November 28, 2017


News and Views


ARE THERE GROUNDS FOR CONTINUING THIS AS A TEST CASE ON TOTAL CONTROL OVER AGENCIES BY THE PRESIDENT, VERSUS THE CFPB OPERATING INDEPENDENTLY, AS THE DEMS HAVE CONSTRUED THE SITUATION? I HAD HEARD THE NAME DODD-FRANK AND SEEN THE REPUBLICAN FURY, BUT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I HAD LOOKED AT IT AND NOTICED HOW IT IS WORKING. I PROBABLY WON’T TRY TO LEARN MUCH MORE ABOUT IT, UNLESS IT DOES BECOME A TEST. I AM AMAZED OVER AND OVER AT THE DEGREE OF SHEER INTEREST VALUE THAT IS FOUND IN THE DAILY NEWS.

TRUMP’S PATTERN OF STUFFING THE REGULATORY BODIES WITH THE VERY BUSINESSES WHO SHOULD BE REGULATED IS TOTALLY WRONG, IN MY VIEW, THOUGH THEY SHOULD BE REPRESENTED. IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO ME FOR EACH AGENCY TO HAVE A DECISION MAKING BOARD EMPOWERED TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS WHICH THE LEGISLATURE WOULD RATIFY. IN THIS CASE, IF THE NEEDS OF THE BANKING COMMUNITY AND WALL STREET WERE EXAMINED ON A COEQUAL BASIS WITH THOSE OF THE CONSUMERS, THAT WOULD SEEM FAIR TO ME.

REGULATORY BODIES SHOULD BE IN THE SUPERIOR POSITION, CLEARLY, BUT THE PROCESS SHOULD BE FAIRLY APPROACHED OR IT IS MERELY A MEANS TO AN AUTOCRATIC RULE RATHER THAN A PRESIDENCY. THROUGH THE ACTIONS OF PRESIDENT TRUMP, PARTY POLITICS IS RUINING HOW THE BANKING INDUSTRY SHOULD BE REGULATED. THE REASON REPUBLICANS HATE DODD-FRANK SO BADLY IS THAT IT IS SUCCESSFULLY DOING WHAT IT WAS SET UP TO DO. SEE YESTERDAY’S BLOG ON THE CFPB ISSUE, ALSO. I HAD SOME SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN A COUPLE OF THOSE.

IN THIS CASE WHERE THERE ARE TWO SETS OF LAW BEING APPLIED, THE CONFLICT BETWEEN THE LAWS NEEDS TO BE CLEARED UP. COULD THERE BE A SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THIS? CLEARLY THE REPUBLICANS HOPE SO.

THIS IS ONE OF THE GREAT HUMAN ERRORS IF WE ARE TO HAVE A CLEAN RATHER THAN A CORRUPT SYSTEM. IT ISN’T ONLY MONEY THAT CAN BE DEGRADING TO GOOD LAW, BUT THE PURE POWER STRUGGLE ON ALL LEVELS AS WELL. THE DEMOCRATS, REPUBLICANS AND OTHER PLAYERS AS WELL, ARE IN SUCH A COMPETITION ON EACH ISSUE SMALL OR LARGE THAT IT WARPS THE HONESTY ON ALL SIDES. WE HAVE ABANDONED PRINCIPLES. IT CAUSES GRIDLOCK AND EVEN DENIAL OF HUMAN NEEDS, ESPECIALLY THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF ORDINARY PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS NATION ENTANGLED IN A HEAVY MESH OF DEBT AND POVERTY. LIKE MOST LIBERALS AND PROGRESSIVES, THAT IS UNACCEPTABLE TO ME, AND IT CERTAINLY ISN’T NECESSARY.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/judge-rules-in-favor-of-trump-over-fate-of-consumer-watchdog/
CBS/AP November 28, 2017, 5:36 PM
Judge rules in favor of Trump over fate of consumer watchdog

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ruled in favor of President Trump in his effort to appoint the acting head of nation's top financial watchdog agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In a ruling from the bench Tuesday afternoon, Judge Timothy Kelly declined to stop on an emergency basis the president from putting in place Mick Mulvaney, currently the White House's budget director. In doing so, Kelly ruled against Leandra English, the CFPB's deputy director. English had requested an emergency restraining order to stop Mulvaney from becoming the acting director of the bureau.

"The Administration applauds the Court's decision, which provides further support for the President's rightful authority to designate Director Mulvaney as Acting Director of the CFPB," White House Principal Deputy Press Secretary Raj Shah said of the District Court's ruling. "It's time for the Democrats to stop enabling this brazen political stunt by a rogue employee and allow Acting Director Mulvaney to continue the Bureau's smooth transition into an agency that truly serves to help consumers."

