What’s Behind Warren’s Weird Title

Obama will NOT nominate Elizabeth Warren to be the interim director of the powerful Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) tomorrow. What he will do is name her Assistant to the President and Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on CFPB, administration sources say. Tangled politics, both within the executive branch and between the White House and the Hill, are behind the cumbersome title.

First, Senate Democrats don’t like the idea of a big fight on the floor over Warren’s nomination to be formal director of the agency. Some don’t want the creation of a powerful new agency front and center as they head into an election defined by anti-government fervor. And leadership doesn’t want to devote the time in a very tight schedule. Democrats and Republicans agree that Warren would have sailed out of committee, and perhaps one or two of the remaining moderate Republicans could have been persuaded to come along, Hill Democrats concede.

But overcoming the inevitable GOP opposition to the nomination requires expending political capital. With the heavily laden Defense authorization bill (it has Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the Dream Act and abolishing Secret Holds already on it), a continuing resolution and a tax cut vote to churn through in a matter of weeks, adding a contentious nomination fight wasn’t in the cards—even if Dems could win in the end, which it’s not clear they could.

So how to get around the problem if you’re the White House and the demoralized left is clamoring for Warren’s appointment to help mobilize the troops for the election? According to the Dodd-Frank bill that creates the CFPB, either you have a Senate-confirmed director or you don’t—there’s no such thing as an “interim” head. And if you don’t, the Treasury Secretary is in charge of setting up the agency.

But the left doesn’t trust Tim Geithner—and its not clear Warren does either. You may have heard that Geithner and Warren don’t get along very well; the administration says they love each other, but even if that were true, they come from opposite ends of the party’s economic ideological spectrum.

So for the purposes of authority, Warren needs to work for Geithner to be the one setting up the agency: hence “Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury on the CFPB.” But for the purposes of satisfying the left, and perhaps the politically savvy Oklahoma-native herself, Warren needs an indication of Geithner-independent swat: hence “Assistant to the President.” An administration official says cagily the title shows the President thinks the job is important.

On paper, the agency is potentially very powerful: funded by “seignorage” from the Federal Reserve, the CFPB is effectively beyond the reach of meddling members of Congress. And it has independent rule writing authority. In DC, says one nervous GOP banking committee staffer, “if you’ve got the money and the rules, you’ve got everything.” Not quite everything–you need a boss who’s willing to back you up. Maybe Geithner will, but if there’s a difference of opinion, Warren will have to appeal to the President.

The administration official says Warren’s expected to hold the job for “months”. Obama made it clear the other day that he thinks Warren is the best woman for the job of launching the agency in the right direction. Whether he means it or is just placating the left may only be revealed in how effectively she is able to leverage the first half of her title.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “the demoralized left is clamoring for Warren’s appointment to help mobilize the troops for the election”
    .
    Actually, if I may speak for the demoralized left, we want her because,as most people know, she is the best person for the job.

  • nflfoghorn

    Special Assistant to the Camouflage and Trickery and Mutual Distrust the Executive Branch Has for Congress Whom I Just Made an End-Run On.
    .
    More appropriate.

  • apr2563

    Massimo, are you saying that some Republican wouldn’t put a hold on her nomination? If Warren made it through committee, don’t you think the Republicans would filabuster? Do you believe that the Republicans and some sell-out Dems wouldn’t do everything to delay her appointment?
    Is it perhaps better to have her in a position to set up the agency rather than have the process delayed by the Senate?

  • apr2563

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/warren-didnt-want-permane_n_719932.html
    .
    Barney Frank’s statement. Warren didn’t want a permanent appointment.

  • stuartzechman

    That has got to be one of the least coherent explanations I’ve heard, yet.

  • apr2563

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-kuttner/warren-a-huge-win_b_719244.html
    .
    Kuttner, American Progress opinion. Appointment a huge win.

  • apr2563

    Corretion: American Prospect

  • apr2563

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/everyone-is-basically-con_n_719949.html
    .
    More explanation.
    SZ: I am just passing along what I am reading. It is not that I find Barney Frank particularly reliable.

  • apr2563
  • apr2563

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/09/16/lanny-davis-attacks-maddo_n_719684.html
    .
    O/T
    .
    Stuart, I just want to share this with you. It explains why I think Rachel Maddow is a real voice for progressives.
    She has Clinton allies really upset with her. Why, even that “liberal” guy, Lanny Davis, was on a conservative show attacking her. (see above link).
    She also took down Chris Matthews on primary night for stating that women who voted for Hillary will now rush to O’Donnell. Of course, demeaning every woman voters brain power.
    Maddow is never shrill and always researches her facts. I think she may be a great progressive journalist allowed on the mainstream media.

