Only Bernie Sanders Can Keep Ohio From Trump Again

-by Tim Russo

Listen....oooh wah oooh

Some folks know I used to have a pretty good Dem rolodex. Thus, in summer 2016 I tried in vain to raise the alarm with the highest-up Democrats I could reach, for months, that Ohio was trending heavily Trump. As a leading indicator in presidential elections my entire lifetime, Ohio trending Trump meant the entire Midwest was trending Trump, too. The response was always the same, "Ha! Eat it Bernie Bro! So what. We don't need Ohio."

Now, Ohio is most definitely Trump country, just as it was Obama country the previous two presidential elections. Trump's ugly chaos is at least...change. Swing voters, but especially non-voters in Ohio, have wanted dramatic change, of any kind, since the crash of 2008 (remember that? Ohio sure does). Ohio knows the game is rigged, knows who rigged it, and as Democrats flail away at their Putin matroshka dolls denying the reality before their own eyes, it is folly to think an establishment Democrat, even any Democrat, will deliver the change Ohio has been demanding for a decade. Absent a non-Democrat (read, Bernie Sanders) seizing the Democratic Party in 2020 the way Jeremy Corbyn has seized Labour in the UK, Ohio will no doubt re-elect Trump, who even though he's con-man's con, at least fucks shit up good.

Do you want to know a secret? oooh wah oooh

For decades, the Ohio Democratic Party has zombie-walked in Clintonian Third Way pointlessness as if they think no one notices. Five days before the 2018 midterm, Ohio U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown, cruising to re-election, reverted to his factory setting of knifing the left in the back once he knows his paycheck is secure. On Nov. 1, Brown reversed his own position on reimposing Glass Steagall and breaking up the banks, with the added flourish of doing so to CNBC. Cherry on top, Sherrod's Pulitzer prize winning wife no doubt immediately put her inside game spin into overdrive to keep her husband's total surrender to capital safely, deeply buried in an unread CNBC transcript. No headlines. No op-eds. No trending post at DailyKos. No pearl clutching MSNBC roundtables with Nicolle Wallace or Joy Ann Reid. Just fealty to Wall Street fundraising safely assured from the self-proclaimed guardian of Ohio's left. Off to Iowa!

If Brown's 2018 opponent Jim Rennaci had two brain cells to rub together, he'd have pummeled Sherrod to pieces on this about face in favor of keeping the game rigged. Alas, Sherrod Brown has been for 30 years the luckiest man in Ohio politics. Brown's re-election was assured when his 2012 opponent Josh Mandel dropped out suddenly in 2018, leaving a pointless millionaire TrumpBot Jim Rennaci to attempt to unseat, against a midterm headwind, what is one of the strongest last names in the history of Ohio politics. Sherrod Brown now preens like a peacock mulling over a 2020 presidential run, Wall Street's biggest fear now certain to be unspoken in Iowa or New Hampshire. Viva La Resistance!

Give Sherrod a break. He was only aping the top of his ticket, Rich Cordray, who ran hard right every day for months via millions spent on a TV ad starring a Republican cop in uniform declaring his undying love for Rich Cordray, just like all his Republican cop friends he tells us! In a year we were told the core of the Democratic Party base is black women, as Mike Dewine ran left on medicaid, Cordray's right wing cop love was sugary frosting on the base-turnout-depressing cake baked first by shoving two women out of his gubernatorial primary. #ThemToo

Meanwhile, in Ohio's largest Democratic county, Cuyahoga County Executive Armond Budish worked at nothing harder in 2017-2018 than assuring himself not only no primary, but no Republican opponent in the fall. Less turnout, hooray! This, Budish achieved, by bending over for every sports billionaire demand he could find from the day he took office in 2015. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson backed up Budish, spitting in the face of 20,000 signatures demanding a referendum on Budish's 2017 giveaway to Cavs owner Dan Gilbert. Jackson literally refused to accept the boxes in which the piles and piles of signature forms were presented.

Before Cleveland Congresswoman Marcia Fudge floated her name for House Speaker after the 2018 midterm, Fudge was instrumental in the back room guarantees to renovate Gilbert's Quicken Loans Arena at taxpayer expense. This latest sports billionaire largesse relies heavily on playoff game revenue. Anyone think the Cavs will be in the playoffs anytime soon now that Lebron James is a Laker? Taxpayers are still on the hook, alas. Marcia Fudge gets a chair's gavel.

Do you promise not to tell?

Down ballot, Ohio Democrats for decades have been a musical chairs rigged game for the sole purpose of their own state pensions. Former Cleveland City Council President and serial groper Marty Sweeney cooked up a move from City Council to state rep. a few years ago. Then, for 2018, Sweeney made an attempt to shift his pension...oops I mean public service...to the state senate. Defeated in that 2018 primary by an identity politics goldmine, Nickie Antonio (female, plus gay-- jackpot), Sweeney still cashed in by slotting his own daughter into his old state rep. seat. She's now my state representative. No one knows a damn thing she stands for, or her father stands for, or any other elected Democrat in Ohio, stands for, except their pensions.

In OH-12's heavily watched 2-round special election this midterm, Danny O'Connor still blames the Green Party for losing his utterly predictable 50-50 race, twice. Instead of moving left to make a Green Party candidate irrelevant, O'Connor aped Cordray's only other "message"-- he's cool. You see, being "cool" is supposed to be a message to the Ohio Democratic Party, just like Ted Strickland's message was something about good ol' boys in 2010. Despite knowing full well a Green would be in his race, both times, moving a single nanometer leftward was total heresy to O'Connor. Better to have the Green Party to slag off, anyway.

Not to be outdone, Youngstown Congressman Tim Ryan mulls running for president on the "yoga vote." The Zen Congressman Ryan is the most reliable NRA stooge in the entire Ohio congressional delegation, just as Cordray has been statewide, just as Ted Strickland before him. It's only a matter of time before one of the AR-15's Tim Ryan has built his congressional record defending sprays a yoga studio with the blood of innocents. Ryan must meditate in downward dog praying to his Third Eye that such a predictable horror doesn't occur before the Iowa State Fair in August, 2019.

Did I mention the Ohio Democratic Party ran a guy for governor 4 years ago who drove without a license for 10 years? Former FBI man Ed FitzGerald, whose only worse gubernatorial predecessor was the catastrophic Rob Burch of 1994, has predictably failed upward into six figures at the corporate law firm of Walter & Haverfield, doing god knows what. Immediately after 2014's meltdown, every single Ohio Democratic Party apparatchik carbuncled themselves onto the 2015 marijuana monopoly attempt not just as staff, but as shareholders-- neoliberalism! In a cut and paste of Dan Gilbert's 2009 casino gambling cash grab, ODP's great and good constitutionally attempted to seize legalized marijuana profits for themselves. Ohio's young voters ain't nobody's fool, so they mobilized to crush it. Ohio Democrats ignored that 2015 lesson, too.

