ThinkProgress Home
ThinkProgress
ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Elizabeth Warren”

Economy

Elizabeth Warren Says JP Morgan Trading Debacle Shows ‘We Need To Go Back To Boring Banking’

By Pat Garofalo on May 14, 2012 at 2:08 pm

Massachusetts Democratic senate candidate Elizabeth Warren reacted to the news of JP Morgan’s $2 billion trading debacle by calling for the bank’s CEO, Jamie Dimon, to step down from his position as a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York’s board. Today, Warren also said that the episode makes the case for a return to “boring banking” — separating investment banking from traditional commercial banking — which was the status quo before the deregulatory zeal of the late 1990s:

Q: You think had it [the Volcker rule] been in place, we wouldn’t be talking about this?

WARREN: Well, I’m going to put it this way. The Volcker Rule would help. We don’t know exactly the nature of these trades. But if the question is is the Volcker rule enough, or do we need more, look, I’m somebody who believes we really should have boring banking. That banking should be — the part that’s about savings accounts and checking accounts and our money system — should be separated from the kind of risk-taking that Wall Street traders want to take. That was originally what the Glass-Steagall Act was about, it was repealed in 1999. There was an effort to get it into Dodd-Frank in the 2010 bill. That effort failed. I think we really do need that kind of separation. We need to go back to boring banking. The people who want to take risks need to take risks with their own money and do it somewhere else.

Watch it:

This echoes the call made by economist Paul Krugman, who noted that the era of boring banking “was also an era of spectacular economic progress for most Americans.”

Update

In an email today, Warren called on Congress to reinstate Glass-Steagall:

I’m calling on Congress to put Wall Street reform back on the agenda and to begin by passing a new Glass-Steagall Act. This was the law that stopped investment banks from gambling away people’s life savings for decades — until Wall Street successfully lobbied to have it repealed in 1999.

A new Glass-Steagall would separate high-risk investment banks from more traditional banking. It would allow Wall Street to take risks, but not by dipping into the life savings and retirement accounts of regular people.

Election

Elizabeth Warren Fights Back Against Claims She Used Her Native American Heritage For Gain

By Amanda Peterson Beadle on May 3, 2012 at 3:06 pm

After the Boston Herald reported that Elizabeth Warren listed herself as “Native American” while she was a professor at Harvard Law School, Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-MA) campaign quickly attacked his Democratic opponent for listing herself as a minority, insinuating that she did so for professional gain. “Prof. Warren needs to come clean about her motivations for making these claims and explain the contradictions between her rhetoric and the record,” said Brown campaign spokesman Jim Barnett.

But Warren, who is likely 1/32 Cherokee (though it’s unclear if her great-great-great grandmother was full-blooded), fought back against Brown’s accusations, saying she grew up discussing her Native American heritage and hoped to meet others who shared similar roots, according to the Boston Herald:

“I listed myself in the directory in the hopes that it might mean that I would be invited to a luncheon, a group something that might happen with people who are like I am. Nothing like that ever happened, that was clearly not the use for it and so I stopped checking it off,” said Warren.

The Harvard Law professor argued she didn’t use her minority status to get her teaching jobs, and slammed her Republican rival U.S. Sen.Scott Brown for suggesting otherwise.

“The only one as I understand it who’s raising any question about whether or not I was qualified for my job is Scott Brown and I think I am qualified and frankly I’m a little shocked to hear anybody raise a question about whether or not I’m qualified to hold a job teaching,” she said, pushing to put Brown on defense. “What does he think it takes for a woman to be qualified?”

Warren is right to be proud of her roots, and it is unfair for Brown’s campaign and others to attack her for it by accusing her of claiming minority status to improve her career. Native Americans faced discrimination and societal pressure to hide their backgrounds for years, and until 2005, Boston even had an antiquated law on the books that banned Native Americans from entering the city.

It is ignorant to attack Warren based on an arbitrary limit on how much Native American blood she has, when the tribe doesn’t even do that themselves. Just like Warren, the chief of the Cherokee Nation is only 1/32 Native American.

NEWS FLASH

New Elizabeth Warren Ad Hits GE For Paying No Taxes | In her bid to unseat Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), consumer advocate Elizabeth Warren is keeping up her populist message, with a new ad out today that notes she “grew up in a family hanging on by our finger tips to a place in the middle class.” It goes on to hit Washington for “let[ting] big corporations like GE pay nothing — zero — in taxes while kids are left drowning in debt to get an education.” The ad comes after Brown joined Senate Republicans in filibustering the Buffett Rule, and in the midst of new reports showing perilously high student loan debt posing a threat to the economy. Watch the ad:

By Alex Seitz-Wald on Apr 23, 2012 at 10:31 am

Climate Progress

Big Oil Runs Ads For Scott Brown, Breaking ‘People’s Pledge’ Ad Ban

By Rebecca Leber on Mar 28, 2012 at 11:20 am

The oil lobby group American Petroleum Institute launched ads in Massachusetts late last week on behalf of Koch-funded candidate Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), as part of its $2 million national campaign to protect oil subsidies.