The leadership of the bureau had been thrown into chaos over the weekend after its permanent director, Richard Cordray, resigned and appointed English as his successor. Both Mulvaney and English claimed to be the rightful acting director.

Kelly was nominated by President Trump and was confirmed by the Senate just a couple months ago in September.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



SEE “DODD-FRANK ...” GO TO THE WIKIPEDIA WEBSITE BELOW, AND WORK THROUGH THE LAW TO GET AN OVERVIEW; BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THE CORDRAY/TRUMP CONFLICT IS REALLY ABOUT, IT SEEMS TO ME. THE REPUBLICANS ARE MAKING A MOVE TO OVERTURN DODD-FRANK OVER THIS CASE. THAT’S WHAT I BELIEVE IS THE GIST. I HAVEN’T WATCHED RACHEL MADDOW, WHO WILL UNDOUBTEDLY GO INTO IT IN A MUCH BETTER WAY.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodd%E2%80%93Frank_Wall_Street_Reform_and_Consumer_Protection_Act
Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Pub.L. 111–203, H.R. 4173, commonly referred to as Dodd–Frank) was signed into federal law by President Barack Obama on July 21, 2010.[1] Passed as a response to the financial crisis of 2007–2008, it brought the most significant changes to financial regulation in the United States since the regulatory reform that followed the Great Depression.[2][3][4][5] It made changes in the American financial regulatory environment that affected all federal financial regulatory agencies and almost every part of the nation's financial services industry.[6][7]

. . . . Due to Dodd and Frank's involvement with the bill, the conference committee that reported on June 25, 2010,[1] voted to name the bill after them.[8]

Studies have found Dodd–Frank has improved financial stability and consumer protection,[9] although there is evidence it may have had a negative impact on small banks.[10]

On June 8, 2017, the Republican-led House passed the Financial CHOICE Act which, if enacted, would roll back many of the provisions of Dodd–Frank. In June 2017, the Senate was crafting its own reform bill.[11][12]

. . . .


NO, THANKS, MR. PRESIDENT. I’VE OTHER FISH TO FRY.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/key-democrats-back-out-of-white-house-meeting/
CBS/AP November 28, 2017, 11:59 AM
Key Democrats back out of White House meeting

Top congressional Democrats abruptly pulled out of a White House meeting on Tuesday after President Trump attacked them on Twitter.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said in a joint statement they would not be attending after the president tweeted, "I don't see a deal!" hours before their scheduled meeting on ways to avoid a government shutdown. Instead, they say they've asked to meet with top Republicans in Congress.

"Given that the president doesn't see a deal between Democrats and the White House, we believe the best path forward is to continue negotiating with our Republican counterparts in Congress instead," their statement reads. "Rather than going to the White House for a show meeting that won't result in an agreement, we've asked Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan to meet this afternoon. We don't have any time to waste in addressing the issues that confront us, so we're going to continue to negotiate with Republican leaders who may be interested in reaching a bipartisan agreement."

"If the president, who already said earlier this year that 'our country needs a good shutdown,' isn't interested in addressing the difficult year end agenda, we'll work with those Republicans who are, as we did in April," the statement continued. "We look forward to continuing to work in good faith, as we have been for the last month, with our Republican colleagues in Congress to do just that."

Mr. Trump took to Twitter on Tuesday to bad-mouth Capitol Hill's top Democrats in advance of the afternoon meeting at the White House, casting doubt on the prospects for a quick agreement to avert a government shutdown at the end of next week.


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Meeting with “Chuck and Nancy” today about keeping government open and working. Problem is they want illegal immigrants flooding into our Country unchecked, are weak on Crime and want to substantially RAISE Taxes. I don’t see a deal!
9:17 AM - Nov 28, 2017
22,742 22,742 Replies 12,254 12,254 Retweets 47,152 47,152 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Mr. Trump said that "Chuck and Nancy" favor "illegal immigrants flooding into our Country" and are weak on crime.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said the president's invitation "still stands."

"It's disappointing that Senator Schumer and Leader Pelosi are refusing to come to the table and discuss urgent issues," Sanders said in a statement. "The president's invitation to the Democrat leaders still stands and he encourages them to put aside their pettiness, stop the political grandstanding, show up and get to work. These issues are too important. The meeting will proceed as scheduled with Speaker Ryan, Leader McConnell and administration officials who are committed to getting things done. If the Democrats believe the American people deserve action on these critical year-end issues as we do, they should attend."