  ...Ohio remains a predictive swing state.

These are just some of the reasons you hear nothing in today's media about a "blue wave" in Ohio. Ohio didn't irrevocably "turn red," Ohio was abandoned by Ohio Democrats to, for the benefit of, the rigged game. In the March 2016 Ohio primary, Hillary Clinton benefited from nothing more than Trump being on the other ticket, thereby splitting the radical change vote between Bernie Sanders and Trump. Ohio Democrats even mounted a campaign during that primary to get Bernie-leaning Democrats to switch to the Republican primary to vote for John Kasich, in what is now clearly the first pathetic attempt of Ohio Democrats to "stop Trump." Kasich's Ohio primary "win" is largely due to those Democrats. Bet Kasich himself has no idea.

Nothing establishment Democrats do will stop Trump in Ohio in 2020, unless it is Bernie Sanders forcing them to do it. Bernie is popular in Ohio and nationally, with both voters and non-voters alike, precisely because he is NOT a Democrat, who Democrats screwed over. Just like themselves. Average folks identify with Bernie for this reason, so if Bernie seizes the Democratic nomination in spite of all that, non-voters will be inspired to return to voting, and Obama-Obama-Trump voters will have someplace to go once they realize Trump's con game was no different. Unless Bernie Sanders drags the Ohio Democratic Party by their hair kicking and screaming the way Blairites do now as Corbyn inevitably approaches 10 Downing Street, the Ohio Democratic Party will once again hand Trump four years of power, con game or not.

 

Some Good News From Ohio For A Change

Ohio is usually the last place to look for anything progressive happen-- except when it does. The Democratic Party passed away years ago and it's entirely up to individual candidates, like Sherrod Brown, to win elections. The Cincinnati Enquirer reported yesterday that a poll they did with Suffolk University has some good news for Democrats, at least at the top of the ticket. Even there Trump's toxicity is weighting down GOP candidates. Democrat Richard Cordray is leading much better know Republican Mike DeWine in the governor's race, 43% to 36% and in the Senate race incumbent Sherrod Brown is ahead of Congressman (and billionaire) Jim Renacci 53% to 37% among likely voters. Trump endorsed Renacci in the primary but that didn't help much.

The state has a PVI of R+3 but Hillary and her status quo message never had a shot in Ohio and she gave up on the state early. Trump beat her 2,841,005 (51.69%) to 2,394,164 (43.56%). She won only 8 counties of Ohio's 88. Obama won the state both times he ran.

Trumpanzee's primary endorsement, reported the Enquirer, "might hurt Renacci in the general. Love or hate of Trump is the most important issue among those polled in how they’ll vote in the Senate. 

In the new poll, 49 percent of respondents said they wanted their vote in November "to change the direction President Trump is leading the nation." Only 28 percent said they were voting to support Trump's leadership. Nineteen percent said their vote didn't have much to do with Trump.

Those voting to oppose Trump and his policies showed higher levels of interest in the governor's race. Nearly three-fourths of those voters said they were "extremely" or "very" interested in the governor's race. That figure was lower-- about 60 percent-- among people who wanted to support Trump and among people who said their vote wasn't related to Trump.

In other words, some Trump voters aren't lining up to defend the Republican Party from activists bent on fighting back.

So Ohio may see a different electorate than in 2016. For instance, people of color's enthusiasm for voting meant they made up a higher percentage of respondents in the poll than in the 2016 election. The difference was a couple of percentage points, but enough to make a difference in a tight race.

In fact, if the turnout in 2016 had been identical to that indicated in this poll, Democrat Hillary Clinton would have won Ohio by 5 points over Trump, according to respondents' recollections of their 2016 votes. Instead, Trump won Ohio by 8 percentage points.

“They are more motivated to vote,” said Paleologos, the pollster, of people of color in 2018. And Trump supporters are less motivated.

“If the rest of the state’s turnout is lower, then that means that the people who are anti-Trump right now are going to drive the outcome,” he said.

...The poll's results also could reflect DeWine's status after a bruising GOP primary, in which DeWine survived nasty attacks from Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor.

Taylor attacked DeWine from the right. For instance, she said she would scrap Medicaid expansion, one of the signature achievements of her boss, Gov. John Kasich.

DeWine said he would push to keep the expansion because of the addiction treatment provided under it, but he would seek to overhaul it. Additional specifics were few.

In the poll, health care was the second-most important issue to voters, behind the economy. The next governor should keep Medicaid expansion in Ohio, 77 percent of respondents said. Cordray has vowed to do so.

Another poll of the Ohio statewide races was released yesterday, this one by Quinnipiac. It also showed Cordray and Brown leading DeWine and Renacci. Cordray's ahead 42% to 40%, too close to call. But Brown is leading Renacci 51-34%. Again, it's about Trump's toxicity. Ohio voters disapprove of the job Trump is doing 54 to 43%.

The moribund Ohio Democratic Party isn't helping any of the down-ticket candidates and I don't see any of the congressional districts flipping from red to blue. The best possibilities-- all real long shots-- are OH-01, where Aftab Pureval could displace Steve Chabot, OH-07, where Ken Harbaugh could beat Bob Gibbs, OH-10 and OH-15 where a mega-wave could carry, respectively, Theresa Gasper and Rick Neal to wins over Michael Turner and Steve Stivers. But, like I said, they would really need a mega-wave-- tsunami-plus. Unless you have money to burn, don't bet on any of them though. You can contribute to Sherrod Brown's campaign by tapping on the 2018 Senate thermometer on the right. If you decide to, please also drop something in the box for Wisconsin's Tammy Baldwin who the Republicans are aiming all their heaviest artillery against.

By the way, earlier today, Elizabeth Warren endorsed Rick Neal, the progressive Democrat running for the Columbus-area seat occupied by Steve Stivers, head of the NRCC. I hope she has as much success with him as she's had with Katie Porter in Orange County. "Rick Neal is a fighter," she wrote. "He’s an outspoken advocate for health care, equality, and working families in Ohio, and he knows the meaning of service. He’s exactly the kind of person we need in Congress, and that’s why I’m proud to support his campaign... I believe in Rick-- and know that he will be a tireless advocate for working families in Ohio."

