Friday, October 11, 2013
Tuesday, July 16, 2013
JOSH MARSHALL JULY 16, 2013, 2:29 PM
If you’re an Elizabeth Warren fan or really if you’re just into facts, you gotta watch this. It’s Elizabeth Warren going on CNBC’s Squawk Box, defending her plan to bring back a new version of the Glass-Steagall Act. It’s maybe the best example of the sort of matter-anti-matter reaction that happens when someone who actually knows some history and policy makes first contact with a gaggle of ignorant CNBC yakkers.
Jim Cramer: anti-matter FTW!!! she got pwned
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Friday, October 05, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Thursday, July 05, 2012
Friday, May 11, 2012
Monday, February 20, 2012
Thursday, January 05, 2012
Update 10:17 Eastern. This post has been updated from an earlier version in order to reflect the full confirmation that has now come in.
The White House confirmed Wednesday morning that President Obama will announce a recess appointment for Richard Cordray to run the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau at a speech in Ohio later today [embedded below]. Cordray was a well-liked Ohio Attorney General until last year, after he was toppled by the GOP midterm wave in 2010.
Cordray's an accidental victim of a brazen act of GOP obstruction. They're refusing to allow an up-or-down vote on any CFPB nominee until the agency itself is fundamentally weakened — an extra-legal attempt to nullify a key portion of an act of law.
Obama actually missed his best opportunity to recess appoint his top consumer watchdog on Tuesday. But there are reasons Obama opted to take a more confrontational approach.
Though the Obama administration has made a couple dozen recess appointments since 2009, only a tiny fraction have been for officials in truly crucial positions, and none have occurred in the past year. This has frustrated progressives and good government advocates who worry that the executive branch has become riddled through like Swiss cheese with vacancies and can't function properly.
On Tuesday, they believed Obama could take advantage of a precedent set by Teddy Roosevelt, and filled those vacancies with the stroke of a pen and the blast of an email in the seconds-long window between sessions of the 112th Congress.
He didn't do it. That meant the Senate went back in "pro forma" session, lackadaisically gaveling in and out every three days to avoid a technical "recess," and thus prevent a recess appointment.
It's customary for Presidents to heed this defensive tactic. But there's nothing that says they have to. And Obama concluded he could move ahead. According to the Wall Street Journal the administration's own attorneys don't think they do — the Senate's "pro forma" sessions are meaningless and Obama retains the Constitutional right to recess appoint whomever he wants until session begins in earnest.
This creates a significant new precedent — a bold power play in the face of an unprecedented act of GOP obstruction, but also something to which Obama (and Democrats more generally) have been pretty averse. Given that aversion, it's hard to figure why Obama would choose to create a new precedent rather than avail himself of an existing one — unless you imagine he's daring the GOP to make a big stink about it, and thus loudly side with Wall Street against him and middle-class consumers. It's a safe bet that's part of his thinking.
Brian Beutler is TPM's senior congressional reporter. Since 2009, he's led coverage of health care reform, Wall Street reform, taxes, the GOP budget, the government shutdown fight, and the debt limit fight. He can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Jon Stewart on the whole 'recess appointment' thing:
Sunday, December 11, 2011
Sent from Evernote
Lindsey Graham: Consumer Protection Bureau 'Is Something Out Of The Stalinist Era'
Graham, speaking on NBC's "Meet The Press," was asked why Senate Republicans had filibustered President Obama's nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which was created as part of 2010's Wall Street reform.
Graham spoke as if the bureau had yet to be created and debate was over how to shape it, rather than discussing the nominee, Richard Cordray, the former attorney general in Ohio.
"This consumer bureau that they want to propose is under the Federal Reserve, no appropriation oversight, no board. It is something out of the Stalinist era," Graham said.
The CFPB moved through both chambers of Congress and passed the Senate in a landslide, winning 60 votes, including three Republicans.
"The reason Republicans don't want to vote for it is we want a board, not one person making all the regulatory decisions," said Graham, continuing to talk as if the bureau doesn't yet exist.
Republicans have insisted that they will oppose any nominee unless a board of bank regulators is empowered to veto decisions the consumer bureau makes. The GOP also wants Congress to be able to restrict the bureau's funding, as it regularly attempts to do with the Environmental Protection Agency, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other agencies whose missions are opposed by big business.
"There's no oversight under this person. He gets a check from the Federal Reserve. We want him under the Congress so we can oversee the overseer," Graham said.
On "Fox News Sunday," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) explained the filibuster by saying that his party opposed a "czar" with unlimited authority.
Under the structure of the CFPB, there is, in fact, a board of regulators who can veto rules proposed by the bureau, but a two-thirds vote is needed.
Tens of millions of Russians were killed during the Stalinist era; millions more were imprisoned in gulags.
