Elizabeth Warren

[libby]

I'm moving this from another post of mine because I want to update what is going on  with Senator Elizabeth Warren (a Democrat): It will follow this.

The Washington Post
Wednesday, December 17 2014
'Enough is enough': Elizabeth Warren launches fiery attack after Congress weakens Wall Street regs

By Wonkblog Staff December 12, 2014

With Congress set to pass a government spending bill that weakens a provision of Dodd-Frank, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) took the floor of the Senate on Friday evening to lash out at her colleagues. In her remarks, she took specific aim at mega-bank Citigroup, saying it wields unusual power in government and must be reigned in. "Many Wall Street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in Washington's corridors of power, but Citigroup has risen above the others," she said. "Its grip over economic policymaking in the executive branch is unprecedented."

Warren, pushing her party to take a less friendly attitude toward Wall Street, called on Congress to do as much for families living paycheck to paycheck as it does for big banks. Her prepared remarks follow:

Mr. President, I'm back on the floor to talk about a dangerous provision that was slipped into a must-pass spending bill at the last minute to benefit Wall Street. This provision would repeal a rule called, and I'm quoting the title of the rule, "PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS OF SWAPS ENTITIES."

On Wednesday, I came to the floor to talk to Democrats, asking them to strip this provision out of the omnibus bill and protect taxpayers.

On Thursday, I came to the floor to talk to Republicans. Republicans say they don't like bailouts either. So I asked them to vote the way they talk. If they don't like bailouts, then they could take out this provision that puts taxpayers right back on the hook for bailing out big banks.

Today, I'm coming to the floor not to talk about Democrats or Republicans, but about a third group that also wields tremendous power in Washington: Citigroup.

Mr. President, in recent years, many Wall Street institutions have exerted extraordinary influence in Washington's corridors of power, but Citigroup has risen above the others. Its grip over economic policymaking in the executive branch is unprecedented. Consider a few examples:

Three of the last four Treasury Secretaries under Democratic presidents have had close Citigroup ties. The fourth was offered the CEO position at Citigroup, but turned it down.
The Vice Chair of the Federal Reserve system is a Citigroup alum.
The Undersecretary for International Affairs at Treasury is a Citigroup alum.
The U.S. Trade Representative and the person nominated to be his deputy – who is currently an assistant secretary at Treasury – are Citigroup alums.
A recent chairman of the National Economic Council at the White House was a Citigroup alum.
Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management and Budget went to Citigroup immediately after leaving the White House.
Another recent Chairman of the Office of Management of Budget and Management is also a Citi alum -- but I'm double counting here because now he's the Secretary of the Treasury.

That's a lot of powerful people, all from one bank. But they aren't Citigroup's only source of power. Over the years, the company has spent millions of dollars on lobbying Congress and funding the political campaigns of its friends in the House and the Senate.

Citigroup has also spent millions trying to influence the political process in ways that are far more subtle—and hidden from public view. Last year, I wrote Citigroup and other big banks a letter asking them to disclose the amount of shareholder money they have been diverting to think tanks to influence public policy. Citigroup's response to my letter? Stonewalling. A year has gone by, and Citigroup didn't even acknowledge receiving the letter.

Citigroup has a lot of money, it spends a lot of money, and it uses that money to grow and consolidate a lot of power. And it pays off. Consider a couple facts.

Fact one: During the financial crisis, when all the support through TARP and from the FDIC and the Fed is added up, Citi received nearly half a trillion dollars in bailouts. That's half a trillion with a "t." That's almost $140 billion more than the next biggest bank got.

Fact two: During Dodd-Frank, there was an amendment introduced by my colleague Senator Brown and Senator Kaufman that would have broken up Citigroup and the nation's other largest banks. That amendment had bipartisan support, and it might have passed, but it ran into powerful opposition from an alliance between Wall Streeters on Wall Street and Wall Streeters who held powerful government jobs. They teamed up and blocked the move to break up the banks—and now Citi is bigger than ever.
The role that senior officials working in the Treasury department played in killing the amendment was not subtle: A senior Treasury official acknowledged it at the time in a background interview with New York Magazine. The official from Treasury said, and I'm quoting here, "If we'd been for it, it probably would have happened. But we weren't, so it didn't." That's power.

Mr. President, Democrats don't like Wall Street bailouts. Republicans don't like Wall Street bailouts. The American people are disgusted by Wall Street bailouts. And yet here we are -- five years after Dodd-Frank – with Congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for middle class, do nothing for community banks – do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out the biggest banks once again.

There's a lot of talk lately about how the Dodd-Frank Act isn't perfect. There's a lot of talk coming from Citigroup about how the Dodd-Frank Act isn't perfect.

So let me say this to anyone who is listening at Citi: I agree with you. Dodd-Frank isn't perfect.
It should have broken you into pieces.

If this Congress is going to open up Dodd-Frank in the months ahead, let's open it up to get tougher—not to create more bailout opportunities .

If we are going to open up Dodd-Frank, let's open it up so that, once and for all, we end Too Big to Fail. And I mean let's really end it – not just say we did.

Instead of passing laws that create new bailout opportunities for Too-Big-To-Fail banks, let's pass Brown-Kaufman. Let's pass the bipartisan 21st Century Glass-Steagall Act – a bill I've sponsored with John McCain, Angus King, and Maria Cantwell. Let's pass something – anything – that would help break up these giant banks.

A century ago, Teddy Roosevelt was America's trustbuster. He went after the giant trusts and monopolies in this country, and a lot of people talk about how those trusts deserved to be broken up because they had too much economic power. But Teddy Roosevelt said we should break them up because they had too much political power. Teddy Roosevelt said break them up because all that concentrated power threatened the very foundations of our democratic system.