Why Didn't The Democrats Move To Break Up The Too Big To Fail Banks? Too Many Conservative Dems Eager to Work With The GOP

I feel like Austin Frerick, the former Treasury Department economist running for Congress in the Des Moines-based Iowa seat (IA-03), has become a friend aside from just one of the Blue America-endorsed candidates. I feel like I learn something every time I talk with him. Looking at the corrupt-conservative push top deregulate Wall Street and give the bankster predators a green light to go back to ripping off their customers, Frerick told me that "the fundamental problem here is that we didn't address the key issue underlying the Great Recession and this 2nd Gilded Age: Economic Concentration. We should have broken up these too big too fail banks. Their economic power gives them political power to corrupt our system with things like manipulating the SIFI Threshold."

I got into the old argument today with a Democrat hoping to sell me on a candidate he really believes in. I asked if she's progressive and gathered that she's "progressive for her district" but not really progressive the way Bernie has been redefining progressive. I promised to talk with her and keep an open mind. But the argument can have no actual conclusion. My friend believes electing any Democrat is essential, no matter how conservative or corrupt or whatever, in order top put Trump in check and because they will vote for some good things. And he's right. Even Blue Dog Kyrsten Sinema (AZ)-- the single worst Democrat in the House (and, thanks soley to Upcheck Schumer, on her way to the Senate-- votes for progressive legislation... what is it now? Oh she's up to 37.56% of the time. That's better than any Republican except one endangered freshman in Pennsylvania (Brian Fitzpatrick). So he's for anyone with a "D" next to their name. And you know how I feel: I'm a strictly better Democrats kind of guy. I know not ever Democrat can be as good as Ro Khanna (100%-CA) and Jamie Raskin (100%-MD). I see even Pramila (97.06%-WA) has slipped. But its worth aspiring-- especially in primary season-- towards electing men and women like Mark Pocan (98.42%-WI), Nanette Barragán (98.51-CA), Jan Schakowsky (96.44%-IL) and Barbara Lee (95.08%-CA). There are even people with overall "A" rankings from ProgressivePunch who represent tough districts that Trump won, like Matt Cartwright, who is being heavily targeted by the GOP because of his strong progressive voting record and his stellar leadership on our issues. Anyway, my friend and I are never going to agree on this, but it doesn't mean we can't work together on candidates on whom we both do agree. And I'll keep reminding him that there are solid, solid progressive leaders running for Congress in districts as red or redder than the one his candidate is running in-- just look at Dan Canon (IN-09), Tom Guild (OK-05), Derrick Crowe (TX-21), Jenny Marshall (NC-05), Austin Frerick (IA-03), James Thompson (KS-04), Dayna Steele (TX-36)... these men and women are communicating with voters along the lines of cutting edge policy.

I should send him David Dayen's essay at The Intercept from Monday, Republicans Now Turning Their Attention To Deregulating Wall Street. Why? Because Dayen explains that, unlike the tax and Obamacare battles, the GOP "can count on Democratic help in this fight." And in 2018 that's one of the fault-lines that divides progressives from... not progressives. Dayen reminded his readers that "During the debate over whether to create the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Elizabeth Warren, not yet a senator, famously said at a crucial moment that her first choice was a strong agency, and her second was 'no agency at all and plenty of blood and teeth left on the floor.'" I have a feeling my friend would find that wrong-headed but Senator Warren has written "23 different amendments [primarily attacking the new regulatory exemptions for banks above $50 billion in assets] for a markup on S.2155, the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act.” The Orwellian-named bill would actually deregulate several parts of the financial sector and unravel consumer protections in a corrupt alliance between Republicans and pro-Wall Street Democrats." These are the Wall Street Democrats working with the Republicans on this, all co-sponsors, basically, all the usual suspects:

• Joe Donnelly (IN)
• Heidi Heitkamp (ND)
• Jon Tester (MT)
• Mark Warner (VA)
• Claire McCaskill (MO)
• Joe Manchin (WV)
• Tim Kaine (VA)
• Gary Peters (MI)
• Michael Bennet (CO)
• Angus King (I-ME)

Donnelly, Heitkamp and Tester are all on the Banking Committee and all up for reelection in red states Trump won. Warner, a notorious corporate whore, is also on the Banking Committee, but not up for reelection this cycle.

Democratic staffers on the Banking Committee cite three major problem areas for S.2155. First, despite being pitched as relief for community banks and small lenders who played no role in the financial crisis and got caught up in the regulatory undertow, the bill extends that aid to the big boys. It eliminates automatic enhanced standards, like higher capital requirements and “living wills” that lay out how to unwind the firm in case of trouble, for banks with between $50 and $250 billion in assets. This includes large regional and national players like American Express, SunTrust, and BB&T, and foreign megabanks like Barclays and Deutsche Bank, whose holdings in the United States fall within that threshold. These international lenders have been notorious “repeat offenders,” paying tens of billions of dollars in fraud penalties for actions like repossessing the cars of servicemembers while they fought overseas.

In all, the bill removes enhanced supervision from 25 banks that control $3.5 trillion in assets and received $48 billion in taxpayer bailouts, according to an analysis from Public Citizen.

S.2155 also changes stress tests-- which check if banks can manage hazardous scenarios-- for all banks, making them “periodic” (which could mean whatever regulators want it to mean, staffers say) instead of annual. So JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Bank of America, along with literally every big bank in the country, recipients of hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts, get assistance in this “small bank” relief bill. The stress test itself would change-- at the discretion of Trump’s deregulatory army-- for large regional firms.

Next, the bill rolls back protections on the mortgage market, by tweaking “safe harbor” and “qualified mortgage” provisions in ways that would allow small lenders to sell high-cost adjustable-rate mortgages and avoid accountability in court for wrongful foreclosures. Just because a no-documentation or interest-only mortgage comes from a community bank doesn’t make it a safe financial product.

The bill also eliminates the need for appraisals in certain rural areas, creating incentives to cheat homebuyers; exempts sellers of manufactured homes like trailers from mortgage rules, which benefits the dominant player in that space, Warren Buffett’s conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway; and restricts data collection about mortgage lending that could help regulators spot the next crisis.

Finally, there’s no “consumer protection” worthy of the name in the bill. The tentpole consumer piece is a watered-down version of a recent bill from Warren that would offer consumers stung by data breaches at credit reporting agencies like Equifax one free credit freeze and unfreeze every year. Warren’s bill would have made all credit freezes free. Even Equifax eventually offered a lifetime credit freeze, more than the authors of S.2155. And the measure pre-empts states from giving more generous terms to its citizens.

...[Warren has created] politically tough amendments for Democrats like Heitkamp, Tester, Donnelly, and Warner to oppose, especially after spending the last week railing against Republicans for waging class warfare on low-income Americans in the tax bill. Republicans may defeat these on their own, but the goal is to name and shame Democrats who support this giveaway to big banks without bringing along anything for the public like more jobs, higher wages, labor protections, and safeguards against bank deceptions.

