George Bush has consistently gone beyond his legal and constitutional authority and it appears this is still another way John McCain would like to be President McBush:
At a joint rally in Cedar Rapids, Iowa Thursday, Republican John McCain slammed the Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) for being "asleep at the switch" saying that if he were president, he would fire Chris Cox, the chairman of the SEC since 2005 and a former Republican congressman.McCain said the SEC has allowed trading practices such as short selling to stay in place that turned the "markets into a casino."
"The regulators were asleep, my friends," McCain said. "The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the president. And in my view has betrayed the public trust. If I were president today, I would fire him."
But while the president nominates and the Senate confirms the SEC chair, a commissioner of an independent regulatory commission cannot be removed by the president.
From time to time, presidents have attempted to remove commissioners who have proven "uncooperative." However, the courts have general upheld the independence of commissioners. In 1935, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt fired a member of the Federal Trade Commission and the Supreme Court ruled the president acted unconstitutionally. (ABC News)
As the McCain campaign later acknowledged (without admitting McCain was talking through his hat when saying he could fire Cox), the most a President could do is ask for a resignation, which does not have to be tendered. In 2002 the SEC Chairman did resign when Bush indicated he no longer had his confidence, but the Chairman, Harvey Pitt, had more problems than the lack of Bush's support. For the record, the White House said "the chairman has the president's support."
So McCain is another Bush in wanting to do something unconstitutional, just not the specific unconstitutional thing he wants (intends?) to do.
The Democratic response is no surprise:
"This is very typical McCain-style politics: go after the first person you can to divert attention from your failures," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told a news conference Thursday.
[snip]
"At long last we've discovered the details of the McCain economic plan: fire a regulator you don't have the authority to dismiss, appoint a commission to study what we already know, sit back and hope things get better," House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (D., Ill.) said in a statement.
And there was this from his presidential rival, Sen. Barack Obama: "Well I think that's all fine and good," the Illinois senator said at a campaign stop in Espanola, N.M. "But here's what I say: in 47 days, you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other-way crowd...Don't get rid of just one guy, get rid of this administration." (Wall Street Journal)
OK. You expect the Democrats to say things like this. But when the Wall Street Journal Editorial page is even harsher, accusing McCain of scapegoating Cox for purely political purposes, then you know you are really out to lunch:
To give readers a flavor of Mr. McCain untethered, we'll quote at length: "Mismanagement and greed became the operating standard while regulators were asleep at the switch. The primary regulator of Wall Street, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) kept in place trading rules that let speculators and hedge funds turn our markets into a casino. They allowed naked short selling -- which simply means that you can sell stock without ever owning it. They eliminated last year the uptick rule that has protected investors for 70 years. Speculators pounded the shares of even good companies into the ground.
"The chairman of the SEC serves at the appointment of the President and has betrayed the public's trust. If I were President today, I would fire him."
Wow. "Betrayed the public's trust." Was Mr. Cox dishonest? No. He merely changed some minor rules, and didn't change others, on short-selling. String him up! Mr. McCain clearly wants to distance himself from the Bush Administration. But this assault on Mr. Cox is both false and deeply unfair. It's also un-Presidential. (Wall Street Journal)
Wow, is right. The WSJ hates Democrats and hates Obama. But they think McCain is even worse:
In a crisis, voters want steady, calm leadership, not easy, misleading answers that will do nothing to help. Mr. McCain is sounding like a candidate searching for a political foil rather than a genuine solution.
The WSJ thinks a hard right Republican is hysterical and opportunist! Welcome to the Reality Based World.
- Log in to post comments
Come on Revere... You know that when a President wants an appointees resignation the guy 99.9% of the time goes out the door. Firing an appointee is generally a guaranteed departure.
But occasionally, the system balks....
Nixon....
But if you think that Obama is going to bring stability to the markets you are probably right.... Just about the time they reach 8000 as they did with another great Democrat....Jimmy Carter. Billions in new spending and well there is the bailout of Wall Street...Which McCain and I fully support NOT doing.
Everyone went into the casino and the signs were there, gamble at your own risk. I for one dont want taxpayers money bailing out any of these brokerages or banks. None of the management was hurt in the slightest. One got 161 million just to leave! Fannie and Freddies Prez's got in the tens...to screw up!
I have a better idea and that is to put the governance of the corporations squarely on the heads of the people in charge. Anyone stupid enough to vote these guys this kind of money needs to understand that there are other things in play... It turns into a mutual masturbation session. These corporations buy the stock for these individuals who run it up and then, when its at the height they sell and leave. How does it get to those heights? Exporting jobs out of the country, laying people off. No overhead and the stock soars on the fundamentals, then whatever service or product they were selling goes to crap and bingo, as fast as it goes up it goes down.
