...I believe it is Unconstitutional for the Executive Branch to execute oversight. It isn't as though the Executive Branch should not execute oversight, but, our Constitution is one of checks and balances. The Constitutional venue for oversight of either the Financial overhaul and National Health Care Reform is with both houses of the legislature.
...An agency is needed because the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. and bank regulators failed to use their authority to shield consumers from lending abuses, Geithner said today at a House Financial Services Committee hearing. The agency needs the powers of other regulators to succeed, he said.
“If you give this agency only rule-writing authority but no enforcement authority, it will be too weak,” Geithner said. “Leaving in place with a bunch of different people enforcement authority that frankly was not well used or deployed” wouldn’t work, he added....
“If you give this agency only rule-writing authority but no enforcement authority, it will be too weak,” Geithner said. “Leaving in place with a bunch of different people enforcement authority that frankly was not well used or deployed” wouldn’t work, he added....
I believe the Obama Executive Branch should conduct any oversight it needs to and desires to as they are the authors of legislation to control effects of agencies upon the people of this is nation. Executive Oversight is automatically their authority under the USA Constitution. The Executive Branch is authorized to conduct the day to day business of the country and to that end, they have without doubt definitive power to exert oversight. They can even refer findings to the Legislative Houses, however, it is my opinion they do not have Constitutional authority to unilaterally conduct such oversight, but, in tandem with both houses.
The Executive Branch can assign any tools necessary to achieve their goals. And while any subsequent administrations will not have the 'expertise' the Obama Administration has, the way oversight, rule making and prosecution is carried out can be a model and even set precedent.
Okay?
So, what the Obama Administration, including the Cabinet, its officers, special prosecutors, Czars or whomever or whatever is employed can be 'exampled' and 'precedented' to guide the next White House in eight years.
Now. Regarding enforcement.
The reason Regulators have no meaning in the system, except, as recordkeeper and tattle tales, is because they were never legislated authority to bring facts to the Justice Department for prosecution. If there is significant wrong doing they certainly have the information that makes that clear, but, the repulsive reality that allowed five investment banks to push AIG over the edge and force "The Paulson Pity Party," is that unless there were overt issues of concern, the Regulators were more or less advisors and passive observers.
That doesn't have to be the case and I'll example U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Okay? I am sure you follow the methodology already.
The agency that Mr. Geithner is creating needs teeth. End of discussion. What is in question is where does the authority come from to prosecute? Yes? A regulatory agency or oversight agency does not and should not have the authority to prosecute. It does, however, have the responsibility to gather FACTS and present their case to Justice for prosecution.
The reason there is a 'division' of labor is to prevent conflict of interest. The USA Agencies have the right to seek advise regarding their fact finding from Justice (Primarily through the US Attorney infrastructure and/or the Attoney General's Office), but, they basically act to investigate, record and move to prosecution any violations as outlined in the legislation or otherwise said, considered criminal by law.
Basically, Mr. Geithner is seeking authority that will only weigh down the activities of the Executive Branch. And if this administration is burdened with an unbearable work load to the mess they inherited, they are only making it worse today and in the future if they DON'T DELEGATE. I must state here, the Obama Administration is more diligent in their duties than the American people have been accustomed to or witnessed in decades. The other administration this ambitious was Kennedy's and his bother Bobby in Justice. We all know what enemies they made then and the result.
There is not a day that goes by that I expect the Secret Service to take EXCELLANT care of these people. They are vital to our democracy and believe me, there are innumerable enemies about.
Now, long about now I would expect Mr. Geithner to be scratching his head while trying to fathom where Justice (including the US Attorney infrastructure) is going to get the time they need to carry out this responsibility.
Well, during the past thirty and primarily the last eight years, the US Attorney infrastructure, INCLUDING the agencies that report to them, have been cut to the bone to the point where they are so overburdened they cannot function. Basically, the Republicans over thirty years of cost cutting ABUSE have created an anarchy. Bush/Cheney was the worse. What Mr. Geithner needs to do is demand an audit of the duties of the federal agencies and US Attorneys and subsequent courts.
And this is where it gets ugly.
That audit will have to be increased with the NEW duties they will obtain from the Executive Branch. The Executive Branch is the agency to do this and not the legislature. The Executive Branch then presents the audit and new duties as 'evidence' to the legislature to increase the 'work force' of the agencies, US Attorney infrastruture and courts. The Legislative Branch then sets PERMANENT standards (and this is where Timothy can get creative - they can be 'floating/fluid' standards depending on work load) to the size and volume of the work force and how people are added, their qualifications and quite possibly how the departments can be reduced when crime is no longer a burden to the people of the nation.
Now.
To cost.
Initially and immediately, the Bank Bailout created an income to the USA Treasury. While that is nice and can be interesting to other venues of priorities of the Obama Administration and subsequently to the American people, those monies can be used to 'set up' the new infrastruture which eventually will be carried by the General Administration Fund. THOSE COSTS can be generated from SPECIFIC and STIFF fines of the PROSECUTED. The cost of the 'fluid' infrastruture to carry out the necessary responsibilities of the Executive Branch quite literally will be funded by the people, entities and companies that CAUSED the need for the increase in infrastructure.
It is the way I see Mr. Geithner's Agency and an increase in Executive Branch Infrastructure.
Good luck.