While pro-bank Democrats like Tester have used high-profile hearings to insist that S.2155 does not put the financial system at risk, they haven’t had to specifically defend lowering regulations on banks that took TARP bailout funds and paid enormous fines for wrongdoing, and they haven’t enumerated what ordinary people get out of the deal instead of bank executives. Warren’s amendments will force some kind of answer on that score.

When we covered this last week we spoke with Elizabeth Warren collaborator, Orange County professor and congressional candidate (CA-45), Katie Porter, who told us that "The chances that Congress repeals key protections for our economy illustrates the risks that come when candidates work for banks, rather than families. The incumbent in my race, Mimi Walters (R CA-45), voted for the House's CHOICE Act and will give Wall Street anything it wants. In fact, her only non-political job ever was working for Drexel, Burnham & Lambert, a posterchild for banking's lawlessness, as its executives faced indictments and the firm went bankrupt. In my campaign to replace Mimi Walters, I am not taking money from anyone who works for Wall Street or big banks--and I am the only candidate that I know of in the country with this strong position. I believe that the big banks have outsized influence, and that we should not let history repeat itself. Allowing banks to escape from protections puts our entire economy at risk. People can trust that I'll take my lifelong commitment to whistleblowing on bank misconduct straight to the House Financial Services Committee when I am elected to Congress."

What Happens To The CFPB Now? No More Protecting Consumers From Wall Street Avarice?

On Friday, Trump appointed right-wing crackpot and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney acting director of the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau. But there already was an acting director. Richard Cordray, on announcing that he was stepping down at the end of the day, also announced that his chief of staff, Leandra English, is the new deputy director and acting head of the agency. The Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, specifies that the deputy director will be head of the bureau between permanent directors-- and permanent directors have to be confirmed by the Senate.

The CFPB was Elizabeth Warren's idea and she recounted to her supporters on Saturday that "In 2014, then-Tea Party Congressman Mick Mulvaney called the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau a 'sick, sad joke.' When asked what changes he’d like to make to the CFPB, Mulvaney replied: 'Well some of us would like to get rid of it.' And in 2015, he cosponsored a bill that would do just that." In response to Trump appointing Mulvaney acting director-- when there already is one-- she pointed out that "Trump does NOT have the power to do this. The Dodd-Frank Act is clear: if there is a CFPB Director vacancy, the Deputy Director becomes Acting Director. Trump can nominate the next CFPB Director-- but until that nominee is confirmed by the Senate, Deputy Director Leandra English is the Acting Director under the Dodd-Frank Act. We knew that Donald Trump was likely going to use Rich Cordray’s departure as his chance to dismantle the CFPB. Earlier this year, he promised corporate CEOs that he would deliver 'a major elimination of the horrendous Dodd-Frank regulations.' And now, he could do it... We fought Donald Trump when he named an Education Secretary who doesn’t believe in public education. We fought him when he named an EPA director who doesn’t believe in climate change. We fought him (and won) when he named a Labor Secretary who doesn’t believe in unions. And we will fight him now to stop an Acting CFPB director who doesn’t believe in protecting working families from the big Wall Street banks."

Yesterday, the White House responded by claiming Trump has the authority to do whatever he wants. Still, as Politico reported. "the two moves plunged the agency into confusion over the leadership of the bureau, which was established in the wake of the financial crisis and has become a lightning rod for attacks by Republicans and business executives for its aggressive enforcement."


The 2010 Dodd-Frank Act, which created the CFPB, explicitly says the consumer bureau's deputy director shall “serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director,” giving the edge to English.

Yet the Federal Vacancies Act allows the president to install a temporary acting head of any executive agency who has already been confirmed by the Senate to another position, like Mulvaney has as leader of the Office of Management and Budget.

Still, the Vacancies Act says that an opening may also be filled if another law "expressly … designates an officer or employee to perform the functions and duties of a specified office temporarily in an acting capacity.”

It doesn't say whether one approach supersedes the other, something the courts will likely have to sort out.

Today's actions were the latest drama engulfing an agency that Republicans have targeted since its inception. GOP lawmakers and bankers say the consumer bureau regulates through enforcement rather than rulemaking and that its single director has unconstitutional power.

Banksters and their lobbyists are going berserk at the idea of Trump being stymied in his goal of destroying the agency by installing Mulvaney. Chris Stinebert, head of the American Financial Services Association, probably the most venal defender of aggressive Wall Street corruption: "Today’s actions by former CFPB Director Richard Cordray in appointing his own Acting Director to lead the bureau reinforces the problematic nature of having a single and completely unaccountable leader. The decision to choose who should lead the country’s consumer protection agency, and confusion that’s been caused by Cordray’s own 'succession plan,' should not be made by one individual and for this reason AFSA has long advocated the need for a bipartisan commission."

Mensonge du jour

Former Treasury Department economist and Iowa congressional candidate Austin Frerick reminded us about regulatory capture-- a Trump Regime specialty-- this morning. "This is how an agency gets captured: Industry attempts to get one of its stooges appointed to one of its largest regulators. We have to fight this action and insist on the rule of law Senator Warren pointed out, but we can’t keep playing defense. Industries are able to capture industries because of their monopolistic power (cough cough FCC). Antitrust enforcement is about restoring competition to our markets and removing corruption from our political system."

Jared Golden is running for the Maine seat occupied by multimillionaires and House Financial Services Committee crook Bruce Poliquin. Jared, the majority whip of Maine's state House, was very straight forward about how this works: "What’s going to happen now is they are going to dismantle and hamstring the CFPB and there won’t be anyone left to watch consumers backs. The big banks and giant corporations are going to run roughshod over normal people who don’t stand a chance without tough consumer protections in place to keep things fair." That, in short, is why it's so important to help elect candidates like Austin Frerick and Jared Golden.

Katie Porter, the candidate running for the inland Orange County congressional seat held by Republican carpetbagger Mimi Walters, is one of California's most respected and knowledgable experts on consumer protection. "With Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies in office, the very existence of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is at risk," she told us. "As a consumer advocate who has spent nearly twenty years fighting to help families who were cheated, I can tell you for a fact that the big banks are not going to put consumers ahead of profit. We need a system of fair and reasonable protections to make the marketplace work for all of us. We need a watchdog with a proven record of protecting consumers to lead the CFPB, not Mick Mulvaney."