McConnell and Ryan issued this joint statement after the Democrats' announcement that they would not attend the White House meeting:

"We have important work to do, and Democratic leaders have continually found new excuses not to meet with the administration to discuss these issues. Democrats are putting government operations, particularly resources for our men and women on the battlefield, at great risk by pulling these antics. There is a meeting at the White House this afternoon, and if Democrats want to reach an agreement, they will be there."

Washington faces a Dec. 8 deadline to pass a temporary spending bill to stave off a shutdown. It was hoped Tuesday afternoon's meeting might lay a foundation to keep the government running and set a path for a year-end spending package to give both the Pentagon and domestic agencies relief from a budget freeze.

Mr. Trump is still seeking his first big legislative win in Congress, and his attack on Democrats came as his marquee tax bill faced turbulence as well. The White House and top GOP leaders have work to do to get their tax bill in shape before a hoped-for vote later this week. Party deficit hawks pressed for a "backstop" mechanism to limit the risk of a spiral in the deficit, even as defenders of small business pressed for more generous treatment.

On a separate track from taxes is a multi-layered negotiation over several issues. Hoped-for increases for the Pentagon and domestic agencies are at the center, but a host of other issues are in the mix as well.

Republicans have "no excuse" for shutdown, Pelosi says

A temporary spending bill expires Dec. 8 and another is needed to prevent a government shutdown. Hurricane aid weighs in the balance and Democrats are pressing for legislative protections for immigrants known as "Dreamers," even as conservative Republicans object to including the issue in the crush of year-end business.

There's also increased urgency to find money for the children's health program that serves more than 8 million low-income children. The program expired on Oct. 1, and states are continuing to use unspent funds. Arizona, California, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon and the District of Columbia are among those expected to deplete that money by late December or in January.

Democrats carry leverage into the talks, which have GOP conservatives on edge. GOP leaders appear wary of early-stage concessions that might disturb the mood of rank-and-file Republicans while the tax bill is in the balance.

Trump's visit to the Capitol is his third in little more than a month. This time, he'll try to make the sale to Senate Republicans on his signature tax bill. Among the holdouts are GOP Trump critics, including Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Bob Corker of Tennessee — though GOP leaders are seeking to rope in straggling Republicans with a flurry of deal-cutting.

"There's still some loose ends. We're not quite there yet," said Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio. "But I think we're going to get there, I really do."

Mr. Trump's sessions with big groups of Republicans tend to take the form of pep rallies, and when visiting a Senate GOP lunch last month Mr. Trump spent much of the time recalling the accomplishments of his administration.

Besides Pelosi and Schumer, the White House meeting later in the days includes Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis. and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.

Mr. Trump hasn't engaged much with Pelosi and Schumer since a September meeting that produced an agreement on a short-term increase in the government's debt limit and a temporary spending bill that is keeping the government's doors open through Dec. 8.

Mr. Trump reveled in the bipartisan deal for a time and generated excitement among Democrats when he told then he would sign legislation to protect from deportation immigrants who were brought to the country illegally as children.

Mr. Trump in September reversed an executive order by former President Barack Obama that gave protections to these immigrants, many of whom have little or no connection to their home country. Shortly afterward, he told Pelosi and Schumer he would sign legislation protecting those immigrants, provided Democrats made concessions of their own on border security.

Since the president is such a wild card, neither Democrats nor Republicans were speculating much about what Tuesday's meeting might produce.

"Hopefully, we can make progress on an agreement that covers those time-sensitive issues and keeps the government running and working for the American people," Schumer said.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.



TRUMP AND GEORGE W BUSH HAVE A SIMILAR PROBLEM, WHICH THE LATE DEMOCRATIC GOVERNOR RICHARDSON OF TEXAS CALLED “BORN WITH A SILVER FOOT IN HIS MOUTH.” IT IS CLEAR, THOUGH, THAT HE SOMETIMES DOES BORDERLINE ACTIONS THAT COULD BE PURPOSEFULLY INSULTING, OR COULD BE A TRUE ERROR. I BELIEVE THAT IN SOME OF THOSE CASES HE CAN’T SPEAK VERY WELL, BUT GOADING IS ALSO ONE OF HIS FAVORITE WAYS OF INTERACTING, AND IT IS NOT A MISTAKE. MALICIOUS OR NOT, IT ISN’T A GOOD CHARACTERISTIC FOR A PRESIDENT OF THE US.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/families-of-navajo-code-talkers-decry-trumps-pocahontas-jab/
CBS/AP November 28, 2017, 9:23 AM
Families of Navajo Code Talkers decry Trump's "Pocahontas" jab

Families of Navajo war veterans who were honored Monday at the White House say they were dumbfounded that President Donald Trump used the event to take a political jab at a Massachusetts senator, demeaning their work with an unbreakable code that helped the U.S. win World War II.