Friday, December 02, 2011
it's on: Wall Street vs. WarrenClipped from: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2359?m=1
Livewire | TPMSourceURL: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/updates/2359?m=1
Report: Wall Street Gearing Up To Take Down Elizabeth Warren
A report from the Center for Public Integrity today reveals plans by Wall Street groups and K Street lobbyists to fight Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign. According to the report, they will be fundraising for incumbent Sen. Scott Brown and see his re-election as a major priority.
Asked about the report by the Washington Post, a Warren spokeswoman replied : "She stood up to Wall Street and the big banks, demanded and won oversight and consumer protections they didn't want. No one should be surprised they don't want her in the Senate."
K Street, Wall Street line up behind Sen. Scott Brown in his race against Elizabeth Warren | iWatch NewsSourceURL: http://www.iwatchnews.org/2011/12/02/7546/k-street-wall-street-line-behind-sen-scott-brown-his-race-against-elizabeth-warren
15 hours, 33 minutes ago Updated: 15 hours, 33 minutes ago
Sen. Scott Brown's campaign and his political action committee are hustling for millions of dollars from K Street lobbyists and Wall Street interests to keep the Massachusetts seat of iconic Democrat Edward M. Kennedy in Republican hands.
Whether the freshman senator can win re-election in the predominantly Democratic state could be a critical factor in GOP efforts to wrest control of the Senate.
Next week, Brown backers are slated to hold at least two fundraisers to fill the coffers of Scott PAC and his campaign. On Dec. 7, his campaign is hosting a money bash at the National Theater, where the play "Jersey Boys" is currently running. And on Dec. 11, Scott PAC is holding a fundraiser at Fed Ex Field when the Washington Redskins take on the New England Patriots.
Financial service lobbyists and other K Street advocates have for weeks been working hard to help the freshman senator win his high-stakes battle for re-election against Elizabeth Warren, a liberal Harvard law professor. Warren is anathema for many finance-sector lobbyists and Wall Street leaders who abhor the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau— a centerpiece of the financial services overhaul—of which Warren was the intellectual architect.
Even though Brown's campaign had over $10.5 million in the bank as of Sept. 30, lobbyists are in overdrive to raise millions more because Warren's campaign is off to a fast start and a new poll shows her with a slight edge over Brown.
Deep-pocketed GOP allies such as Crossroads GPS, the Karl Rove-founded group backed by secret donors, have sought to help Brown with negative TV spots against Warren. Last month, Crossroads GPS spent about $600,000 on an ad that said "Elizabeth Warren sides with extreme left protesters," a reference to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
In response, Warren was blunt: "It's fair to say that I've been protesting Wall Street for years and years," she said in a TV interview with a Boston station. But when pressed about the tactics of the protesters, Warren said, "Everybody has to follow the law. There's no exception on that."
Other advertising firepower on Brown's behalf is expected to come from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The business behemoth will be engaged early and heavily in Massachusetts with ads as the Chamber did, to the tune of about $1 million, when Brown won his special election in early 2010.
Inside the Beltway, fundraising has been heating up too. On Nov. 30, veteran financial services lobbyist Dan Crowley, a partner at K & L Gates, hosted a breakfast fundraiser for the senator that drew about a dozen other lobbyists. "There is no Senate race that more clearly reflects the choice for the future direction of the country," Crowley said, pitting the role of government versus the role of the private sector.
Other GOP lobbyists are also in high gear to boost Brown.
"Sen. Brown's politics are tailor made for New York Republicans who tend to be very concerned about economic growth and fiscally conservative, but more libertarian on social issues," Wayne Berman, vice chairman of Ogilvy & Mather, told iWatch News.
Berman, whose lobbying clients include financial heavyweights like the Blackstone Group and Carlyle Group, co-hosted an early November breakfast fundraiser for Brown at New York's tony Lever House.
In his two Senate races, Brown's top five contributors included four financial giants: Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., and Liberty Mutual Insurance, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The most generous donor has been FMR Corp., the parent of Fidelity Investments, chipping in at least $97,000 to his campaign committees from executives and the firm's PAC.
Executives and PACs affiliated with Goldman Sachs pumped at least $60,500 into Brown's coffers; at least $51,000 from Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance; and at least $46,000 from Liberty Mutual Insurance.
This largess underscores Brown's role as a solid, but hardly perfect, ally of financial service interests since he took office last year. The Bay State senator has helped big local companies like Fidelity Investments and Wall Street giants by pushing for changes in the financial services legislation last year that met some key concerns. One example: Brown helped eliminate a proposed $19 billion tax on banks.
Nevertheless, Brown's was the vital 60th vote that smoothed passage of the financial reform bill last year.