Rich Cordray Leaving The CFPB Isn't Good-- But I Hope He'll Make A Good Ohio Governor

Governor John Kasich (R-OH) is term-limited and cannot seek re-election. Former Senator and current Attorney General Mike DeWine, current Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted, current Lt. Governor Mary Taylor and multimillionaire backbencher Rep. Jim Renacci are all competing in a fiery Republican primary. Kasich is backing his Lt. Governor but virtually every poll shows her in third place behind DeWine and Husted. (Renacci is a non-factor, never even getting into double digits. The most recent poll (August) has DeWine at 36%m Husted at 20%, Taylor at 17% and Renacci at 8%.

The Democrats also have a crowded field-- State Supreme Court Judge Bill O'Neill, former state Rep. Connie Pillich, current state Senator Joe Schiavoni (once Senate Minority Leader), former Rep. Betty Sutton, Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley and, as of yesterday, CFPB Director (and former state Attorney General) Rich Cordray.

All the never-right professional prognosticators have announced the race "leans Republican." None of them seems to understand what a giant anti-Trump/anti-GOP wave means.

Yesterday Cordray sent his staff at the CFPB an e-mail telling them he's stepping down as director by the end of the month.

“As I have said many times, but feel just as much today as I ever have, it has been a joy of my life to have the opportunity to serve our country as the first director of the Consumer Bureau by working alongside all of you here,” he wrote.

Former U.S. Rep. Dennis Eckart, a Cleveland Democrat, said “several prominent Democrats have told me this morning they expect Cordray to run for governor.”

He added, “Cordray has a very compelling story and is motivated by convictions that will resonate well in Ohio and especially for those voters in Ohio who believe they have been left behind, ripped off, or ignored.”

...Ohio Republican Chairman Jane Timken came up with this withering put-down: “Ohio voters know a swamp creature when they see one, and just like Hillary, Crooked Cordray can’t be trusted.”

Cordray also was blasted by his Democratic rivals for governor.

“The CFPB has done good work to protect consumers, but by resigning Cordray is finally doing what Trump couldn’t-- undoing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,” said Faith Oltman, a spokeswoman for Dayton Mayor Nan Whaley.

“It’s disheartening and disappointing that my friend, Richard Cordray, would abandon his role of protecting our nation’s consumers by turning over this critical agency to Donald Trump,” said Democratic candidate Connie Pillich.

...Joe Schiavoni, a Boardman state senator who also is seeking the Democratic nomination, said he’s not worried about Cordray’s prospective entry into the race.

“I think Cordray represents the same old recycled politician and if that’s what people are going to want, then they’ll have that opportunity,” he said. “But they’ll also have the opportunity to pick somebody that’s new, that has some new ideas and is just trying to represent the best interests of all Ohioans and trying to build a stronger Ohio.”

...[A]t a news conference on Capitol Hill, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who designed the bureau and recruited Cordray seven years ago to help set it up, vigorously defended Cordray, saying “he has stayed for seven years and devoted his life to making this agency work on behalf of the American people. I feel nothing but gratitude to Rich.”

Inequality Of Opportunity Will Lead Inexorably To The Demise Of Democracy… Just As Its Meant To

"When People Cheat, You Cannot As A Regulator Continue Business As Usual"

You probably know by now that a great deal of Elizabeth Warren's new book, A Fighting Chance, deals with creating the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. "I had no doubt-- zero-- that the banks should be held accountable for breaking the law," she wrote. "Would the banks ever be held accountable, and would they ever be forced to repair the damage they had done to so many families." At one point she was recounting how, in the process of setting up the bureau, she asked her team to keep in mind who they were there to protect.

I have no doubt that the majority of [people working in regulatory agencies] have the best of intentions, but let's face it; Given the way their jobs are designed, they spend most of their time talking to bankers. "Show me the books," they say. "Explain this practice." "comment of this new mortgage for or proposed regulation." All the while, they are inundated by a constant stream of push-back and pressure from industry people. In the normal course of things, banking regulators simply don't hear from many ordinary citizens. After all, someone who gets ripped off in a $40 credit card scam might call a consumer complaint hotline, but that person doesn't have access to the agency lawyers and investigators who supervise the banks on a day-to-day basis. Nope. Bank regulators spend a lot of time with bankers and and almost no time with bank customers.

…How could we ensure that someone working for the CFPB would spend most of her time working on behalf of the consumers who didn't show up at our door-- rather than the representatives of the banks did?

One answer was to run straight up the middle and hit the biggest targets, and that's exactly what Rich Cordray did. Rich was fearless, and he led by example. Among other things, he investigated Capital One for misleading customers about the costs of "free" add-ons to their credit cards-- "free" services that actually cost customers a total of $140 million. (He ultimately forced Capital One to send the hidden fees back to every customer-- and not one customer had to file papers or ask for a refund because the checks came automatically in the mail. Rich and his team also hit up the company to pay an additional $25 million fine.)

The keystone of corporate law is that shareholders can't be help criminally liable for the activities of the corporation. But what can't criminal managers? Well, they can… but they almost never are. Wednesday, Robert Reich explained to his readers why that is so so wrong-- and so damaging to America. "Who," he asked, "is legally responsible when a big corporation breaks the law? The government thinks it’s the corporation itself. Wrong… Corporations don’t do things. People do."

For a decade GM had been receiving complaints about the ignition switch but chose to do nothing. Who was at fault? Look toward the top. David Friedman, acting head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, says those aware of the problem had ranged from engineers “all the way up through executives.”

Credit Suisse employees followed a carefully-crafted plan, even sending private bankers to visit their American clients on tourist visas to avoid detection. According to the head of New York State’s Department of Financial Services, Credit Suisse’s crime was “decidedly not the result of the conduct of just a few bad apples.”

Yet in neither of these cases have any executives been charged with violating the law. No top guns are going to jail. No one is even being fired.

Instead, the government is imposing corporate fines. The logic is that since the corporation as whole benefited from these illegal acts, the corporation as a whole should pay.

But the logic is flawed. Such fines are often treated by corporations as costs of doing business. GM was fined $35 million. That’s peanuts to a hundred-billion-dollar corporation.

Credit Suisse was fined considerably more-- $2.8 billion. But even this amount was shrugged off by financial markets. In fact, the bank’s shares rose the day the plea was announced-- the only big financial institution to show gains that day. Its CEO even sounded upbeat: “Our discussions with clients have been very reassuring and we haven’t seen very many issues at all.” (Credit Suisse wasn’t even required to turn over its list of tax-avoiding clients.)

Fines have no deterrent value unless the amount of the penalty multiplied by the risk of being caught is greater than the profits earned by the illegal behavior. In reality, the penalty-risk calculus rarely comes close.

Even when it does, the people hurt aren’t the shareholders who profited years before when the crimes were committed. Most current shareholders weren’t even around then.

…The truth is, corporations aren’t people-- despite what the Supreme Court says. Corporations don’t break laws; specific people do. In the cases of GM and Credit Suisse, the evidence points to executives at or near the top.

