Timothy Benton | Feb 10, 2019 | 0
The Swamp is Fighting Back
What the Fight Is Over
In what is a fight of ideologies we see a holdover from the Obama era stepping down from his seat as Secretary of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), we then saw Trump appoint the person he wanted to in charge of the agency, but we also saw the Deputy Secretary was also appointed to the seat by the acting secretary prior to leaving, who also happens to be an Obama appointee say, “Not so fast, this is my seat!”
Now, why would such a small thing as CFPB be a big thing for us? The answer is rather simple; first, it is a fight over what power the government should have. Second, it is a power over whom controls this agency. Finally, it is another attempt by the left to try to restrict the power of President Trump. Let me explain.
When Congress set up this agency, they put our friend Elizebeth Warran, or ‘Pocahontas’, as Trump is so fond of calling her, in charge of setting up the agency. Congress, which at the time had a super majority in both houses, set the agency up so it was untouchable by Congress, thus if a further down the road a president was elected that did not share the ideology with the left, they would find obstacles in the path if they tried to reign in CFPB.
What is scary about this is an unconstitutional way they handed power to this agency, they basically made it an agency with its own power that is not answerable to anyone, even to Congress. They could issue regulations, make new rules about how to hand out loans, cause credit unions or banks to shut down, all with no congressional oversight. We have since then seen the institution which is full of Obama appointees with little or no experience in manufacturing or business, (they, for the most part, were academic’s that were put in power in the agency, they were running the agency with liberal ideology), ruling the agency as their own fiefdom answerable to no one.
On November 24, Richard Cordray (left), its first director, announced his resignation from the CFPB and appointed his chief of staff, Leandra English, to serve in his stead as Deputy Director of the CFPB. President Trump, in turn, appointed Mick Mulvaney, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to serve as Interim Director of the CFPB until the Senate can confirm a new replacement. Both Mulvaney and English claim that they are the legitimate interim director of the CFPB, yet only one of them can hold that post.
We saw the conflict grow further when English told all the staff she was in charge, then Mulvaney came, set up his place has to head of the agency, sent a memo to everyone to disregard any memo coming from English, she was not the person in charge. English for her part then went to courts and immediately filed a case to stop Trump’s appointee, the problem comes with the conflict in the law, you have two different laws, one by the Constitution that states on the President have the right to put people in charge of an agency, if he is waiting for a confirmation, it is his right to place someone in charge until the appointee is confirmed.
Why was the agency set up?
The agency was set up by the Democrats in answer to the Home Loan Bubble Collapse in 2008, later followed by the Foreclosure Crises in 2010, this sent the US economy, one already dealing with a war and all else, it was on shaky grounds to start with, they were finally recovering from the High Tech Bubble Burst prior to Bush taking office, then 9/11, the economy was on shaky ground.
Of course, rather than see that the housing price index drop was caused by democrat meddling, the DNC decided that was not enough, so they set up the CFPB to protect Americans against such unscrupulous lenders and manufactures (the fact that they were created by them never dawned on them). They want to do so in a way that Congress could not meddle or interfere with the operations of the group, thereby they set up an agency that had no funding provided by the Congress, CFPB receives all its funding from the treasury, not through congressional appropriations, thus they were untouchable if they acted in a way that was inappropriate.
And here lies the problem. By setting up an agency that is not dependent on Congress for funding, as is every agency in the US, the CFPB is thereby not dependent on them for their funding, so the threat of withholding funding or controlling it is stripped from Congress, in a democracy this should not be possible, due to our constitution which says in Section 1, article 7 that only the Congress has this right. And this is why we have a constitutional crisis, both due to the right of appointment of successor, does the President have this right as is stated in the constitution (Article 2, Section 2, number 2), so either the Congress has the right, which is contrary to what the constitution states, or it is the president that has this right.
What Hopefully Will Be the Outcome
I personally think this has little to do with the actual office, what this is doing is bringing this in front of the courts, if they are going to look at the legality of whom has the right to appoint who is in charge, they have to look at the way the liberal congress at the time set up the agency, this was in a way that is not in agreement with the constitution, the courts then will have to rule on if the way the agency was set up is legal, and if not, then the whole question of whom is in charge will not matter, they will have to shut it down.
While I agree that it is a good thing to have such oversight, I don’t like the idea of any government entity having unchallenged power, they right to act in a way that is not overseen by our elected officials, that is the way our constitution is set up. We have a choice, either we will be dictated by what the left sees as a moral right of theirs to dictate to us how to live, control our lives and to engage in commerce, or will stay under the guidance of the constitution, finding that no ideology has the moral or legal right to supersede the law of the land.