The importance of the Brown-Warren race was underscored in early November at an annual retreat held by the National Republican Senatorial Committee for its big donors at a Sea Island, Ga., resort. Brown was the NRSC's featured candidate at the retreat, and a morning pep talk/campaign update that the senator delivered drew dozens of GOP lobbyists eager for news about his prospects.
Campaign finance analyst Sheila Krumholz, the executive director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, predicts a deluge of money from both sides. "This will be a showcase race in 2012. There's big money from Wall Street lining up behind Brown and more lining up against Warren because she's such a controversial figure. Outside groups supporting Warren will draw a lot of money from wealthy liberals and small donors to attack Brown."
Already, Democrats and Warren's nascent campaign are mobilizing to mount a well-funded challenge and some recent polls show her running even.
In less than a quarter of fundraising, the Warren campaign had raised over $3 million, according to its Sept. 30 filing at the Federal Election Commission. Her biggest PAC contributors included the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners, the United Steelworkers and former Sen. Russ Feingold's group, Progressives United.
Outside Democratic groups including a few Super PACs are providing crucial advertising backing and other support.
American Bridge 21st Century, a Super PAC that does opposition research, was an early ally. This fall, the group was credited by the Boston Globe with uncovering a personal values statement of Brown's on his website that was almost identical to a passage in Elizabeth Dole's autobiography. Rodell Mollineau, the president of American Bridge, told iWatch News that Warren's "race is important to Democrats because we want a fighter for the middle class in the seat."
One of Warren's heftiest allies is likely to be Majority PAC, a Super PAC set up this year to help Senate Democrats keep control of the chamber. Majority PAC, which can accept unlimited sums but must disclose donor's names, has been busy hitting up wealthy allies who would like to defeat Brown.
The PAC is hoping to raise millions of dollars for ads to assist Warren's cause. "There's a lot of excitement in the donor community for Majority PAC's plans to support Elizabeth Warren," said Monica Dixon, the executive director of the PAC.
Other outside Democratic allies are already producing ads attacking Brown's credentials. In mid November, the League of Conservation Voters launched a month-long almost $2 million ad blitz. An early spot stated that "Brown took $152,000 from Big Oil."
Another new Super PAC, dubbed Rethink PAC, was started earlier this year expressly to help defeat Brown. The PAC boasts considerable union support in the state: 1199 SEIU and the Massachusetts Teachers Association are two of its financial backers.
Wall Street gears up to stop Elizabeth Warren - The Plum Line - The Washington PostSourceURL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/wall-street-gears-up-to-stop-elizabeth-warren/2011/12/02/gIQAZk1WLO_blog.html
Wall Street gears up to stop Elizabeth Warren
Wall Street executives have been quite open about the fact that they really, really don't want to see Elizabeth Warren get anywhere near the Senate. And it looks like they're about to ratchet up their efforts to help Scott Brown prevent it from happening — including the influential U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Center for Public Integrity reports today that Wall Street and K Street lobbyists are firing up the fundraising on behalf of Brown in a big way. The report quoted multiple big finance types saying Brown's reelection campaign is crucial, and it noted — without sourcing — that the U.S. Chamber "will be engaged early and heavily in Massachusetts with ads."
Asked for comment, a Chamber spokesman, J.P. Fielder, emailed me: "Stay tuned." He declined to say more, claiming he couldn't discuss the group's potential political activities, but the Chamber spent big on ads to help get Brown get elected in 2010, so more is likely now on the way. This comes after the New York Times reported that Warren's "enemies" on Wall Street are getting ready to throw themselves behind Brown, who they view as a key ally, with "new intensity."
Here's why this is important: It suggests these powerful interests may think Warren has already shown she's a threat to Brown. Yesterday, national Republicans were dismissive of a new online poll finding that Warrren is statistically tied with the incumbent. But the unusually early involvement of outside groups suggest that GOP-aligned special interests may in fact see Warren's challenge to the Senator they're backing as a serious one.
Here's another data point. The Rove-founded Crossroads GPS recently went up on the air with a six-figure ad buy slamming Warren for embracing Occupy Wall Street. Yet only weeks before that, Crossroads' spokesman went on record saying the group was unlikely to get involved in the race unless it "tightened." Which would suggest the race has ... tightened.
Asked for comment on the U.S. Chamber and other activity gearing up, Warren campaign manager Mindy Myers emailed:
"She stood up to Wall Street and the big banks, demanded and won oversight and consumer protections they didn't want. No one should be surprised they don't want her in the Senate."
The question is whether influential liberal groups will start spending big on the race to match the right. Environmental groups have spent some money — environmentalism is a resonant issue in Massachusetts, particularly among independents — but the big money has yet to flow. Warren herself has embarked on an unusually early and aggressive effort to introduce herself to the state with a minute-long biographical spot backed by six figures, and for now, it's basically her versus her long time antagonist: Wall Street.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell & Salon.com political and legal blogger Glenn Greenwald.