Conservatives are fond of talking about personal responsibility. But when it comes to white-collar crime, I haven’t heard them demand that individuals be prosecuted.

Yet the only way to deter giant corporations from harming the public is to go after people who cause the harm.

And, funny enough, speaking of Credit Suisse, their newsletter featured an interview with economist Joseph Stigliz yesterday of his book, The Price of Inequality. Editor Cushla Sherlock writes, in way of introduction, that "Inequality presents a major risk to human progress and carries a high economic price tag. A 'fragmented' education system, tax laws and corporate governance are some of the key causes of the problem in the United States-- one of the societies that scores worst on this measure in the developed world-- explains Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz, Nobel Prize Winner for economics and leading economist. Professor Stiglitz discusses the future implications of inequality and explains why Scandinavian countries are some of the best in the world in terms of social mobility and equality of opportunity.

"Inequality," explains Stiglitz, "is not just a moral issue. High inequality results in a high economic price: our economy doesn't perform as well as it could, it doesn't grow as fast, it is less efficient, and it is more unstable. Inequality also undermines democracy and divides society… The life prospects of a young American are more dependent on the income and education of their parents than in virtually any of the other advanced countries, including old Europe, which we often think of as very rigid and lacking mobility. The US is completely lacking mobility. One of the reasons clearly has to do with our very fragmented education system. Basically, where you live determines the quality of education that you get. If you're poor, and you live in a poor neighborhood, chances are you will never get the kind of education that will allow you to move up the economic ladder." Then Sherlock asks him about what creates differences in levels of inequality around the world.

Inequality has grown enormously in most countries around the world, but not all. The fact that there are such large differences in inequality between the United States and many other countries-- in fact, some countries are actually reducing inequality, or at least preventing it from increasing-- highlights a very important lesson. That is, inequality is not just the consequence of economic forces, because the same economic forces are operating in virtually all countries, especially advanced countries. It's a result of policies and politics: what countries do to promote equality and equality of opportunity. Education is very important. Tax laws are very important: if you allow some of your richest people to pay much lower taxes than people who work for a living, which is what has happened in the United States, then obviously you're providing scope for increasing inequality. If you do not have good unemployment systems, social security systems, systems to help people who are in need, then again you're going to wind up with more inequality. Other factors also play a role. One of the most important sources of high inequality is the increase in what we call ‘rent seeking'. Here, people seek to become wealthy in one of two ways. One way is to increase the size of the national pie, make a contribution, invent a laser, a transistor-- something that really transforms our economy and society. The other way is to try to get a larger share of the national economic pie. Monopolies make their money by shrinking output and driving up price, not by making the economy bigger. Looking across the various sectors of the United States, there are many in which a few firms are dominant.

These are just a couple of examples of the ways in which inequality has been growing, with real implications for the future, because it carries momentum. The worry is that this greater inequality of income will lead to inequality of opportunity, and that will eventually feed back to even more inequality of income.

Tuesday, Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, chairing the Constitution Subcommittee looking into how to deal with the Supreme Court's determination to abolish restrictions on the rise of plutocracy, was correct when he said that "It’s increasingly clear that the only way to really reform our system is to pass a constitutional amendment to regulate how we finance our elections." Most regular, normal Americans agree. But the big money behind conservatism does not. In fact, they smell victory in their class war against the American people-- and they're digging in for a long fight. Clearly, even beyond a constitutional amendment, billionaires need to be taxed out of existence. That's what the progressive income tax they have paid politicians to wreck, was intended to ensure.

What Does The Cordray Confirmation Mean?

Tuesday saw two very important Senate votes. First came Harry Reid's cloture vote to end the nearly two year-long GOP filibuster of Richard Cordray's nomination to be Director of the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection. The Republicans and their Wall Street masters don't want consumers protected from banksters and they oppose the Bureau itself and have blocked Cordray's appointment for that reason rather than because they found anything wrong with Cordray himself. Wednesday Lindsey Graham-- mostly preoccupied with grandstanding about boycotting the 2014 Olympics in Moscow-- admitted the GOP was holding up the nomination as a political tactic. “Cordray was being filibustered because we don’t like the law... That’s not a reason to deny someone their appointment. We were wrong.” He was one of 17 Republicans who broke with McConnell and the radical obstructionists to break the GOP/Wall Street filibuster. Reid needed 60 votes and got 71-- with 29 still acting like spoiled children.

A few hours later, Reid brought up the nomination, which only needed 51 votes, and it passed 66-34. The impact on ordinary American families is likely to be much greater than the confirmation of most nominees. Elizabeth Warren came up with the idea of the CFPB and was gratified to see the Senate finally move on Cordray's nomination. "After more than 700 days of waiting, Rich Cordray will finally get the confirmation vote he deserves from the U.S. Senate.  Director Cordray has won praise from consumer and industry groups, and from Republicans and Democrats, for his fair and effective approach. With Director Cordray's confirmation, we will be able to say loudly, clearly, and with confidence:  the consumer agency is the law of the land and is here to stay.  We fought hard for the agency, and we proved that big change is still possible in Washington.  Now we have the watchdog that the American people deserve-- a watchdog looking out for middle class families, getting rid of tricks, traps, and fine print, and holding financial institutions accountable when they break the law."

Banks and financial firms opposed creation of the bureau, which was established with the explicit aim of regulating the kind of risky consumer financial products that contributed to the 2008 financial crisis. Isaac Boltansky, an analyst with Compass Point Research & Trading LLC in Washington, said he expects the agency to remain a lightning rod for controversy.

“Cordray’s confirmation will remove a meaningful operational cloud that has hovered over the CFPB for three years, but there is no reason to believe that the political rhetoric surrounding the agency will subside,” Boltansky said in an e-mail.

Senator Bob Corker, a Tennessee Republican, said he would still push for changes to the consumer bureau’s structure that he said could come when his party is in the majority. The next round of Senate elections are in November 2014.

“There wasn’t any way to make it happen prior to this nomination coming up,” Corker said in an interview. “There’s a possibility that some additional structural changes take place.”

Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, said the Senate deal ensures that the consumer bureau will take shape as the authors of Dodd-Frank intended.

“For two years, since it was formed, there has been a battle over whether it would be fully formed and become a part of the landscape, the executive branch landscape, defending the rights of Americans against predatory practices,” Merkley told reporters. “That question is answered today.”

Republican senators refused for more than two years to permit a confirmation vote on Cordray, demanding that the bureau be restructured to put more curbs on the director’s power and impose congressional controls over the agency’s budget.