Trump turned to a nickname he often deployed for Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren during the 2016 presidential campaign: Pocahontas. He then told the three Navajo Code Talkers on stage that he had affection for them that he doesn't have for Warren.

"It was uncalled for," said Marty Thompson, whose great uncle was a Navajo Code Talker. "He can say what he wants when he's out doing his presidential business among his people, but when it comes to honoring veterans or any kind of people, he needs to grow up and quit saying things like that."

Lupita Holiday, daughter of a code talker from St. Geroge, Utah told CBS News' Jacqueline Alemany on Monday that it appeared that the president "doesn't know the history" of the Native peoples.

"Maybe he doesn't know we're different tribes and he might have been here a long time ago but I don't know," said Holiday. She added, saying the name was "a little offensive" to her, "Look at the history of Pocahontas and maybe find out what she did and then find out what the code talkers did. It's two different things. Two different tribes."

Pocahontas is a well-known historical figure who bridged her own Pamunkey Tribe in present-day Virginia with the British in the 1600s. But the National Congress of American Indians says Trump wrongly has flipped the name into a derogatory term, and the comment drew swift criticism from American Indians and politicians.

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders, asked about criticism of Trump's remarks, said a racial slur "was certainly not the president's intent."

President Donald Trump used an event honoring Native American veterans Monday to take a shot at Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren, whom he has long derided as "Pocahontas."

Trump made the comment as he stood near a portrait of President Andrew Jackson, which he hung in the Oval Office in January. Trump admires Jackson's populism. But Jackson is an unpopular figure in Indian Country because his policies led to the forced removal of American Indians out of their southern homelands.

The Navajo Nation suggested Trump's remark Monday was an example of "cultural insensitivity" and resolved to stay out of the "ongoing feud between the senator and President Trump."

"All tribal nations still battle insensitive references to our people. The prejudice that Native American people face is an unfortunate historical legacy," Navajo Nation President Russell Begaye said in a statement.

Still, Begaye and relatives of Navajo Code Talkers said they're honored the story of the men recruited from the vast Southwest reservation to become Marines could be told on a national stage. Peter MacDonald, a former Navajo chairman and trained Code Talker who stood beside Trump, also took the opportunity to ask for support for a Navajo Code Talker museum. Trump obliged.

MacDonald didn't immediately return messages left Monday by The Associated Press. He didn't visibly react to Trump's "Pocahontas" comment and later told the president he was certain he would succeed, crediting military generals.

Michael Smith, a Marine whose father was a Code Talker, said most of the Code Talkers would be skeptical about going to the White House because it could be construed to mean they support a political cause.

"So, why did they go? Why were they there? He's putting them in the Oval Office to say 'You did a good job, and say hi to Pocahontas?'" Smith said. "They should be taken care of as heroes, not as pawns."

Michael Nez, whose father helped develop the code based on the Navajo language, said his father would have been upset to hear Trump's Pocahontas comment. But, as other Code Talker relatives said, his father was taught to respect the president as the commander in chief.

"It's too bad he does put his foot in his mouth," Nez said. "Why he does it? I don't know."

Helena Begaii said her 94-year-old Navajo Code Talker father, Samuel T. Holiday, declined an invitation to the White House on Monday. She said he would have a better feel for what happened once he reads the newspaper.

"I feel really sad that they didn't get treated with respect," she said.

Trump's Pocahontas comment is the latest in a long list of remarks Trump has made about people from specific ethnic and racial groups. In announcing a run for the presidency in 2015, Trump said many Mexican immigrants are rapists. He's sought to ban immigrants from certain Muslim majority nations. He's come under fire for what some said was a too-slow federal response to hurricane damage in Puerto Rico.

The president has long feuded with Warren, an outspoken Wall Street critic who leveled blistering attacks on Trump during the campaign. Trump seized on questions about Warren's heritage, which surfaced during her 2012 Senate race challenging incumbent Republican Sen. Scott Brown.

Warren said in an interview on MSNBC that, unfortunately, Trump cannot make it through a ceremony honoring heroes "without having to throw out a racial slur."