Thursday, August 25, 2011
the Atlantic (Walter Frick)
[F]act-checking politicians heading into election season is akin to playing Whack-A-Mole. No matter how many claims these and other fact checkers beat back, new whoppers keep popping up.
But what if you could scale these laudable efforts by harnessing the wisdom of the crowds? That's what NewsTrust, a nonprofit news aggregator, set out to do when it piloted its collaborative fact-checking site Truthsquad.com in 2010. Now, just over a year later, NewsTrust is shifting its focus to devote more time and resources to that effort.
[Frick] spoke with NewsTrust executive director Fabrice Florin by email to learn more about how he and his team plan to leverage crowdsourcing to fact-check the 2012 elections. [full article]
. . . .[full article]
NewsTrust is now pivoting from a standalone news curation site to a consultancy that will serve the needs of larger partners and help their communities become better informed about important public issues. Our initial focus will be on fact-checking services to expose misinformation in the public debate. We will also explore partnerships that enable us to provide news literacy and civic engagement services through popular consumer and educational channels.
. . . .
For each claim we fact-check (example), our editors provide links to factual evidence supporting or opposing that claim. We then invite our community to review these links before giving a final answer. Participants can also add more links, as described in our pilot FAQ.
The purpose of this key feature is to encourage participants to base their answers on facts, not just their own opinions. Reviewing a variety of links about a claim can help you weigh the evidence from all angles and reach a more informed decision. We also think that getting citizens to reach beyond their comfort zone and regular news sources can help them develop a more open mind, build their research skills and appreciate the value of looking at the world from different perspectives.
You can read more about our approach and overall mission in this article from the Nieman Journalism Lab.
. . .. ... .. . .
& flashback 2.2.2008
Thursday, July 21, 2011
* * * *
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday, Sen. Franken noted that the group's testimony listed the benefits of children "living with their biological and/or adopted mothers and fathers" as surpassing those of children "living in any other family form." He observed they listed a Department of Health and Human Services study as backing that up.
"I actually checked it out," Franken said in reference to the study [Focus on the Family]'s Thomas Minnery has cited. He then observed it uses the term "nuclear families" without specifically mentioning "opposite sex married families."
"Isn't it true, Mr. Minnery, that a married same-sex couple that has had or adopted kids would fall under the definition of a nuclear family in the study that you cite?" Franken asked.
"I would think that the study, when it cites nuclear families would mean a family headed by a husband and wife," Minnery said.
"It doesn't," Franken said, getting laughs from the audience.
"The study defines a nuclear family as one or more children living with two parents who are married to one another and are each biological or adoptive parents to all the children in the family," Franken continued. "And I frankly don't really know how we can trust the rest of your testimony if you are reading studies these ways."
* * * *
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
A couple of weeks ago, the government started signaling, at long last, that it was ready to get tough on the bankers who caused the 2008 financial crisis. On March 16 the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, or FDIC, sued three former top executives of Washington Mutual, or WaMu, for taking "extreme and historically unprecedented risks," thereby causing the bank to lose "billions of dollars." That same day, the New York Times reported that the Securities and Exchange Commission had sent so-called Wells notices—often a sign that civil charges are imminent—to a handful of former executives at mortgage-securitization giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
The targets seem well-chosen. The collapse of WaMu, acquired by JPMorgan Chase at a fire-sale price in the fall of 2008 was, according to the FDIC, the biggest bank failure in U.S. history. ... [more]
. . .. ... .. . .
& WaMu Hearings April 14, 2010
& business insider March 18, 2011
& FDIC pair growth bnet March 18, 2011
. . .. ... .. . .
FDIC vs. Killinger, et al., Complaint (3/16/2011)
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
Monday, January 10, 2011
In the aftermath of the Giffords shooting there's been a lot of talk about political speech, politicians and whether there's a climate of violent political rhetoric. And it's been clear that a lot of politicians weren't clear that certain phrases and statements -- like calling for armed revolution or target practice at fundraisers -- might lead to misunderstandings. So in the spirit of ettiquette manuals, I thought I'd start putting together a list of things it's probably best not to say simply to avoid misunderstandings or criticisms the next time there's an attempt on the life of a politician.
- Refrain from telling supporters that winning the election may require active exercise of their "second amendment" rights.
- Refrain from suggesting it's time for "armed revolution", even if Thomas Jefferson once kinda sorta suggested that.
- Refrain from holding political fundraisers focused around use of automatic weapons, especially target practices with initials, name or images of your political opponent.
- Refrain from telling supporters you want them to be "armed and dangerous."
- Refrain from making campaign posters with opponent's head in gun sights.
- Refrain from saying that bullets will work if ballots don't.
- Suggest that supporters not bring weapons to opponents' political rallies.