“They don’t like the fact that this first-ever financial watchdog with the explicit mission of protecting consumers instead of bankers is doing exactly what it is supposed to,” said Lisa Donner, executive director of Americans for Financial Reform, an umbrella group of labor unions, civil rights groups and consumer advocates.

Over the last three years, Republicans accused the agency of being unaccountable and overly powerful, spending too much money, and collecting too much data on American consumers.

All the same, the agency remained popular with the public, and Warren’s role in setting it up heightened the bureau’s profile. Its positive image was in part a function of the unpopularity of the large banks that got federal bailouts during the financial crisis, according to a new poll by Washington-based Lake Research Partners. 

Eight in 10 voters support the work of the CFPB, according to the poll, which was conducted among 1,004 likely voters from July 8 to 11, and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. Public support cuts across party lines, the poll found, with 91 percent of Democrats, 71 percent of Republicans and 79 percent of independents backing the agency.

Through enforcement actions against companies including Capital One Financial Corp. (COF), American Express Co. (AXP) and U.S. Bancorp, the consumer bureau has returned more than $432 million to defrauded consumers. It has also set up a system for registering complaints with banks, student lenders, credit bureaus and debt collectors, a tool that at least 125,000 people have used since its inception in July 2012.

The agency has also written rules aimed at cleaning up the mortgage market that was at the heart of the financial crisis. The new regulations cover underwriting, servicing and loan officer incentives.

Cordray, the agency’s first enforcement chief, was nominated twice and waited more than 700 days for a Senate confirmation vote. In exchange for proceeding with Cordray’s confirmation, Obama agreed to nominate two new candidates to the National Labor Relations Board.

With the confirmation, the consumer bureau will be able to exercise its full authority over large banks and a range of non-bank financial firms, including payday lenders and mortgage originators, without any legal threat to its authority.

Richard Hunt, president of the Consumer Bankers Association, said having a director in place for the five-year term envisioned by Dodd-Frank means that “nothing stops the agency” from doing what it wants.

“There is potential to overreach here, and it has nothing to do with Cordray,” Hunt said in an interview.

Dodd-Frank gave the bureau authority to supervise banks with more than $10 billion in assets, a group that includes JPMorgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and Lafayette, Louisiana-based Iberiabank Corp. (IBKC) It can also write regulations and enforce laws to protect consumers from abusive practices.

Michael Thurman, an attorney with Loeb & Loeb LLP in Los Angeles, said confirmation would “eliminate any doubts” about the agency’s authority. Cordray, a former Ohio attorney general, will use it, he said.

“Given that the CFPB has an extensive enforcement staff, including numerous experienced regulatory attorneys and paralegals, companies subject to CFPB jurisdiction should expect that CFPB enforcement activity will substantially increase in the immediate future,” Thurman said in an e-mail.

Amazing how fast the Republicans move to confirm nominees when Obama puts up putrid Wall Street lackeys like Penny Pritzker. The only person with the good sense top vote against her was Vermont Independent Bernie Sanders. Her confirmation vote was 97-1, even the worst, most obstructionist shitheads like Miss McConnell, Ted Cruz, Vitter, Burr, Sessions, Scott... the whole Hate-America crew, moving fast before someone could talk some sense into Obama. Judging by how long it took the Republicans to move on Cordray, there's every reason to believe he'll be Obama's best nominee so far.Yesterday President Obama took a victory lap around the Rose Garden, decrying the right-wing's winner-take-all philosophy that led directly to the Bush Recession that he walked right into as president.

[F]our years ago, even as we were working on restoring the economy and dealing with the immediate crisis, we also wanted to figure out how do we set new rules for the road to make sure that a few bad apples in the financial sector couldn't break the law, or cheat consumers, or put the entire economy at risk.

And I was fortunate even when I was running for President to have some friends like Elizabeth Warren, who had already done a lot of academic work on this and had a whole series of ideas about how we might start making sure that consumers were treated better, and as a consequence, take some of the risk out of the system. And because of those conversations and that work, and because of some terrific efforts by other members in Congress, we were able, for the time in history, to get a consumer watchdog on the job-- to look out for the interests of everyday Americans. And I am very proud to say that last night, Rich Cordray was finally confirmed by the United States Senate to keep serving as America’s consumer watchdog and as the Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So we’re very pleased about that.

I first nominated Rich for this position two years ago this week. He was eminently qualified. He had the support of Democrats and Republicans from across the country. A majority of state attorneys general from both parties-- Rich’s former colleagues-- called on him to be confirmed. And for two years, Republicans in the Senate refused to give Rich a simple yes-or-no vote-- not because they didn’t think he was the right person for the job, but because they didn’t like the law that set up the consumer watchdog in the first place.

But without a director in place, the CFPB would have been severely hampered. And the CFPB wasn’t able to give consumers the information they needed to make good, informed decisions. Folks in the financial system who were doing the right thing didn’t have much certainty or clear rules of the road. And the CFPB didn’t have all the tools it needed to protect consumers against mortgage brokers, or credit reporting agencies, or debt collectors who were taking advantage of ordinary Americans.

As a consequence, last year, I took steps on my own to temporarily appoint Richard so he could get to work on their behalf. And Americans everywhere are better off because he did. And thanks to not only Rich, but his terrific team-- I know many are represented here-- we’ve made real strides, even despite the fact that the agency was hampered by the confirmation process.

...[Y]esterday, Richard was officially confirmed. I want to thank Senators from both parties, including Senator Reid, Senator McConnell, Senator McCain, for coming together to help get Rich confirmed.  And obviously, Elizabeth, who wasn’t a senator when she thought this up, but is now a senator-- she was poking and prodding people for a long time to help make it happen.

...Today, if you want to take out a mortgage or a student loan or a payday loan, or you’ve got a credit reporting agency or debt collector who’s causing you problems-- maybe they're not playing by the rules, maybe they're taking advantage of you-- you have somewhere to go. The CFPB has already addressed more than 175,000 complaints from all across the nation, giving people an advocate who is working with them when they're dealing with these financial institutions that may not always be thinking about consumers first... And thanks to the hard work of folks at the CFPB, so far 6 million Americans have gotten more than $400 million in refunds from companies that engaged in unscrupulous practices.

So this is not just some abstract, theoretical exercise. Families, many of them hard-pressed, have money in their pockets, maybe, in some cases, saved a home or were able to send their kids to college, because of the work that Rich and his team is doing right now. And that’s money that oftentimes families didn’t have the power to recover before.