She since has released a fundraising email citing the president's own words, telling supporters that Mr. Trump has stooped to a "disgusting low."

New Mexico Sen. Tom Udall, vice chairman of the Indian Affairs committee, added: "Donald Trump's latest racist joke — during Native American Heritage Month no less — demeaned the contributions that the Code Talkers and countless other Native American patriots and citizens have made to our great country."

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


MORE ON THE CFPB ISSUES

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/whats-going-on-at-the-consumer-financial-protection-bureau/
CBS NEWS November 28, 2017, 5:14 AM
What's going on at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

So what's going on with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?

On Friday, Richard Cordray resigned as director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) following a November 15 announcement that he would leave by the end of the month. Cordray, who is expected to run for governor of Ohio next year as a Democrat, said that he was entitled to appoint his successor, and picked his deputy Leandra English to lead the agency.

President Trump argues that Cordray doesn't have the authority to select his own successor, and has appointed Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney as the agency's interim chief. But English filed suit in federal court on Sunday, insisting that she is the legitimate director of the agency.

So now we have a situation where an exceptionally powerful federal bureaucracy has two different people claiming that they run it. It all sounds pretty absurd on the surface, but it's a fight with high stakes.

What does the CFPB do again?

It was created in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis to protect consumers from predatory banks, lenders, and other financial bodies that could defraud people. The brainchild of now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who was then an Obama White House aide, the CFPB is a product of the Dodd-Frank Act, which was passed by Congress in the wake of the crisis.

The bureau overhauled the mortgage practices that were a factor in the financial crisis. It wrote simpler mortgage rules aiming to help consumers navigate the mortgage process, from selecting a loan through paying it back, created mortgage servicing rules geared toward helping protect home buyers, and it put in place more protections for those who get behind in their mortgage payments.

Republicans, broadly speaking, have never been fans of the CFPB, which they see as too powerful, largely unaccountable, and perhaps unconstitutional. An independent agency, the CFPB gets its funding from the Federal Reserve, not through Congressional appropriations. And while the president can fire the agency's director, the Dodd-Frank Act stipulates that a dismissal can only be done for cause, meaning that Mr. Trump would have had a fight on his hands if he had just fired Cordray outright.

Democrats argue that the agency has done a good job of protecting consumers and note that the agency has paid out some $12 billion in relief to defrauded consumers. They also say that Mulvaney, who once called the CFPB "a joke…in a sick, sad kind of way" is not the person who should be running it.

Can Mr. Trump ignore them and appoint Mulvaney anyway?

That's what the White House is betting on, and the CFPB's own general counsel says that President Trump is entitled to appoint a vacancy due to powers granted to him by the Vacancies Act of 1988. Democrats like Warren counter that Dodd-Frank Act says that "the Deputy Director . . . shall serve as acting Director in the absence or unavailability of the Director." In theory, that would mean that English is in charge, which is what the highest-ranking Democrat in the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, argued on Monday.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

Elizabeth Warren
✔
@SenWarren
The Dodd-Frank Act is clear: if there is a @CFPB Director vacancy, the Deputy Director becomes Acting Director. @realDonaldTrump can’t override that.
9:56 PM - Nov 24, 2017
1,234 1,234 Replies 10,164 10,164 Retweets 23,884 23,884 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

So who's in charge over there?

Mulvaney showed up to the agency Monday morning and said he was now acting director of the bureau. English then sent an email to the CFPB staff identifying herself as acting director.

"[I]t has come to my attention that Ms. English has reached out to many of you this morning via email in an attempt to exercise certain duties of the Acting Director," Mulvaney wrote to agency officials in response to English's claim. "This is unfortunate but, in the atmosphere of the day, probably not unexpected.

"Please disregard any instructions you receive from Ms. English in her presumed capacity as Acting Director," Mulvaney's memo continues. It then goes on to apologize to the agency's staff for the nature of Mulvaney's introduction, and invites them to come "grab a donut" in his office.

View image on Twitter
View image on Twitter

john czwartacki
✔
@CZ
@MickMulvaneyOMB sitting in director's office. Already hard at work as acting director at cfpb.
8:04 AM - Nov 27, 2017
174 174 Replies 154 154 Retweets 247 247 likes
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Later on Monday, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said that Mulvaney had the "full cooperation" of the agency's staff.

If all this sounds a bit farcical to you, well, that's because it is. Meanwhile, the agency appears to be largely paralyzed due to the leadership dispute and may soon be subjected to legal action from the business it regulates. A court decision on who is rightfully in charge of the agency might take several months, meaning that Democrats and Republicans could be fighting about this all the way up to next year's midterms.