Unfortunately for Brown, the ads violate the “People’s Pledge” he made with Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren earlier this year, banning outside group spending in the race. Elizabeth Warren’s campaign manager Mindy Myers noted the oil-subsidy ads “are funded by big oil and clearly support Brown’s position”:

It has come to our attention that the American Petroleum Institute has been running radio and print ads to support Senator Scott Brown’s position on tax breaks for big oil companies. Given Senator Brown’s past vote in support of these tax breaks, and the fact that these ads are funded by big oil and clearly support Brown’s position on this issue, this is a violation of the People’s Pledge.

According to the agreement, when an ad runs the candidate who benefits must donate the sum to charity. This is already the second time Brown has cut a check because of outside groups supporting his campaign.

In addition to Massachusetts, API has run similar ads in six states to protect the industry’s billions in tax loopholes. In the ad, API falsely claims that raising taxes leads to higher prices at the pump, though a Congressional Research Service memo determines that eliminating tax breaks for big oil companies would have negligible impact.

The API ad ostensibly urged Brown to oppose a Senate bill repealing Big Oil’s tax breaks — a position he’s already taken. Brown already voted against repealing these subsidies last year.

The Warren-Brown deal may minimize dirty Super PAC tactics in their own race, but it doesn’t prevent outside group interests from dictating Brown’s voting record. Koch Industries has donated $15,250 to Brown’s campaign this cycle, and he’s taken in close to $200,000 from oil and gas during his career. Before he voted against the oil subsidy repeal last year, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Exxon contributed to Brown’s campaign.

Health

Democratic Women Slam GOP’s Radical Contraception Amendment, Claim It ‘Opens Door To Discrimination’

By Igor Volsky on Feb 15, 2012 at 8:30 am

High-profile Democratic women are hitting back against the GOP’s opposition to the Obama administration’s new rule requiring insurers and employers to offer contraception in their health care benefit plans. Obama exempts houses of worship and nonprofits that primarily employ people of the same faith from covering birth control, while religiously affiliated hospitals and colleges can also eschew the benefit. Their employees would obtain the coverage — at no additional cost sharing — directly from the insurer.

Today, the Senate will hold a vote on a Republican substitute introduced by Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO), which would allow any and all insurers and employers to deny their employees health benefits and services required by federal law based on their personal religious or moral objections. The measure has 37 co-sponsors — including the GOP leadership, women Republican Senators Lisa Murkowski (AK), Kay Bailey Hutchison (TX), Kelly Ayotte (NH), Democrat Ben Nelson (NE), and Republican Scott Brown (MA). Brown has supported expansive conscience protections for religious organizations throughout his legislative career, but voted for a tougher contraception mandate as a Massachusetts state representative in 2002 and approved of a law requiring all hospitals — including Catholic institutions — to provide emergency contraception to rape victims in 2005.

After defending Obama’s rule last year, Democrats are now on the offensive. Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) have derided Blunt’s measure as “extreme” and “dangerous,” claiming that “It puts politics between women and their healthcare.” Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) warned, “This would gut the protections that were established in the Affordable Care Act and open a Pandora’s box that allows employers to deny coverage for virtually anything they might object to” and yesterday, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren told the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent that amendment would permit insurers or employers to discriminate against women:

“I am shocked that Senator Brown jumped in to support such an extreme measure,” Warren told me by phone just now. “This is an all new attack on health care. Any insurance company could leave anyone without health care, just when they need it most.” [...]

“This is an extreme attack on every one of us,” Warren said. “It opens the door to outright discrimination. It would let insurance companies and corporations cut off pregnant women, overweight guys, older Americans, or anyone — because some executive claims it’s part of his moral code. Maybe that wouldn’t happen, but I don’t want to take the chance.”

Indeed, under the measure, an insurer or an employer would be able to claim a moral or religious objection to covering HIV/AIDS screenings, Type 2 Diabetes treatments, cancer tests or anything else they deem inappropriate or the result of an “unhealthy” or “immoral” lifestyle. Similarly, a health plan could refuse to cover mental health care on the grounds that the plan believes that psychiatric problems should be treated with prayer.