Me, I would make it a proviso that if a guy leaves and the leaving would suddenly tank the stock by the numbers, they get 1/4th of what they were supposed to and the rest goes to the stockholders.
But, Obama is going to have to go a long way to convince Wall Street that he is the man for the job. If anything he is the worst choice... Hillary would be my pick for this particular item.
Cox was warned four months ago that the short selling was the straw that broke the camels back after Schumer opened his mouth about a certain California bank. Had it been restricted then this mess might not have started or it would have been a more controlled let down. I for one dont blame people for making mistakes, but there has to be accountability. It happened on his watch and he should resign at the earliest opportunity.
Randy: This is not just a Presidential appointment. This is an appointment to an independent commission. Independent. It means the President doesn't get to ask him to resign except for cause. If you disagree, tell it to the Wall Street Journal. You know, owned by the same guy who owns Fox News?
Billions in new spending
"Conservative" Bush Spends More than "Liberal" Presidents Clinton, Carter
IIRC, Bush has spent more than any president since LBJ. I see no obvious reason to believe that spending would increase under Obama. Or that it could, for that matter.
I don't know diddly about the stock market but it sounds to me like the thinking person would be betting on values going down. If I were a player, then I'd probably want to be selling short. Oh, what's that, Mr. President? You say that's now illegal too? Hmph. Free Market, my arse.
Well now that would be Phila wouldnt it? The Congress spends the money Phila. Basic US government law and how government works.
Matt...they should have put in the short sell rule when it was very apparent that certain people were trying to game the market. Send the price of oil thru the roof, the stock market tanks.... Bet on the short.
Amazing how it bounced back so quickly now isnt it? Hmmmmm.....
And you are wrong Revere, he can ask for Cox to resign anytime he wants. But...that didnt happen. When the markets started to crumble a couple of months ago he was told that it was going to happen..... So the SEC didnt act and look what we got. Amazing.......
Blame game? Start with the oversight by the Congress who also were warned. When the bubble burst they should have been all over the markets so that they didnt go too. No intervention, certainly no interest rate drop... I doubt it was orchestrated to a high degree, but enough. I would check and see who MADE money the last two days and see if they were involved in oil futures trading. Created situation? Time for subpoena or two...
The article you cite Phila is 5 years old. But here is an excerpt....And they should still be abolished if for no other reasons than shown. Hey here is an idea...get rid of the Dept of Education and Labor too and let the states run their own shows. We could wipe out at least 445 billion in overhead for those people who do nothing but shuffle paper.....
"But the real truth is that national defense is far from being responsible for all of the spending increases. According to the new numbers, defense spending will have risen by about 34 percent since Bush came into office. But, at the same time, non-defense discretionary spending will have skyrocketed by almost 28 percent. Government agencies that Republicans were calling to be abolished less than 10 years ago, such as education and labor, have enjoyed jaw-dropping spending increases under Bush of 70 percent and 65 percent respectively."
Crap this should have made Revere happy..... and you.
Revere... here is something you should read. More like alienated a reporter... Just like you said.
http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/09/murdoch-obamas.html
Keep 'em coming folks. Anti liberal exercises.... kind of like a stretch in the morning.
Nah, it's the FEC that runs Wall Street per McCain. Poor man, must have run out of Aricept on the campaign.
Kruger,
All your handwaving ignores my question: What makes you think that there will be "billions in new spending" under Obama?
Seriously...if you could just once stick to the goddamn point, I'd really appreciate it.
Crap this should have made Revere happy..... and you.
Posted by: M. Randolph Kruger | September 19, 2008 6:47 PM
It's really not that simple, I'm afraid, even before you get into the nuts and bolts of Cato's claims.
Here's an analogy that you might possibly understand. If you want a strong military, do you look at the amount of money allocated to the Pentagon, or at who the money goes to, what it buys, and how well it works in the field?
The latter, of course. And whether you're talking about education or the military, what we see is under Bush is a massive waste of taxpayer dollars, driven by ideology and crony capitalism. A rational, honest president would've done more -- on both these fronts -- with less money.
Oh I dont know about that Phila.... When Carter was president I can distinctly remember F-4's that were without parts, no money for training sorties, and three ejections because the engines quit on F-16's. Seems they couldnt afford bearing changes on the engines. Hey how about those three airmen who died in the canal when the front tire blew from wear?
