Huffington Post

News

'A Huge Win'

By Research Team at September 17, 2010 - 3:03pm

Today's Warren appointment was roundly praised by consumer advocates. Simon Johnson calls it "the right appointment at the right time:"

The case for appointing Elizabeth Warren to set up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) was, at the end of the day, overwhelming. She had the original idea, she helped build political support, and her own credentials have been only strengthened by her work as head of the Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP. On Friday, the president will reportedly appoint Professor Warren as an assistant to the president and special adviser to the Treasury Secretary, with the task of setting up and initially running the CFPB.

Some of Ms. Warren’s supporters think this move is something of a half-measure – they would have preferred a conventional nomination, with all the fanfare of a classic confirmation battle in the Senate. There is something to be said for that, but the interim appointment route is by far the best way forward for three reasons.

First, this form of appointment puts Elizabeth Warren to work right away – on the issues of consumer protection that are first order both for ordinary families and for the macroeconomy. You really cannot build a sustainable economic recovery on the back of exploitative or abusive behavior by the financial sector. These issues are urgent and need resolution as soon as possible.

Second, the president finally has an adviser who understands the financial sector and who has healthy skepticism about its intentions and actions. As we documented at length in 13 Bankers, too many top policy people – both in this administration and all its recent predecessors – have been overly inclined to accommodate the interests of finance, particularly the big banks. In this regard, putting Ms. Warren directly into the White House with the highest possible level of access is exactly the right thing to do – much better, for example, than making her purely a Treasury appointment.

Third, this step does not avoid a debate in the Senate – it merely postpones it to a more advantageous moment. Presuming that Ms. Warren is nominated as for a five year term as head of the CFPB, she would go before the Senate Banking Committee with a real track record of achievement as interim head. The debate would not be about what the agency could do, but rather what it has already done – and what it is set up to do next. These are exactly the right terms on which to bring out into the open all those who think that the financial sector only ever behaves well – or that enforcing sensible rules on lenders would somehow bring the economy to its knees.

Mike Lux calls it a "a home run for our side:"

I am more than a little biased, because Elizabeth has become a good friend over the past few years, and because I have rarely seen the kinds of guts and tough bargaining strategy that I watched her show during the financial reform fight and the TARP oversight work. She publicly and repeatedly faced down Tim Geithner on a series of major issues around TARP and the overall handling of the financial crisis. She privately went nose to nose with Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and Treasury during negotiations over the financial reform bill. She had to time and again back Dodd down when he was getting ready to make bad compromises on the consumer agency. (Why do you think Dodd has fought so hard to keep Warren from being nominated?) She is the real deal, a fighter for middle class and poor families through and through.

And, Robert Kuttner calls it "a huge win:"

The early Administration leaks about Elizabeth Warren serving as an "interim" appointee to set up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau were equivocal. In one version of the story, she would be a counselor to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner. In others, this appointment would be an alternative to her even being considered for the job on a permanent basis -- a wink and a nod to the financial industry.

But that scenario turned out to be wrong, and underestimated Warren's own tenacity. It is now clear that the indefatigable Warren will be both a senior presidential adviser with direct access to Obama when she needs it, as well as a Treasury employee. In an administration dominated by Rubinistas, Warren will literally be the first financial progressive with both a personal connection to the president as well as an independent power base.

This strategy is a win-win, on several grounds. It gives Warren full authority to set up the agency, without having to run the gantlet of confirmation hearings and a likely Republican filibuster.

This way, Warren will be able to get the agency quickly up and running in a manner that serves both consumers and progressive politics. Early directives to bring greater simplicity and transparency to credit documents will be extremely popular. Politically, the carping by the banking industry and its Republican allies will remind the public which side the GOP is on.

We did it. We were united. We were relentless. And, we won - big time.

News

No Apology for Moody's

By Research Team at June 3, 2010 - 10:51am

Sorry isn't good enough for the millions of Americans suffering from job losses, underemployment and plummeting house values. But, in testimony before the FCIC yesterday, Moody's CEO won't even off an apology! The Huffington Post:

The chairman and chief executive of Moody's Corporation joined the long list of top Wall Street executives who have refused to apologize for their role in causing the worst financial crisis and resulting economic collapse since the Great Depression.

Appearing on Wednesday before the panel created by Congress to investigate the roots of the financial crisis, Raymond W. McDaniel, the head of the corporate parent of Moody's Investors Service, said that while the credit rating agency's disastrous performance has been "deeply disappointing" and that the firm is "certainly not satisfied" with it, after more than two hours of testimony he didn't say the one thing much of America may have been looking for: I'm sorry.

They're unrepentant. And, they'll do it again - unless, we reform the credit ratings agencies. The Senate must act.