Individuals too can opt out of coverage if it is contrary to their religious or moral beliefs, radically undermining “the basic principle of insurance, which involves pooling the risks for all possible medical needs of all enrollees.” As the National Women’s Law Center explains, Blunt’s language is vague enough that “insurers may be able to sell plans that do not cover services required by the new health care law to an entire market because one individual objects, so all consumers in a market lose their right to coverage of the full range of critical health services.” As a result, a man “purchasing an insurance plan offered to women and men could object to maternity coverage, so the plan would not have to cover it, even though such coverage is required as part of the essential health benefits.”

Significantly, two Republican women senators — Olympia Snowe (ME) and Susan Collins (ME) — have come out in support of Obama’s modified contraception rule and may oppose Blunt’s measure.

Read the full amendment here.

Fatima Najiy contributed to this post.

NEWS FLASH

Elizabeth Warren Calls On FHFA To Do More To Help Homeowners | The Federal Housing Finance Agency — which is the regulator for government backed mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, headed by acting director Ed DeMarco — has been blocking Fannie and Freddie from writing down mortgage principal for troubled homeowners. DeMarco argues, contrary to the view of many economists, that writing down mortgages will put too big a dent in Fannie and Freddie’s bottom line. In a statement yesterday, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D) called on the FHFA to stop blocking this crucial help for homeowners. “The foot-dragging in Washington has stalled economic recovery and has hurt our families,” said Warren. “We need a housing policy that fires on all cylinders: principal write-downs, refinancing options, cash for keys, and short sales.”

NEWS FLASH

In Op-Ed, Elizabeth Warren Hits Scott Brown and Mitt Romney For Opposing The Buffett Rule | Massachusetts Senate Candidate Elizabeth Warren (D) published an op-ed today criticizing her opponent, Sen. Scott Brown (R), for his opposition to the Buffett Rule, a proposal by the Obama administration to implement a 30 percent minimum tax on millionaires. She also took a swipe at GOP Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, calling his ability to pay a lower tax rate than many middle-class working families wrong and unfair. “Just last week, Scott Brown said in an interview that he thinks Mitt Romney and Warren Buffett should get special tax breaks that are not available to most Americans. I don’t think that’s fair,” wrote Warren. Brown, who now trails Warren in most polling, told The Sun Chronicle last weekend that he opposes Obama’s plan.

LGBT

Elizabeth Warren Makes The Economic Case For Marriage Equality

By Igor Volsky on Jan 25, 2012 at 10:35 am

Elizabeth Warren — who is challenging Scott Brown’s (R-MA) Senate seat in Massachusetts — has reiterated her support for LGBT equality in a new “It Gets Better” video and interview with Bay Windows. Interestingly, the former Harvard law professor argued that her “background in finance and economics” has informed her of the cost of discriminatory laws like the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA):

EW: I first wrestled with DOMA in my bankruptcy work. As you may know, a married couple is entitled to certain jointly held benefits if they file for bankruptcy but that is denied a same-sex couple married here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. That’s where I first started talking about this issue and the impact DOMA has on people in very tangible ways. Working in an economic field for so long makes me comfortable making the strong economic defense for economic equality and treatment.

Indeed, since DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who marry in one of the six states that have legalized marriage equality must file separate federal tax returns and are not eligible for Social Security spousal or survivor benefits or the tax deduction “their spouse’s health insurance benefits — a cost that opposite-sex married couples don’t have to pay.” Businesses also note that the discrepancy between state and federal law requires them “to maintain two sets of books” and increase costs for “human resources, payroll, and benefits administration.”

Brown, however, opposes marriage equality, the right of gays and lesbians to adopt children, federal protections for LGBT people in the workplace, and has even refused to participate in an “It Gets Better” video with the rest of the Massachusetts congressional delegation.

Related Posts

NEWS FLASH

Elizabeth Warren, Sen. Scott Brown Sign A Ban On Super PAC Campaign Ads In Their Massachusetts Race | The 2012 elections will undoubtedly see an unprecedented injection of third-party influence, thanks to the Citizens United ruling and the subsequent advent of super PACs, and now, “super super PACS” — groups that “not only raise mega cash to promote candidates, but give money to candidates’ campaigns” directly. Attempting to stem the tide of undue influence, Massachusetts Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren (D) and her opponent Sen. Scott Brown (R) signed a ban on third-party ads. Brown had sent Warren two previous proposals but Warren objected to “some of the loopholes” that remained. Warren sent back a signed proposals with “clarifications to make it stronger.” The ad ban is “designed to control what is already prodigious outside spending on the race. By some projections, the campaign could cost at least $60 million” with at least “$20 million being spent by special interest groups with an interest in the outcome.”

By Tanya Somanader on Jan 23, 2012 at 12:00 pm

Older

Switch to Mobile