« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Unnamed GOP Senator Blocking Appointment Of Key Bailout Overseer
Here's an interesting nugget in Congress's response to the financial crisis that hasn't received as much attention as it deserves.
Earlier this month, the Bush administration nominated Neil Barofsky, a federal prosecutor, to be the Treasury Department's special inspector general on the bailout program. That's a crucial post, given the astronomical sums at issue, the broad authority that Treasury has been given to distribute them, the concerns that have been raised about possible conflicts of interest, and the general urgency of our efforts to prevent an economic collapse.
So you'd think Congress would be doing everything it could to get Barofsky confirmed right away. You'd be wrong.
Last week, Sen. Chris Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat who chairs the banking committee, issued a little-noticed statement saying that although the nomination "was cleared by members of the Senate Banking Committee, the leadership of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and all Democratic Senators," it was "blocked on the floor by at least one Republican member." (itals ours.)
Senate rules allow any senator to anonymously block a vote on confirmation to any federal post, for any reason.
The rationale for the move remains unclear. But a Washington Post story from a few days before Dodd's statement offers two suggestions. It notes that Barofsky supported Barack Obama, and describes an unresolved "battle between the Finance and Banking committees over which has jurisdiction over the confirmation process."
Blocking an urgent nomination because the nominee, like 52 percent of voters, supported Obama seems petty even by contemporary GOP standards. But a congressional turf war over jurisdiction seems only slightly less so. So either of these two explanations would be a pretty damning indictment of Congress's response to the crisis.
We'll keep you posted as we dig into this...
Josh
Zachary
Shouldn't that be "congressional Republicans' response to the crisis"?
November 28, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Solve the problem: Convene a joint meeting with both Banking and Finance committee members in one room to confirm the nominee.
Thank you.
November 28, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
This rule should killed. It does not appear to serve any useful purpose. If killing is too harsh, maybe an amendment requiring that the blocker be identified would be in order. Also, a further amendment limiting the number of appointments one senator could block would also be useful.
The idea that the new administration could be hamstrung by one unidentified senator is patently ridiculous.
November 28, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed...why the secrecy? Such an important stand as one person blocking the legislation or the confirmation over a majority should not be anonymous nor should the reason for taking such an action. How can the senate justify this policy? It IS the people's business.
November 28, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I second everything you suggest! It is not reasonable that we not be informed as to which member of the Congress that works for us, that we voted for, is responsible for this sort of obstructionism.
November 28, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Senate rules allow any senator to anonymously block a vote on confirmation to any federal post, for any reason."
Could someone explain to me why a rule like this is a good thing?
November 28, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
""Senate rules allow any senator to anonymously block a vote on confirmation to any federal post, for any reason."
Could someone explain to me why a rule like this is a good thing?"
This is not helpful but the short answer is: no, they can't.
November 28, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Could someone explain why the Democratic Senators did not use this technique for the past 8 years! And if they could not how is it that the means of stopping them cannot be used in reverse as well.
November 29, 2008 8:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's time for a little transparency in the Senate. If the blocking move is to be used, the Senators should be required to identify themselves and provide a 400 to 500 word justification for the holds. Those explanations can and should be interesting to any opponents in the next election.
If reasons are valid, fine. If they are petty and/or stupid, ridicule from all quarters is earned.
November 28, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the dumbest rules I've ever heard. The one blocking should have to identify themself - transparency is the major way to bring about more confidence in government. This type of stuff just makes us more cynical about government's ability to get anything done.
-- Cris
My site: Obama Wallpaper Archive
November 28, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just another avid illustration that these die-hard Republicans are continuing to do anything they can to slow the wheels of progress. It really makes you wonder if the next congress will have any success despite our gaining numbers in representation. These Republicans are determined to create failure for Obama. First because he is Democratic by party but moreso because he is black. Unstated out of courtesy but evident in their actions.
November 28, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the senate were to vote on any of the suggested changes to this rule, I wonder which way Lieberman would vote.
November 28, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Senate rules are indeed curious. The 60-vote requirement is another beast that was made up as the Senate proceeded apace. We all recall the outrage that Sen Frist would dispense with it.
The word that disconnects the Senate from the year 2008 is "anonymous." It no longer sells.
Of course, I would prefer the Senate to focus on discharging its equal responsibility under the Constitution, including visceral oversight. A Senate subpoena used to scare the shit out of folks.
Now, it papers the floor of the birdcage that is become the Senate.
A return to Statesmanship is called for. Criminal investigations into the current criminal enterprise posing as a presidency are likewise called for. Both are needed, beginning 12:01pm 1/20/09.
Pax,
M.
November 28, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is just another indication that Republicans care less about our country in this time of terrible financial problems. First they preside over the worst years of financial problems, then Democrats gain control of both houses and Republicans continue to make these sort of mindless decisions that puts their little whines before the good of their country. And then they wonder why even Republicans like me voted for a Democratic President, House member and Senator. Guess they will never learn unless we kick them all out for a number of years. When you cannot hold the members seats of your own party, seems you ought not to be rocking the boat like this. And remember, Bush is still their President.
November 29, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
SPEND MORE BORROWED FUNDS?
Sure, that should do it.
We have created monsters in the form of omnipotent economists. They are not what they seem.