Wall Street Whores In DC (I.E., Conservative Politicians) Still Fighting Against Protecting Bank Customers

Miss & Debbie-- On Feb. 26, don't feed the troll

It was close, but on December 11, 2009, the House passed, 223-202 the Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, better known as Dodd-Frank, which, among other things, established Elizabeth Warren's brainchild, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to protect baking customers from financial industry predators. Every single House Republican voted against it, of course-- and so did 27 Wall Street-bought Democrats. Eleven months later, almost all of those Democrats had either been forced to resign rather than be defeated or were actually defeated. One, Arizona corporate shill Ann Kirkpatrick managed to get back into Congress in November and she is currently the only Democrat in the House who has voted with the GOP 100% of the time on crucial roll calls. 

Another Democrat who voted against Dodd-Frank in 2009 and was then turned out of office by her constituents, Debbie Halvorson, is fighting to get back into Congress in a special election three weeks from tomorrow. The seat is open because of the resignation of Jesse Jackson, Jr. and Halvorson is freaking out because Dodd-Frank has come back to haunt her. Last week, the president of the Cook County Board, Toni Preckwinkle, endorsed Halvorson's progressive opponent, state Senator Toi Hutchinson. Her statement was a nightmare for Halvorson, a self-described "conservative Democrat," who has hoped to win the seat flying under the radar: "In just one term, Halvorson managed to vote against President Obama's agenda on 88 separate occasions. Debbie Halvorson voted against tough reforms on Wall Street and against extending unemployment benefits. And she even sided with the Republicans to give huge tax breaks to the wealthiest one percent of the population."

But IL-02 isn't the only place where the battle over Dodd-Frank is in the news again. For conservatives and their bankster allies, the loss on December 11, 2009 triggered a war to disable and destroy the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If not for their machinations Elizabeth Warren would be running it now and their favorite senator, Scott Brown, would still be carrying their water in Washington. Instead, Warren is a U.S. Senator and member of the Banking Committee and Brown's political career is-- at best-- on hold.

But Republican Party obstruction in the Senate is alive and well-- and threatening to weaken the Bureau once again. As Pat Garofalo reported for ThinkProgress, the Republicans said they would block any nominee to head the CFBC-- "regardless of that nominee’s qualifications for the job-- unless the Bureau was weakened and made subservient to the same bank regulators who failed to prevent the 2008 financial crisis." Although the November elections dealt Miss McConnell a weaker hand, his success in hoodwinking Harry Reid on filibuster reform have left the GOP in a position to continue their obstruction on behalf of Wall Street. Obama has again nominated former Ohio Attorney General Rich Cordray, who he gave a recess appointment that ends next December, to be director. But the Republicans still insist on watering down the agency before they agree to allow a vote on Cordray. Miss McConnell (R-KY), who has taken $7,410,797 in legalistic bribes from Wall Street since 1990, and Mike Crapo (R-ID) who has accepted over $2 million in bribes from the banksters since being appointed the ranking member of the Senate Banking Committee, sent a letter sent to President Obama on Friday, co-signed by 43 Republican senators (all but Bob Corker and Rob Portman), committing themselves to obdurate obstructionism unless they get their way on undermining the Bureau.

Republicans want to see the top of the bureau changed so it is run by a bipartisan, five-member commission, as opposed to a lone director.

They also want to see the bureau’s funding fall under the control of congressional appropriators-- it currently is funded via a revenue stream directly from the Federal Reserve, and its funding levels cannot be altered by Congress. Republicans also want to give other regulators greater power to veto CFPB rules that could pose a threat to the safety and soundness of financial institutions.

...Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Johnson (D-S.D.) dismissed the latest GOP pronouncement as "just politics at play."

"The CFPB enjoys overwhelming public support, and there is no evidence that the bureau is unaccountable and that structural changes are necessary," Johnson said. "The market needs certainty, and blocking Richard Cordray's nomination is a disservice to consumers and industry alike."

Debbie Halvorson isn't running for the Senate; she's running for the House. But a big defeat for her in the February 26 primary will help make it clear to conservatives inside the Beltway-- and on both sides of the aisle-- that if they vote against the interests of their constituents and kiss up to their financiers on Wall Street, their careers are in jeopardy. Please consider helping make sure DC gets that message by supporting Toi Hutchinson here at the ActBlue special election page Blue America set up.

And since we're discussing how conservatives are determined to continue wrecking the country, it's worth watching how Krugman eviscerated Carly Fiorina's tired right-wing dogma on TV yesterday.

How crazy have things gotten? Patrick McHenry now "stands guard" against abuse of "unparalleled powers"

The idiot degenerate Patrick McHenry imagines himself as a bulwark against abuse of government powers? Is there anyone on Capitol Hill with a working set of marbles?

by Ken

Amid the hubbub prompted by President Obama's (finally!) bold-ish use of his recess-appointment powers (my goodness, according to the White House figures he's made 46 percent the number of recess appointments that his constitution-shredding predecessor had at this point in his regime -- isn't it about time that Chimpy the Ex-Prez was arrested and tried?) this week, did you catch this little detail? It was reported yesterday by the Washington Post's Al Kamen:

Just a meet-and-greet

While Senate Republicans were outraged over Obama’s appointment of Cordray, House Republicans quickly invited the newest appointee to come over for a chat -- perhaps under oath?

And this shindig is BYOL, as in "bring your own lawyers."

Just hours after Obama named Cordray to the post, Cordray got what might be his first missive as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.), who heads a subcommittee of the oversight committee, chaired by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), issued a none-too-friendly summons. And there wasn’t even an RSVP card included.

Noting his "unprecedented" appointment, McHenry told Cordray that he’s quite looking forward to their little visit.

"The Subcommittee is deeply interested in how you will enforce and implement the unparalleled powers of your new office."

Cordray will have the chance, during the Jan. 24 hearing, to tell the panel what he’s been up to in the first 20 days of his tenure.

Patrick McHenry? Patrick McHenry? This is what stands between the American public and abuse of government powers? That low-life degenerate and criminal Patrick McHenry? (If your stomach isn't churning, I suggest clicking on the "McHenry" label below to view some of the reporting Howie has done on this wacko scumbag.) Not to mention his arch-criminal chairman, Darrell Issa?

I know the Righties like to pretend to be imbued with and motivated by profound religiosity, but in reality they keep proving more and more conclusively that there can't possibly be an all-knowing and all-powerful divinity, unless that divinity is a scumbag (created, after all, in their own image). Because if there were such a divinity, it's impossible that the earth wouldn't open up and swallow all these sociopaths.


UPDATE: McHenry Can Be Beaten

North Carolina state Rep. Patsy Keever wants to take McHenry on-- in a district that is quite a bit bluer than it was last year. The DCCC has a conservative corporate shill in the primary, of course. And McHenry has a strong mainstream conservative opposing him in the GOP primary. But in all likelihood, we'll see McHenry in an epic battle with a populist champion, Patsy Keever. You can help her campaign here.

#