  • stuartzechman

    Oh, I know, no criticism of you intended, apr2563.

  • deconstructiva

    Maddow is outstanding. She tackles subjects other teevee types avoid, except for Olbermann.

  • deconstructiva

    “500 words” (Massimo, welcome and be sure to ask Sorensen, Scherer, or Pickert about “1000 words” and “500 words” photo captions, one of our, um, traditions) –
    .
    Warren: Geithner, your ass is mine.
    Geithner: Go ahead, make my day. I drove out Romer; you can’t touch me, nyah nyah nyah nyah.
    .
    Geithner: Well, you’re on my turf. So do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do you? Now get off my lawn.
    Warren: You’ve been watching too many Eastwood flicks. Go home already and watch Bridget Jones’ Diary with your wife. She’ll thank you in the morning.
    (full disclaimer: Eastwood is one of my fave actors and I agree with Quentin Tarantino that The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly is one of the best movies ever.)

  • sacredh

    Does anyone know what kind of numbers Swampland has in terms of readers?

  • deconstructiva

    …probably just our little group. Tack on the reporters only when they feel like reading, let alone replying. Numbers only go up when Drudge links to Joe. Sheesh, no wonder the reporters keep pushing dead-tree subscriptions on us. Milk the base. If they’d sell O’Donnell solo videos they’d be rolling in dough and can give the reporters raises (or pay ‘em per replies to our comments; that’ll drive up the thread count / ad dollars).

  • kevin

    And with intelligence, too.

  • gingerpye

    apr, I heard Matthews that night, too. I was incredulous that he would make such a stupid assertion about women who voted for Hillary now voting for O’Donnell. He is such a clown. I think he just likes to hear himself talk no matter what inanities he’s spouting.

  • sacredh

    I’d guessed about 50-60 regulars and maybe a few times that in lurkers.

  • grape_crush

    From 2006, but it probably still holds somewhat true.
    .
    http://www.useit.com/alertbox/participation_inequality.html
    .
    Nutshell: “In most online communities, 90% of users are lurkers who never contribute, 9% of users contribute a little, and 1% of users account for almost all the action.”
    .
    So…using your guess at 50 regulars (I’d go lower)…50 regulars, 450 irregulars, and 4500 lurkers.

  • Paul-no not that one

    12, give or take 5.

  • Paul-no not that one

    141 with a bullet! (going the other way)
    .
    http://technorati.com/search?return=sites&authority=all&q=swampland&x=11&y=10
    .
    Used to be higher a couple of years ago. Maybe because of the election, maybe because of KT.

  • grape_crush

    And then we have to talk about visits and page views, which I can’t begin to guess at for Swampland.
    .
    I can give you an idea for a different site, ‘tho…
    .
    http://www.sitemeter.com/?a=stats&s=s18washingtonmonthly
    .
    But that site is structured differently, and I don’t quite know how those visitor and view numbers are calculated.

  • carotexas1

    I thought Warren handled her position on Tarp very well. When she had roadblocks from Treasury she hit the cable talk shows .

  • sacredh

    I was thinking of a regular as someone that posts at least 5 comments a week. I used to belong to a local website with maybe 40 regulars. Threads about a new redlight would drive me nuts. I’d post a politically oriented thread (yes, we chose the topics) and I’d get one or two comments and a fllurry of “who gives a sh!t?”.

  • sacredh

    Lurkers, come out and join us. You don’t have to worry about us singling you out and being mean. We’re mean to everyone. You can’t be any more messed up than we are.

  • doddeb

    Sacredh,
    Thanks for the invite, I’ve been doing a lot of lurking lately. Taking on a new programming language at work, and that doesn’t leave me a lot of leftover energy/brain cells, for witty repartee. I’ve enjoyed the Swamp lately though. You guys are mighty entertaining and informative for a bunch of “sordid idiots”.
    *
    Not sure how I feel about Elizabeth Warren’s new title. Not particularly happy about the explanation that the administration didn’t want to expend political capital (if true); repealing DADT is important, but so is consumer advocacy. I guess time will tell.
    *
    Also adding my voice to the kudos for Rachel Maddow. She’s been doing great reporting on the Koch brothers and Tea Party funding for some time.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    I guess I’m one of the lurkers. I try to read the swamp daily, but my posting is erratic at best.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Rachel is the best there is. I’m always at a loss whenever I miss her show.

