifle jobs with their overregulation of the workforce? Labor unions do not support a productive America. They always exaggerate their positions and engage in class divide with the outcome always hurting businesses and forcing the hand of companies to cut jobs, go overseas, or fold up altogether. Labor unions should call themselves Non-performers Unions.
Posted by: EPU | July 21, 2010, 3:29 am 3:29 am
EPU – how else are workers going to get their fair share? Over the last 40 years American workers’ productivity has risen tremendously, but our pay hasn’t – real wages for average families have fallen.
For workers, unions mean a greater share of the product of their own work. For consumers, unions mean better quality products. For society, unions mean a check on the inequality that is the underlying cause of major financial catastrophe.
Now more than ever, we need a stronger union movement in the US.
Posted by: Flash Override | July 21, 2010, 8:15 am 8:15 am
In addition, unions provide a check on arbitrary and capricious actions by employers. The gap in wages for comperable jobs between men and women, whites and blacks, that exists across our society disappears when you compare unionized workers.
As Martin Luther King Jr. once said, the two greatest forces for civil rights outside the civil rights movement are the Teamsters and the United Auto Workers Union.
Posted by: Flash Override | July 21, 2010, 8:22 am 8:22 am