And now we're watching as Congress passes yet another provision that was written by lobbyists for the biggest recipient of bailout money in the history of the country. And it's attached to a bill that needs to pass or else the entire federal government will grind to a halt.

Think about this kind of power. A financial institution has become so big and so powerful that it can hold the entire country hostage. That alone is a reason enough for us break them up. Enough is enough.
Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism we have seen in the executive branch. Enough is enough with Citigroup passing 11th hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over but that everybody comes to regret. Enough is enough.

Washington already works really well for the billionaires and big corporations and the lawyers and lobbyists. But what about the families who lost their homes or their jobs or their retirement savings the last time Citi bet big on derivatives and lost? What about the families who are living paycheck to paycheck and saw their tax dollars go to bail Citi out just six years ago? We were sent here to fight for those families, and it's time – it's past time – for Washington to start working for them.

www.washingtonpost.com

[libby]

(continued) Elizabeth Warren is one tough lady. So far she seems to be holding her own. I hope she has enough equally tough -- and loyal -- friends and supporters. 

The following is from the financial section of the Washington Post.

Treasury nominee Antonio Weiss withdraws from consideration

By Steven Mufson January 12, 2015

President Obama's choice for a senior post at the Treasury Department, investment banker Antonio Weiss, has dropped out of consideration after a storm of criticism from liberal Democrats led by Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Weiss wrote a letter to Obama asking the administration not to renominate him for the position of undersecretary for domestic finance, choosing instead to serve as a counselor to Treasury Secretary Jack Lew on international and domestic matters. In that position, he would not be subject to confirmation but would play a different, lower-profile role.

The withdrawal of Weiss from consideration hands a major victory to Warren (D-Mass.) and others in the Democratic Party who questioned Weiss's qualifications, alleging that his Wall Street ties made him a poor choice for effective regulation of financial institutions and reform of tax issues such as companies launching mergers to lower their tax bills.

"We've already seen that the new Republican Congress is going to aggressively attack the Dodd-Frank Act," Warren said in a statement Monday. "It is critical that the Treasury Department defend the Act from those attacks and push for strong implementation and enforcement of the law. The risk of another financial crisis remains too high, and we should be strengthening financial reforms, not rolling them back to benefit Wall Street."

The Obama administration, which had nominated Weiss in mid-November and would have needed to renominate him for the new Congress, had defended Weiss, asserting that his experience as head of investment banking at Lazard made him a strong choice for the Treasury post.

The administration said that Weiss's views on regulation were in line with Warren's, that he opposed tax breaks for U.S. companies moving their headquarters abroad and that he had not worked for a bank in the "too big to fail" category.

But Warren said that Weiss represented the latest in a long line of Wall Street bankers to dominate Treasury and that it was time to stop. "Enough is enough with Wall Street insiders getting key position after key position and the kind of cronyism we have seen in the executive branch," she said in a Dec. 12 speech about Citigroup.

"We strongly believe that the opposition to his nomination was not justified," said the White House in a statement.

Friends of Weiss, who was a major fundraiser for Obama, said he never anticipated such a storm. "He had no idea that Elizabeth would come out swinging," said one person who has worked with Weiss.

Steven Rattner, a former Lazard banker who aided the Obama administration with the automobile industry rescue, said in an interview that Weiss had "become a pawn in a struggle for the heart of the Democratic Party." He said "poor Antonio" was a "great guy caught in the crossfire" after laying bare his personal finances in the hope of getting "a modest sub-Cabinet job."

Rattner said that he had "a lot of respect" for Warren and "her deep commitment to her issues," but he warned that "this kind of intraparty fratricide is a dangerous thing."

A person close to Warren said last week, before Weiss withdrew, "This is not just a political play. This is something we really care about." But he also asserted that if Weiss withdrew, it "shows we have the power to bring someone down. Elizabeth is a bigger bogeyman in these rooms."

This person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so he could speak freely, added that the withdrawal of Weiss would demonstrate the administration has limited appetite for confronting the party's liberal wing. "I think there's a finite amount they're willing to bleed," he said. "Every time we attack them, they bleed."

Leading Democrats and supporters of Weiss also said the Obama administration had not made any effort to muster support among members of the Senate.

One former administration official with good relations with members of the Senate Finance Committee said he offered to rally support for Weiss but that Weiss said the White House had said to hold off.

"I have questions about him too," Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), the Democratic whip, said in an interview last week. He said he got a call from the White House about six or eight weeks ago, asking whether he would meet with Weiss. He said yes, and then heard — nothing.

"I don't understand why we haven't heard any more," he said last week.

Top Republicans, whose support would have been needed, also said last week that they had heard nothing from the administration. Julia Lawless, a spokesperson for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), said last week that the committee never received Weiss's paperwork last year but that Hatch "looks forward to thoroughly examining Mr. Weiss's record and gaining a better understanding of his fiscal views."

That will no longer be necessary.

"I do not believe that the Treasury Department would be well served by the lengthy confirmation process my renomination would likely entail," Weiss said in a letter to the president over the weekend, adding that as counselor he would be able to "begin serving immediately."

Karen Tumulty contributed to this report.

Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China, foreign policy and energy.

[Exterminator]

If people want a substantive reason to criticize the administration, this.

[libby]

If people want a substantive reason to criticize the administration, this.

I am a democrat; I voted for Obama. Would again. But I am also a huge fan of Elizabeth Warren.

What is going on  now is, I think, absolutely totally unexpected; everything is not always as it seems.