  • sacredh

    You’re welcome. I don’t think it’s witty repartee though. I have the feeling that’s it’s just the way we talk in real life too. This place is entertaining and I learn more from here than from the opinionated crap they try to pass off as news on the tube. I watch movies and a couple of shows but that’s about it. True Blood is my favorite and I recently read the books. It’s hard to believe but the show is much better than the books.

  • doddeb

    Erieangel,
    I concur. She has a blog, maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com. I believe you can watch the show there, if you missed it. I normally catch the 11:00 EST replay, which is now being moved to 12 due to Lawrence O’Donnell’s new show (yuck).

  • doddeb

    Sacredh,
    I agree, I always learn from the posters here. Don’t know what I’d do without grape_crush’s “what did I miss” morning recap (thanks, grape!), for example. I’m not a fan of TV news, either. That’s why Rachel Maddow is such a breath of fresh air.
    *
    As for True Blood, I didn’t start watching that when it came on HBO. Is it one of the series, that builds from episode to episode? Can I jump in at any time or did I need to be there from the start? It’s been intriuging me but I didn’t have time for it last year. To give you some context, I’m still in mourning that they cancelled The Wire and Rome.

  • kbanginmotown

    Hey Foghorn, we need your expert opinion:
    .
    You’ve alerted us to the fact the God kills a kitten every time there’s a Palin post. I surmised that a puppy bites the dust with each Beck post.
    .
    Today, Thursday (for heaven’s sake!), we’ve been treated to 2 O’Donnell posts; 4 since Tuesday’s primary.
    .
    Q: Which furry little friend is going to be decimated during the next 2 months of COD blather?
    .

  • sacredh

    doddeb, it’s a continuous story. You really need to watch it from the first episode. It just builds from episode to episode. I think it has improved in each of it’s three seasons. I’ve read some things about how it’s an analogy about gay rights or race. It might be, but it’s also a well written semi-trashy thrill ride. The sex and gore doesn’t hurt either. I haven’t enjoyed a series this much since the Sopranos.

  • http://erieangel.wordpress.com erieangel

    Yeah, I know I can catch Rachel online, but usually when I’m so busy (or tired) that I miss it, I don’t have time to view online either. I’m currently working 2 jobs, am beginning a project at the full time job to start a new recovery program, and my mother is in ill health. In fact she is going into surgery tomorrow and… well, we’ll see what happens.

  • sacredh

    My best wishes to you and your mother erieangel. Good luck.

  • doddeb

    I hear you, erieangel. There are not enough hours in the day to attend to everything that’s important. My mom is 82, so I can relate. This spring/summer has been all about hospital stays and working with various doctors to try and figure out what to do about her health problems. I hope and pray everything turns out well for your mother tomorrow. Hang in there and take care of yourself.

  • hippooath

    The monkey. Yeah – every O’Donnell posts will choaking a monkey. Look no further than textee and New to show how. I mean obviously – the only – the great qualifier seems to be just how darn purdy she is. Not so much ideas.

  • hippooath

    Look how they said the female voters were the natural lock for Sarah during the election feeling snubbed that their candidate (Clinton) lost the primary. I love pundits, so absolutely wrong about everything. Maddow never was and never will be a pundit. She’s sharp straight through and the only thing RWers get right about her is that she’s a lesbian.

  • grape_crush

    Q: Which furry little friend is going to be decimated during the next 2 months of COD blather?
    .
    With every CO’D post a chicken gets choked…that, or a monkey gets spanked.

  • http://liuwanglin.wordpress.com liuwanglin

    welcome to our website === w w w (Lttsy )- c o m === ..The new update, a large hot ..
    WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT.
    YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!!!

  • Cliff

    Nonsense. You know we liberals only care about purely political maneuvers.
    .
    It’s right there in the contract with George Soros that we all have to sign in our own blood.

  • Cliff

    Man, f@ck Dodd.
    .
    I don’t know why his role in opposing Warren’s nomination hasn’t gotten more comment.
    .
    Can we all agree that he’s been appointed Master Hand Job Giver to the banks?

  • apr2563

    I just want to know what he is getting out of his opposition. He said he will not go into lobbying but that doesn’t mean he won’t be sitting on some pretty big financial interest boards.

  • apr2563

    No offense to anyone with tourettes but Matthews seems to have a version of tourettes. He blurts out the most stupid opinions and rarely backs off. He is the only evening host on MSNBC that still has Pat Buchanan on his show. That is really embarrassing.