But they could and did afford to increase the welfare rolls by 25%. Might be because the unemployment rate went to just about 9%, but dont forget the 21% interest rate because inflation was out of control. That kind of put the markets in the stinko too. So he gutted the miltary to try to cover the difference. He also imposed as Obama says a new tax to create the Energy Dept. Still waiting on the energy.....We still have the tax. Be sure to voice your support for that tax. Its a slush fund for the government plain and simple. It goes to general funds and not to the development of energy.
But, closer to the front I was sitting in the day room in the dorm and a crapload of hostages were taken prisoner and we had a wussie peanut farmer as a president. Hell, he negotiated with and only paid 5 billion for them.... The Algerians brokered the deal and regardless of how you felt about the Shah, we negotiated with terrorists and state sponsored at that. I wonder how they would have felt if we had just sailed in there with a couple of B-52's with ALCM's? I think that Obama said he was going to sit down with the same group of people? Correct me if I am wrong here. He plans to negotiate with them.
We could also look at Clinton, the second biggest wussie on the planet. He went and attacked a nation that most people had never heard of and without a resolution. At least Bush got one from Congress.
Political cronyism? I guess you didnt know Obama was yukking it up in Harlem last week with Bill C.? But that would just be me stating the facts.
Aint nobody thats "rational or honest" going to make it to the presidency Phila. Take a look at the selection. Biden/Palin...... Both have baggage. Obama/McCain, well the truck is going to pull up to the pier soon with their stuff and start offloading....
BTW-If you knew how things were procured in the military you wouldnt make that kind of statement. I'll give you an example... Use it or lose it. Every September the bases would have money laying around. Since my last permanent address was Homestead AFB I left on a TDY to central america and out processed in the CBPO and it was Sept 3, 90. They had just installed carpet in March... Nice new good looking stuff. I came back and in processed in October. The carpet was changed. I scratched my head and asked the obvious question. One of the admins said that they had some left over money and the only place it was designated for was the upgrade to the CBPO, so they did the carpet...again. Cost? 54,000 dollars.....Remove the old and in with the new.
So you are danged skippy I look at the overall budget. I can safely say that we dont have enough on hand right now to fight more than one other battle and not a war. Urps, might have to up the size of the military now because of the Georgian thing. More money, more angst..... More anti conservative language, class warfare.
And since you asked about all of the spending that Obama would do lets take HIS list not mine.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/16/news/economy/obama_economy/index.htm?po…
Doesnt say how he'll pay for it except to raise taxes on business (automatic jobs killer). We all know that this will last right up until the jobs start falling away and those programs to aid the poor and disaffected start sucking up everything from the budget...then they sock us. Hey dont worry its the Messiah, he has it covered. Fact is this latest bailout which I TOTALLY disagree with IMO the country is facing tax increases anyway.
How about for once we just let it happen. Rapid deflation worldwide, unemployment and then....equilbrium. Everyone gets to start over. All they are doing now is starting over with the hand into our wallets. We have had a good run, now its time to pay the real bills rather than the ones we migtht want to incur.
http://www.newamerica.net/pressroom/2008/obama_proposes_over_500_billio…
A quoted excerpt " The Senator's tax cuts and new spending initiatives would cost over half a trillion dollars a year," explained Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, "it's hard to see how we'll ever get out of this deficit hole at this rate."
It also fails to mention the spending will cause runaway inflation.... Once that spiral starts we are screwed.
Note that he plans on increasing the budget in 2013 for the military... Uh-huh. Not after he finds out what healthcare REALLY costs if he gets it in. I think it would be the fastest removed program that has ever been seen. The welfare state would simply eat us alive and with his Eminence on the throne.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jul/08/nation/na-obamaplans8
Urps... Even the LA Times a lefty paper says wait a minute, it doesnt add up.
So, yeah I look at all of it Phila and its a bit off the subject but its totally in the program overall about Obama/McCain. Elect Obama and you get a lot of promises... all of which will have to be broken because the reality is that the government isnt going to be able to run the printing presses to fix this one. McCain is not planning a lot of new spending and thats what we need. No NEW spending because each time we do it, it creates a permanent sub-class in this country. No upward mobility or incentive to do it.
NPR show This American Life recently (~ Sept. 12, 2008) aired a segment painting Cox as a do-nothing anti-regulationist who is not even participating in recent decisions.
363: Enforcers
This was shortly before McCain's statement about firing Cox, so I imagine some McCain staffer heard the segment and thought he had found a convenient scapegoat.