We have checks and balances in this country that prevent the government or certain officials from making their own choices and decisions that impact the rest of the country. When I heard that President Obama bypassed the Senate with his recent appointment of Elizabeth Warren, I was concerned and you should be, too.
According to an article in Yahoo News, “Warren would be named the “interim” head of the agency, and therefore spared hostile scrutiny in the Senate as part of the standard confirmation process.” What the heck does that mean?
We have that “hostile scrutiny” to make sure that people who are in public office have the American people’s best interest in mind when making decisions that affect us. It is a part of the process.
Whether or not you believe that Elizabeth Warren would be the best person to head the Consumer Protection Bureau is not the issue. The issue rests in whether or not the President of the United States of America has the authority to skirt the process and appoint people without giving our officials the right to scrutinize them. President Obama was able to do this by avoiding the appointment to a permanent position however, she will be able to assume the duties of the position immediately.
After all, Elizabeth Warren is the one who dreamed up the agency to begin with and now she is going to be the builder of it. I take issue with the fact that someone with that much authority over what will happen has not been given the scrutiny factor. Is there anything about Ms. Warren that we do not know? We may never know until it is too late now.
President Obama making an outright appointment, rather than a nomination subject to Senate confirmation, is just one more step away from our democratic process of checks and balances. Those financial checks have a huge impact on our economic recovery and I would like the assurance that the person making the decisions that will impact my wallet is the best man or woman for the position.