What's at stake here?

Mulvaney, and for that matter whoever Mr. Trump's final appointee to the position is, will probably take a much narrower and more circumscribed approach to regulating than Cordray or English. Cordray, who was appointed to lead the agency despite a Republican filibuster, has won plaudits from progressives and consumer advocates, while at the same time drawing the ire of business interests.

Since Mr. Trump took office, Cordray has been busy issuing new and sweeping rules, such as one that prevents financial business from using arbitration clauses to sidestep class-action lawsuits. That rule was killed by Congress using a once-obscure law called the Congressional Review Act.*

In October, Cordray took aim at payday lenders, which progressive groups have long argued are inherently predatory, with a rule that might drive many of them out of business. This muscular approach to oversight and regulation would likely be continued under English, his handpicked successor.

But if Mr. Trump gets his way, it's safe to expect that the CFPB will have a much smaller regulatory footprint in the future. At a press conference Monday afternoon, Mulvaney announced a hiring freeze at the agency as well as a 30-day pause in any new rules or regulations coming down the pipeline. Saying that "elections have consequences for every agency," he also promised to run the bureau much differently than Cordray did.

Mulvaney also called the bureau an "awful example" of a "bureaucracy gone wrong," and said that he had not yet met English because she did not show up for work on Monday.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT, SIGNED BY BILL CLINTON*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Review_Act
Congressional Review Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Congressional Review Act (CRA)[1] is a law that was enacted by the United States Congress under House Speaker Newt Gingrich as Section 251 of the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–121) and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on March 29, 1996.[2][3] The law empowers Congress to review, by means of an expedited legislative process, new federal regulations issued by government agencies and, by passage of a joint resolution, to overrule a regulation.[4] Once a rule is thus repealed, the CRA also prohibits the reissuing of the rule in substantially the same form or the issuing of a new rule that is substantially the same "unless the reissued or new rule is specifically authorized by a law enacted after the date of the joint resolution disapproving the original rule" (5 U.S. Code § 801(b)(2)). Congress has a window of time lasting 60 legislative days (i.e., days that Congress is actually in session, rather than simple calendar days) to disapprove of any given rule by simple majority vote; otherwise, the rule will go into effect at the end of this period.[5][6]
Prior to 2017, the CRA had only been successfully invoked once to overturn a rule (in 2001; see below).[7] In January 2017, however, with a new Republican president, the Republican-controlled 115th Congress began passing a series of disapproval resolutions to overturn a variety of rules issued under the Obama administration. Ultimately, fourteen of these resolutions were passed and signed into law; a fifteenth resolution was passed by the House but failed in the Senate. Because of the shortness of legislative sessions during the 114th Congress, the 115th Congress was able to target rules passed by the Obama administration as far back as May 2016.[8]

On May 16, 2017, Senators Cory Booker and Tom Udall introduced S. 1140, a bill to repeal the Congressional Review Act.[9]



THE INVISIBLE HAND, NOT OF THE MARKET BUT OF RUSSIA MAY VERY WELL BE THE ANSWER TO THE CUBA SONIC ATTACKS. THEY DEFINITELY HAVE BECOME MORE AGGRESSIVE, JUST LIKE THE HOODLUMS BEHIND THOSE “ALT-RIGHT” APPEARANCES, SINCE TRUMP WAS ELECTED IN 2016. WE WHO BELIEVE IN TRYING TO PROMOTE PEACE AND LOVE HERE MUST KEEP UP THE PRESSURE TO CONFRONT THE CONCEIT AND UNKINDNESS IN POLITICS AND SOCIETY TODAY, WHILE MANAGING TO HOLD BACK OUR OWN ANGRY REACTIONS AT THIS FRIGHTENING TIME IN OUR HISTORY. IT TAKES TWO TO FIGHT AS WELL AS TO TANGO.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/uzbekistan-incident-raises-suspicions-of-russian-involvement-in-cuba-attacks/
By STEVE DORSEY CBS NEWS November 28, 2017, 12:07 PM
Uzbekistan incident raises suspicions of Russian involvement in Cuba attacks

Photograph -- FILE: U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan STATE DEPARTMENT

A newly revealed incident reported by a USAID officer who is based at the American embassy in Uzbekistan is raising suspicions Russia may have been involved and could have had a hand in bizarre attacks targeting U.S. diplomats in Cuba, according to American sources.

In September, the officer and his wife reported, according to one source familiar with the incident, what may have been at least one acoustic attack similar to those experienced by the diplomats in Havana.

Investigation into mysterious Cuba attacks "back to square one"

The first Cuba attacks began in November 2016, and the last report of an attack was in August 2017. Victims of the attacks in Cuba describe hearing a loud, high-pitched sound often described like a hiss of cicadas or crickets in unusual places—often in their homes.

The State Department declined to describe in detail the incident in Tashkent.


"We aren't going to discuss ‎every case individually," a spokesperson said.

Victims of the attacks in Cuba were diagnosed with hearing loss, brain injuries, cognitive issues and other conditions.

The source says the two suffered similar effects and were flown out of Tashkent by the State Department to be evaluated. It is unclear what further diagnosis or care they have had following their departure from Uzbekistan.

U.S. is pulling out about 60 percent of staff from Cuba
‎
"We take seriously the health concerns of USG personnel anywhere in the world," the State Department spokesperson told CBS News. "We ensure our personnel are examined and receive appropriate treatment."

However, the State Department said no one on the U.S. staff in Tashkent has suffered similar health issues to those experienced by victims of the Cuba attacks.

"We can confirm that no personnel at the U.S. Embassy in Uzbekistan have been diagnosed with the conditions that have been observed in Cuba," the spokesperson said.

USAID, a U.S. government agency that provides foreign assistance in more than 100 countries, maintains its Uzbekistan headquarters office at the American embassy in Tashkent. Its work focuses mainly on agriculture and trade. It referred CBS News inquiries on the incident to the State Department. Although USAID is an independent agency, it works closely with the State Department.

USAID's Country Director in Tashkent Gary Robbins, referred CBS News to an embassy spokesman who offered no more details. Messages to USAID's Deputy Country Director were not returned.

The Central Asian country was once part of the USSR. It declared independence in 1991 during the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, it maintains strong ties with Russia. The two countries held joint military drills in October, their first together in 12 years. Uzbekistan is also considering re-joining the Russian-led military bloc Collective Security Treaty Organization, from which it withdrew in 2012 under long-time President Islom Karimov who died in 2016.

Russia has sought to capitalize on relations with Karimov's successor, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, at the expense of the U.S.

Now, two U.S. security sources say the September incident in Tashkent raises concerns Russia may be involved, and could have had a hand in the attacks targeting U.S. government personnel in Cuba-another country where Russia has also exerted growing influence.

"The Russians have been rebuilding their relationship—it deteriorated dramatically after the end of the Cold War," according to William Leogrande, a foreign policy professor at American University who focuses on Cuba. Now, "They have a strong presence in Cuba and an historic relationship with Cuban intelligence that might give them the kind of freedom to operate that would provide an opportunity."

Russia has denied any role in the attacks.

Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova called suggestions about Russia's involvement "absurd" at a press briefing in Moscow August 31, and said "this does not help the normalization of the bilateral relations" between the U.S. and Russia.

"We are ready to help the Cuban side investigate the matter and determine the facts," she said.

The State Department refused to publicly comment on whether it would welcome Russia's involvement in the investigation into the Cuba attacks.

© 2017 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.



THERE IS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS AROUND AGE TWO, AGE EIGHT, AND THE TEEN YEARS THAT IS DISRUPTIVE OF PATTERNS THAT HAD BEEN STABLE AND LOGICAL UP TO THAT TIME. I HAVE ALWAYS ASSUMED IT WAS THE GREAT HORMONAL ONSLAUGHT, NOT ENOUGH PARENTAL CARE, NOT ENOUGH GENTLE TALKING RATHER THAN DEMANDS, BEATINGS, SHAMING AND THREATS. IN COMPUTERTHINK, NO LOVE IN, NO LOVE OUT. THAT’S A VERY DANGEROUS PATTERN.

I HAVE NO DOUBT, THOUGH, THAT THE BRAIN IS PROBABLY MAKING ITS’ FINAL GROWTH SPURT AND REORGANIZATION OF NEURONS (WHICH ALL IS TRIGGERED BY THE BARRAGE OF HORMONES), PRODUCES A PERIOD OF CHAOS. THEY ARE DEFINITELY MORE PRONE TO GETTING THEMSELVES INTO MORE SERIOUS AND MORE RIDICULOUS KINDS OF TROUBLE AT THAT AGE.

I’M PRETTY SURE THAT WHATEVER ACADEMIC EDUCATION, SIMPLE GOOD SENSE, KINDNESS, SOCIAL SKILLS, THAT WE STUFF INTO THOSE HEADS SHOULD BE SOLIDLY IN PLACE BY ABOUT 15. THEY SEEM, I THINK, TO QUESTION NOT ONLY THE POWER STRUCTURE BUT THE NATURE OF TRUTH AS TAUGHT EARLIER, ESPECIALLY IF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARENT IS NOT A STRONG AND LOVING BOND. IF THEY HAVE FIGURED OUT BY THAT TIME THAT THEY GOT A RAW DEAL IN LIFE, THEY MAY SEEK LOVE WITH A STREET GANG AND FRY THEIR BRAINS WITH DRUGS.

I FEAR THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING IS THAT THEY ARE EMOTIONALLY READY TO MATE AND PROCREATE, AND WILL DO SO VERY SHORTLY WHETHER THE FAMILY IS READY OR NOT; BUT THEY HAVEN’T BEEN TAUGHT THE SKILLS TO REAR THE CHILD, AREN’T EMOTIONALLY AND MENTALLY HEALTHY, AND ARE UNREADY TO PROVIDE AN INCOME TO CARE FOR IT. THE RESULT IS PANIC AND DEPRESSION.

THAT’S WHY I’M SO UNHAPPY WITH THE HIGH SCHOOL EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THESE DAYS. I HAVE SEEN ONE OTHER ARTICLE THE BRAIN FUNCTION AS BEING KEY TO THE CHAOS OF THAT TIME OF LIFE, AND I DON’T DOUBT IT, BUT I THINK HOW WELL PREPARED FOR LIFE THE KID IS BEFORE THE TEMPORARY IMPLOSION PERIOD WILL MAKE A DRASTIC DIFFERENCE IN THE FINAL OUTCOME. MOST OF WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW IS NOT LEARNED IN COLLEGE.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2154884-teenage-brains-cant-tell-whats-important-and-what-isnt/?cmpid=ILC|NSNS|2017_webpush&utm_medium=ILC&utm_source=NSNS&utm_campaign=webpush-teen-brains
DAILY NEWS 28 November 2017
Teenage brains can’t tell what’s important and what isn’t
By Jessica Hamzelou

Teenagers may know full well how important final exams are – but that won’t stop some putting in minimal effort. This may be because their brains aren’t developed enough to properly assess how high the stakes are, and adapt their behaviour accordingly.

Adults are generally pretty good at being able to tell when a situation is worthy of extra time or concentration. Research has found that, when potential rewards or losses are higher, for example, adults will perform better on tasks. But this doesn’t seem to be the case for adolescents.

Catherine Insel, at Harvard University, and her team asked adolescents between the ages of 13 and 20 to play a game while lying in an fMRI brain scanner. In some rounds of the game, participants could earn 20 cents for a correct response, while an incorrect one would cost them 10 cents. But in rounds with higher stakes, correct responses were worth a dollar, and wrong answers lost the participants 50 cents.

Less-developed brains

The team found that while the older volunteers performed better in the high stakes rounds, the younger ones didn’t – their performance didn’t change in line with whether the stakes were low or high. And the older the volunteers were, the more improved their performance was. “Interestingly, the ability to adjust performance according to the stakes at play emerged gradually across adolescence,” says Insel.

When the team looked at the brain activity of the volunteers, they found that their ability to improve their performance was linked to how developed their brains were. A region called the corticostriatal network seemed to be particularly important. This is known to connect areas involved in reward to those that control behaviour, and continues to develop until we are at least 25 years old.

The more developed their corticostriatal network was, the better volunteers were able to boost their performance on high stakes tasks, says Insel.

Risky behaviour

The findings explain why some adolescents are so nonchalant when it comes to risky behaviours, says Kathrin Cohen Kadosh, at the University of Surrey, UK. Teenagers are much more likely to drive dangerously, for instance, especially when one of their friends is nearby.

Stefano Palminteri, at the Ecole Normale Superieure in Paris, France, thinks schools should reconsider the way they test performance in adolescents. “This study suggests it’s not a good idea to evaluate school performance in a single final exam,” he says. A better idea would be to use a variety of smaller tests, conducted throughout the year.

It’s not all bad news for teens, adds Palminteri. “We could look at this the other way around,” he says. “Adolescents put the same amount of effort into tasks that aren’t ‘important’, and start to prefer hobbies to school.”

“It could be a good thing, allowing teenagers to learn complex social skills, for example,” he says.

Journal reference: Nature Communications, DOI: 10.1038/s41467-017-01369-8

Read more: Revealed: The teenage brain upgrades that occur before adulthood; Why teenagers really do need an extra hour in bed