Cronies here, cronies there, cronies everywhere

The "silly season" of politics begins with silliness, courtesy of Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.  Mr. Romney was head-spinningly silly last week when he called President Obama a "crony capitalist."  He made a silly statement within an interesting political context that is not well-described by daily news sound-bites.  Which makes it worthwhile for discussion here.

If memory serves, for the last three years or more the prejudicial label applied to the President by the anti-Obama crowd has been "socialist."  Now, it seems that the leading candidate from the other side is blaming Mr. Obama for being a capitalist.

Both labels cannot be accurate; it's either one or the other, or neither.

What is a "crony capitalist" anyway?  Sitting next to me is a ponderous book called Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary.  It contains no entry for "crony capitalist," but it does define the word "crony" in this way:  "a close friend or companion; chum.  --Syn. pal, buddy."  The same source defines the word "capitalist" with three meanings in this manner:  "1. a person who has capital, esp. extensive capital, invested in business enterprises.  2. an advocate of capitalism.  3. a very wealthy person."

A crony capitalist, then, is a capitalist who invests with, or does business with, friends, pals, buddies and chums.

I have friends, pals and buddies, so apparently I have cronies.  And I call myself a capitalist, although am not able to aspire to Webster's definition #3 of that term.

Mr. Romney is a very wealthy person, and he probably considers himself a capitalist.  He certainly fits the definitions.  Years ago he founded the firm Bain Capital with a friend, or maybe it was with a pal or a buddy.  In any case, it sounds like Mr. Romney is a "crony capitalist."



So, is Mr. Romney inviting Mr. Obama to be his friend/companion/pal/chum/buddy in capitalistic endeavors?  Is he acknowledging that Mr. Obama is not a socialist and so trying to set a new tone of some sort for the anti-Obama crowd?    Is he saying that he and Mr. Obama are like birds of a feather?  Or that they are two peas in a pod?  Or is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black?  (My apologies; I couldn't resist that one.)

In deference to the sensibilities of others who might not be on my political wave-length, let me acknowledge here and now my full awareness that Mr. Romney was making his accusation in the context of President Obama's appointment of Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), as well as appointments to the National Labor Relations Board.  The U.S. Constitution empowers the President to make such appointments when the Senate is out of session.

The crux of the matter for Mr. Romney and the Republican Senators and Representatives seems to be that they claim that the appointments could not have been made because the Senate, though adjourned for its annual holiday recess, was in a "pro forma" session by virtue of the presence of one or two Republican Senators in chambers on the day in which the appointments were announced.

Which has nothing to do with "crony capitalism," so Mr. Romney was apparently just indulging himself in name-calling, or perhaps he really was trying to send the message that he believes Mr. Obama is truly a capitalist and not a socialist.  It's not clear.

Now, back to those appointments.

That ponderous dictionary is still at my side, so turning the pages to the entry for "pro forma" reveals this as the first meaning:  "1. according to form; as a matter of form; for the sake of form."  Subsequent described meanings include the use of terms such as "hypothetical" and "estimate."  Nowhere is there a definition that says anything like "pro forma means something is real and actual."  In fact, the definitions are the opposite of that, or at most they say that something which is pro forma is an indication of something that is yet to arrive.

If a governmental legislative body is in session then it has a commitment to carry out its duties, even if it ends up not accomplishing anything.  When that body is in recess or adjournment, then--wise-cracking aside--it just isn't there to do any amount of business of any sort.  Layering the term "pro form" on top of that recess or adjournment doesn't change things.  Besides, isn't it ludicrous to imagine one or two Senators of the minority party speaking to an otherwise empty Senate chamber and claiming that by doing so they are maintaining the operating presence of the 100 member U.S. Senate?

And yes, I am fully aware of the sound-bite rebuttal saying that the Democratic-majority Senate pulled the same stunt during the last two years of the Bush II Administration and that President Bush made no recess appointments during that period.  The Republican conclusion seems to be that President Obama is also to be denied the use of the recess appointment process in the same way.

That's poppycock.

By the time that President Bush was faced with this pro forma argument, he had already made 171 recess appointments.  At this point, President Obama has made only 32 recess appointments.  By 2007--when this pro forma thing started--President Bush was probably all tuckered-out on those recess appointments, and maybe all the empty slots were filled up anyway (171 is a lot of appointments; not even Bill Clinton made that many recess appointments during his eight years in office); President Obama, by contrast, has positions that need filling and the energy to do so.

President George W. Bush is long-since out of office now, and it's not up to me to speak for him, but if he felt the need to make a recess appointment and believed he had the ability to do so then I think he would have taken that action even when faced with the pro forma obstacle.  After all, President Bush never seemed to be one to recoil from a confrontation with his political opposites, in this case the Senate Democrats.

Why expect anything less politically-aggressive from the Obama Administration?   I cannot think of any reason for President Obama to act otherwise.

The CFPB has been in operation for six months without a head because "only" 53 Senators voted to confirm the appointment of Mr. Cordray.  That represents a majority of the Senate, but Republicans threatened to filibuster the results of the confirmation vote, and 60 votes are needed to shut down a filibuster.  Since the 60 votes have not been available, the official Senate confirmation is held up even though the majority voted in favor.

The Senate filibuster is a rules affectation that is unique to that body and has no basis in the Constitution.  It's a political maneuver, and I can accept that.  However, in this case the "pro forma" Senate session is simply an attempt to extend the affectation of the filibuster into the Constitutionally-expired session of the Senate.  That's the same thing as using a fiction to deny a reality, which in some circumstances ends up in medicated treatment.

On the other hand, the President's ability to make recess appointments has a Constitutional basis.  It is clearly stated in Section 2 of Article II with these words:  "The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate . . ."

Name-calling and sloppy use of the language, as well as inadequate disclosure of the relevant facts, do nothing to further intelligent public discourse during an election.  Those who are "name-callers" end up being ridiculed.  Assertions made by politicians or candidates without regard to sufficient analysis of the relevant facts will lead to public confusion.  The primary public media outlets contribute to the confusion because they tend to communicate in sound-bites that can cloak the meaningful details of the underlying story.

Election day is November 6, so we have a silly season that will last for the next ten months or so.  That provides ample time for lots of electoral confusion.  When I see it happening I will analyze it and write about it, just like this time.  Whether you agree or disagree with my conclusions, at least you will know something about the reasoning behind those conclusions, and I hope that will be helpful.

And I won't call anybody any silly names.