  • apr2563

    There is something about Swampland that I find comfortable. Being retired and house bound, I have lots of time on my hands. There are about 8 sites I read everyday (plus my comics). However, this is the only one I comment on daily. The others I simply lurk and never comment or rarely do.
    I enjoy the diversity of opinions here. The rw is always entertaining and I like that even those who are in general agreement can have differences at times. And, I actually learn things, usually from the commentators.

  • apr2563

    erie: You have a lot on your plate. Hope your mother does well.

  • youminxia

    Hey there, I find an amazing web, wvvvv. item sell out . C(o)m. Most importantly, it is very cheap and FREE shipping cost. Anyone joins me at wvv. item sell out . C(o)m
    [n i k e ] [ j o r d a n ] [s u p r a ] [S h o x ] [P u m a ] PRICE 35 U S D
    [l v ] [c o a c h ] [p r a d a ] [c h a n e l] [g u c c i] [ h a n d-b a g] 33U S D
    [c h a n e l] [g u c c i] (p u r s e) 15U S D
    [D & G] s u n g l a s s e s U S D
    (new e-r-a c-a-p) 10 U S D

    p a y p a l (Accept),Door to Door

  • apr2563

    erie: I want to add that I am sure your mother appreciates your attention and concern. When my parents became elderly it was important that I was there for them as they had been for me all my life.
    Now that I am older, I am so grateful that my son is there for me.

  • 53_3
  • 53_3

    It looks like the High Sherrifs are getting wise. Just straight up ban those two and as soon as more pop up, ban them too!
    .
    They are the ultimate blogwhores…

  • bobell

    @sacredh (re 10.7) –
    .
    It’s a classic law of bureaucracy that the time spent on a given issue is inversely proportional to the square of its importance. The same board of directors that devotes 30 seconds to the CEO’s compensation package will turn around and discuss lunch plans for 15 minutes. The problem is that on the simpler topics everyone knows something and has some sort of opinion. Regression analysis is tough, but anyone can discuss which carryout has the best corned beef. Similarly, it’s hard to post about politics when you know almost nothing about it (not that that impedes many of Swampland’s most frequent contributors, but this place is an exception to all rules), but we all know about that new traffic sign that bars the left turn into the parking garage that we’ve been making all our lives.
    .
    I do recall seeing reports of studies that support the reports here of the ratio of lurkers to occasional posters to regulars. I think of myself as in the “occasional poster” category. There’s something about the true Swampland regular that I feel lacking in myself, posting frequency aside. {Church Lady voice} — “Could it be … CERTITUDE?”
    .
    Very OT — KT has popped up on the WashPost front page yesterday and today. She’s burning up the place. If only they’d give her a blog …

  • nflfoghorn

    My bad for the late response. I say poodles – what say ye?

  • 3xfire3

    “Rachel is the best there is. I’m always at a loss whenever I miss her show.”
    .
    It’s amazing how one’s political views filters their opinions to the point they believe their opinions are truth and facts.
    .
    Conservatives see Rachel as a Partisan-Ideologue who will lie and take comments out of context to push her Liberal agenda.
    .
    Rachel is to Conservatives what Glenn Beck is to Liberals.
    .
    It appears her only audience is liberals. That’s why her’s viewers are 1/2 to 1/3 the number of Beck’s.

  • nflfoghorn

    What’s all the shoutin’ about Republican women being cute? :)

  • bokeh9

    This will likely be lost in the list, but just to confirm there is more, maybe much more, than meets the eye, I’ve been a wall-to-wall several-times-a-day reader since the pre-AMC days. I posted a little during the HCR “debate” but am mostly interested in learning rather than lecturing. I’ve really absorbed a lot from the ongoing “third-way” discussion (HT, SZ). So thanks so much to you guys.

  • afguy

    Conservatives see Rachel as a Partisan-Ideologue who will lie and take comments out of context to push her Liberal agenda.
    .
    Rachel is to Conservatives what Glenn Beck is to Liberals.

    .
    What are you saying, 3x? That Glenn may lie and take comments out of context to push his right wing agenda? Or that liberals may believe that about Glenn but it’s not true, proof to the contrary?
    .
    Careful what you say there… what’s sauce for the goose and all that…

  • afguy

    As for viewership numbers, I believe a number of us have revealed that MSNBC has been moved from the Basic to a Premium package by Comcast and other cable providers, while leaving Fox News available for viewing with a Basic subscription.
    .
    That might tend to skew the numbers, dontcha think?
    .
    My family doesn’t subscribe to anything beyond Basic – the cable service is absolutely horrible in that, like the knock against Dish Network, when the wind blows or it rains, the cable goes out.