โจEconomists, Our New Philosopher Kings?... http://pacificgatepost.blogspot.com/2008/11/economists-our-new-philosopher-kings.html
โจPerhaps society has simply overplayed them.
November 28, 2008 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
If it is anonymous then how does the senate committee actually know someone is blocking it. Someone must know who and for what reason this confirmation is being blocked and his initials are Harry Reid. You know what that means....either a "not nice to do" letter or a pout of "I'm deeply disappointed and I told them so".
Another tribute from republicans to the hypocrisy of their "Country First" motto. "Hell with the country. Who do I have to blow to get a drink around here". Republicans...you can't live with 'em and you sure as hell can't govern with 'em.
November 28, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. Someone obviously knows who blocked it, or it wouldn't be POSSIBLE to block it. So what would happen if that person who knows grew a pair and announced who it was? What then?
What kind of 'rule' is this? Is it a law (highly unlikely) or just custom? We're getting CHANGE in the White House, so isn't it about time to demand that from Senate Democrats, too?
November 28, 2008 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Constitution basically says each chamber gets to make its own rules. So, obviously, each chamber gets to change its own rules. They're not laws in the sense that bills passed by both chambers and signed by the president are laws.
November 29, 2008 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Senate rules allow any senator to anonymously block a vote on confirmation to any federal post, for any reason. "
That makes no sense. How does ANYONE get appointed at all?? How often has this rule been invoked over the years?
November 28, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
And slurping around the pork barrel with his ties to the Hedge Funds and Clintonian deregulation is the inescapable Larry Summers. How do we get rid of these people once and for all?
November 28, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no such rule. There is a procedure by which one can block a vote and it is honored because of sentate tradition. However, remember what happened when Dodd put a hold on the FISA bill? It was ignored. All of these holds can be ignored if the Senate wants to go ahead on the measure. The only thing holding the Senate back is it's own tradition.
November 28, 2008 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That rule; ""Senate rules allow any senator to anonymously block a vote on confirmation to any federal post, for any reason. ", is by far the stupidest rule ever invented in the senate. It goes against the very reason for the existence of the senate to begin with by allowing such a loophole to legislating.
I am curious to know how and why it came into existence. What could possibly the justification or rationale for such a ridiculous rule?? Anyone??
November 28, 2008 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a way to maneuver your way around this. But no maneuvering can be accomplished until January 3rd. That is why you cannot blame the Deocrats for the last two years. The "Media" (whatever the hell that is) will go on a rant about a Do-Nothing Congress.
I think those days will be over in 53 days.
November 28, 2008 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which Senator is currently doing battle against Federal Prosecutors? Maybe it is a recently convicted Senator who is whining about the prosecutors who convicted him.
November 28, 2008 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The reason for rules like this is that the Constitution specifically gives Congress the right to set its own rules. See:
Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.
Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member.
Each Congress has every right to change any of the rules they wish at any time. In fact the first act of every Congress has to be approval of their rules, which includes the committee structure.
November 28, 2008 10:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I call BS. Sometimes the situation is too important to deal with to put up with this sort of game-playing. Why don't they just do it and make this person stand up and be the jerk they are. Reid needs to get it together and deal with these games. Tradition is one thing but blocking important work seems unacceptable.
November 29, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Democrats have got to go on the Sunday talk shows and wherever they can get to a mike and let the public know about these childish games the Republicans have been playing. I've been watching this nonsense on C-Span for years and it drives me crazy.
Please do keep us posted re this. I think the rules need to be changed -- no more super secret holds. If a Senator was to put a hold on a bill, he/she should put his/her name on it.
November 29, 2008 2:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems that the Republicans since losing their majority have become the party of petty losers. They've blocked legislation and bragged about keeping the Democrats from accomplishing anything. They should be ashamed of themselves. They certainly aren't doing this for the good of their constituents. It's just disgusting that one man can be so petty and mean spirited. Why would the Senate keep a rule that would give a minority of one man power over the entire Senate? When the Republicans were in power they threatened to do away with the minority party's right to fillabuster. How hard would it be for the Democrats to do away with this stupid rule. It certainly doesn't seem to have a purpose. If the Democrats really want to do something then they have to start getting as tough as the Republicans were. They don't have to be dirty or unfair but they do have to take a page from the GOP rule book. Changing or deleting this rule would stop some of the obstructionism coming from those greasy toe rag Rebulicans who are so obsessed with keeping the Democrats "in their place" that they can't see the harm they are doing to the citizens of this country, including their constituents. Why would anyone consistently vote for these losers when they clearly don't care about those who put them in office. All they care about is their own agendas and wallets.
November 29, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"If the Democrats really want to do something ...
HA!!
The Democrats are spineless and choose to live in fear of Republican criticism. They will do no more than the Republicans let them.
The current day's news of Cabinet appointments only underscores this fact if you just take your blinders off. Don't expect change, expect more of the same. This is a monumental opportunity being squandered in the name of bipartisanship.
December 1, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmmmm..... Maybe Senate Dems could give this intransigent Republican a committee to chair.
November 30, 2008 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Anonymous holds only work temporarily. It's time for us to bring pressure to bear on our senators to release this senator's name and or get the perp to fess up. Let the holder explain himself and let the senate vote on the nominee. I doubt he'll find much support for his position among his constituents.
November 30, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink