Simon Johnson on Elizabeth Warren:
Don’t play the Republicans’ game by agreeing to debate “big” vs. “small” government. This is a complete illusion – just watch the favors that businesses will seek from Republicans on the Hill; not all of these appear “on the government’s balance sheet”, to be sure, but you can talk to the anguished people of Ireland about how exactly supposedly ”pro-business” (and definitely pro-big bank) policies end up costing the taxpayer a lot of money. (Or just look at how the financial disaster of 2008-09 ended up costing us 40 percentage points of GDP, measured in terms of the increase in our national debt – directly because of how the financial sector ran its customers and itself into the ground.)
The political debate should begin with documenting business practices that are misleading and duplicitous, wherever they occur.
We need transparency and accountability in the financial sector – and in all other parts of our economy. Elizabeth Warren is exactly the right person to lead this charge, in the first instance from the CFPB.
She should be nominated by President Obama to head the agency. The fight for her confirmation would make her ideas clear to millions. Let’s see which senators exactly are willing to argue against greater transparency.
Maxine here: I have no confidence that the Obama administration will effectively leverage Warren's obvious good sense and broad appeal to advance a pro-middle class, pro-Main Street agenda that is entirely consistent with strengthening markets, making them more competitive and boosting consumer sovereignty and confidence. If the past is any indicator of the future, BHO is already trying to figure out what shill the R's will regard as acceptable to head the CFPB.
I do not think "bipartisan" means what Obama thinks it means.
Please read Johnson's full post, it is really excellent.
Hat tip rjs
Remember, Obama's always overly scared of looking too liberal. This should have been obvious from the start of the primaries, with what Obama said and with policies much less progressive than his main rivals, but too few people look past the superficial -- he gives me the heebie-jeebies when he talks and Hillary seems bitchy.
Posted by: Richard H. Serlin | 11/29/2010 at 12:31 PM
Sadly, I don't find the thesis that Obama is deceived as plausible as the thesis that he intends to deceive. And, manipulate.
Elizabeth Warren sets a standard and shines a light that exposes corruption in many forms. That Obama cannot and will not shine that light on his partisan political opponents shines a light on his own debased motives.
Gazing on Warren's example of intelligent decency, and the light it sheds on the alternative, my admiration for her tends to be overwhelmed by my sorrow for my country.
Posted by: Bruce Wilder | 11/29/2010 at 12:37 PM
That said, it can be difficult to say what they will actually do -- what really helps or hurts hundreds of millions and billions worldwide, not the heebie-jeebies and looking like JFK. Obama with no individual mandate had nothing close to a universal healthcare plan in the primaries -- and constantly put down the individual mandate. Hillary and Edwards both had it.
But Obama actually did push for and pass a true (even though highly flawed) universal health care plan with an individual mandate -- and passed it!
Hilary it's unclear if she would have passed it, or if she would have really fought and taken down the filibuster. She did give in badly on the 2005 bankruptcy bill for which Warren severely criticized her in her book, The Two Income Trap, but that bill was passing with or without her Senators vote.
Meanwhile, Edwards had the most progressive policies, but he was doomed because of his personal behavior.
Posted by: Richard H. Serlin | 11/29/2010 at 12:41 PM