  • shepherdwong

    Li’l’ Luke was asked a direct question today about tax cuts for millionaires: “how do we pay for them?” His answer: “politically the Democrats, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda… They are pathologically incapable of grokking actual practical reasons behind policy decisions. They simply can’t relate to liberals or liberal thinking.

  • shepherdwong

    And to think, he was my pick for ’08. Now I know how Edwards supporters must feel.

  • apr2563

    As an Edward’s supporter, I blush.

  • 3xfire3

    I think the other night O’Rielly had an audience size of a little over 4,000,000. MSNBC in the same time slot had 15 viewers.

  • 3xfire3

    afguy,
    .
    You’re a piece of work.
    .
    “As for viewership numbers, I believe a number of us have revealed that MSNBC has been moved from the Basic to a Premium package by Comcast and other cable providers, while leaving Fox News available for viewing with a Basic subscription.”
    .
    I do a lot of traveling around the country. A benefit of being retired.
    .
    From my home in Ohio to my where I spend the winter in Florida to hotels across the country, I almost always find FOX News and MSNBC on the local TV usually one number apart.
    .
    But Afguy if it makes you feel better to use this false excuse as to why almost no one watches your beloved Liberal TV channel then be my guest.
    .

  • shibha

    Regular lurker here. 14 or so of you guys make so much noise , no other voice will be heard…..

    Just kidding of course. Like someone said I learn from commentators as much as I learn from the bloggers. I rarely have anything to add by the time I get to the posting.

  • sacredh

    I heard that! I was a lurker too. It’s more fun to engage. shibha, there’s always more to add to the conversation. Everyone’s take on a subject is a little different. Speaking only for myself of course, I couldn’t count the number of times that some seemingly minor point of a person’s view has made me think of a whole new argument. Join in more often.

  • sacredh

    “I think the other night O’Rielly had an audience size of a little over 4,000,000. MSNBC in the same time slot had 15 viewers.”
    .
    LOL. Yes, but there were more intelligent people among our 15 than there was in your 4,000,000.

  • piper1

    I’ve been following Swampland since I believe pre-midterms in 2006. I used to post more regularly, especially in the pre-Obama era, but only put my 2 cents in on a few topics that don’t generally see my point of view aired otherwise (Social Security, progressive taxation, the ridiculous conflation of cutting taxes on the most fortunate in society regardless of the situation with equalling “fiscal responsibility”), or to correct errors of fact (like Mr. Sartor I’m assuming innocently accusing Jerry Garcia of being a registered Republican).
    .
    Day in and day out I imagine what it would be like if sociopaths like Rusty/ Freeper (notice how often those two respond to comments addressed to the other one as if they were responding to something directed at the their own screename?) could have the honesty and integrity to actually respond to actual facts and actual points instead of the usual “haha you libtards are so much worse blah blah than x,” or “libtards hate freedom and America and love Osama Bin Laden” or just a pure ignoring of the facts at hand in favor of a flailing handwaving in desperation to change the topic to some other bit of fact-free idiocy.
    .
    I mean, just today, Freeper actually explicitly stated that removing $800 billion in government revenue via upper income tax cuts does not lead to deficits, only spending does. How, seriously, can anyone counter a statement so preposterously stupid? Pointless. And since these obnoxious fools lack any sort of honesty (intellectual or otherwise) and have apparently created a wall so high around them that reality is impervious to it, what is the point?
    .
    Anyway, I do enjoy the contributions of the regulars, and appreciate that they largely do the heavy lifting of rebutting the real Grade A bulls%&t. My main complaint with Swampland is that the comments are not readable via a mobile phone, from where I do most of my blog reading, and thus I can’t enjoy Swampland while on the go, and frankly, without the comments to put the Villagers in their place, I find most of the conventional wisdom masquerading as fact presented by the paid contributors here to be nearly unreadable. Today’s Exhibit A: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2010/09/17/pelosis-choice/#comments

  • maverick2k9

    3xfire, I listen/watch Rachel Maddow show via her podcast on iTunes.
    -
    TeeVee is so 19th century. No wonder O’Really gets 4m viewers – I think most wingnuts are nostalgic about the past (Jim crow laws and all) and are stuck in a time warp, along with their silly costumes.

blog comments powered by Disqus