Bashing Congress is part of the American psyche. With the Congress - and the Country! - so closely divided these days, on seemingly every major political issue; the political brawls are now pretty vicious, take-no-prisoners affairs. Courtesy, civility, and mercy in these contests are no longer expected - and are rarely offered.
Congress is now confronted with a political climate in which 50% of us are routinely outraged with any legislative action passed by our law-makers. The difficulty - and hilarity! - of this situation is magnified when we admit that - even worse! - 100% of us are routinely outraged when our law-makers fail to act [Think we may have that backasswards???]! What's a "try-to-please-'em" politician suppose to do?!?
One political pressure-valve outlet for all sides has been the Congressional committee hearing process. At times both Congress and the Country become so outraged by the failure of a government agency, that a Congressional committee hearing is called to review, address, and resolve the egregious behavior of a governmental bureaucracy. The issues get publicly aired, Congress fulfills its duty of oversight, and everybody gets a shot at compelling the leader to explain his or her actions under oath !!!!
Here are some recent examples:
Katherine Archuleta, Director of Office of Personal Management.
Massive data breach - resigned.
Melvin Carraway, Director TSA. Massive failures of airport security - resigned.
Eric Shinseki, Director, Office of Veteran Affairs. Unethical, inefficient operations at VA Hospitals - resigned.
Lois Lerner, IRS Director, Exempt Organizations. Politically motivated screening of exemption requests - resigned.
Julia Pierson, Director of Secret Service. Repeated failures of White House security - resigned.
As you probably know, there is a House Financial Services Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit meeting scheduled for Friday, July 24th at 9:15 a.m in Room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building.
The federal agency leader scheduled to give testimony is ....
Ms. Debbie Matz, Chair of the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).
Anticipated topics include budget opacity, overhead transfer rate, continuing risk-based capital (RBC 1&2) problems, recent labor contract, home-based staff comp/travel, non-bid legal counsel agreements, non-functioning appeals process, NCUSIF governance and administration weaknesses, inconsistent training/actions by field staff, lack of oversight of exam process, cybersecurity threat posed by obsolete data systems, and absence of fully-functioning internal controls.
Results: "Self-serving crazy talk"
9 comments:
We can only hope
Understand that Donald Trump as a fellow New Yorker fully supports Chair Matz' leadership style
Great ticket for 2016, Donald and Debbie - Brash and Bash
Don't get your expectations too high. All the above who resigned, but I think more accurately retired at Taxpayers expense, were in highly visible position in the massive Federal Bureaucracy. NCUA is about as visible to the US population as the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation!
Too little too late. Unfortunately the Queen has damaged her subjects to the degree that like Humpty Dumpty a new King/Queen could never put it all back together again.
Campaign Promises:
Dems:
End Afghan/Iraq wars
Close Gitmo
Pack Supreme Court
Matz out at NCUA
Repubs:
R's in White House
Feds out of healthcare
Repeal Dodd/Frank
Matz out at NCUA
Be careful what you wish for. Big Bird is waiting in the wings. Never an original idea, cannot speak for himself, can only take orders and comes with the strings already attached.
ATTENTION ALL CREDIT UNION ADVOCATES. SPECIAL HIKE THE HILL THIS FRIDAY. WELCOME THE CHAIRMAN WITH YOUR BEST SIGNS OF SUPPORT FOR THE GREAT JOB SHE HAS DONE TO MAKE YOURS HARDER. LET HER AND CONGRESS KNOW THAT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!
I hope the committee asks Ms. Matz what her justification is for thwarting the will of Congress or executive orders on:
· Contingency law suits;
· Charter change rules that are exceedingly more costly and complicated than OUR LAW, and
· Unilaterally declaring 1000 credit unions as "low income" which simultaneously gives them more powers than the rest of your credit unions while creating a safety and soundness nightmare.
Also, why is it that Fryzel can opine that the agency needs to be more transparent on the actual CCU losses 5 years after the agency borrowed (in your words) $25B? When will a valid reconciliation of the dollars be available and one that does not rely on NCUA assumptions on key components that only the agency sees? And, why didn't Fryzel insist on such transparency while on the board?
Post a Comment