Monday, July 26, 2010

Left Pushes Hard for Elizabeth Warren

Left Pushes Hard for Elizabeth Warren

Left Pushes Hard for Elizabeth Warren

24 July 2010
Prof. Elizabeth Warren, chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel set up to oversee the TARP program, 04/20/09. (photo: Tim Sloan)

Prof. Elizabeth Warren, chairman of the Congressional Oversight Panel set up to oversee the TARP program, 04/20/09. (photo: Tim Sloan)

Will Obama let down liberals - and women - again? Inside the fight over Washington's new consumer-protection agency.

here's a 2.0 version of health care's public-option debate, and her name is Elizabeth Warren. She's the Harvard law professor who's been overseeing the Troubled Assets Relief Program and giving Treasury Department insiders heartburn over their excessive generosity to Wall Street bigwigs. Liberals are lobbying hard for Warren to head the newly created Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, warning the White House that failure to do so would rival the left's disappointment over President Obama's refusal to fight for a public option. Warren's backers consider her the Joan of Arc of the financial consumer movement.

Warren is the only woman under consideration, and the job should be hers if it weren't for some intramural friction that has taken on a gender cast. Her credentials are impeccable, underscored by her prescience in originating the idea for a consumer financial agency three years ago, well before the storm that would take down the markets and cost taxpayers trillions in wealth. Writing in a 2007 article in the journal Democracy, Warren challenged the rah-rah boom times, arguing that consumers are "effectively unprotected in a world in which a number of merchants of financial products have shown themselves very willing to take as much as they can by any means they can."

In her clear-eyed and earnest way, Warren has broken through in testimony on Capitol Hill and on television as a voice for the people, ticking off powerful business interests and irritating the boys' club that Obama has entrusted to steer the economy. If Obama chooses her to head the new consumer agency, she would have to be confirmed by the Senate and would likely provoke a partisan battle on the scale of a Supreme Court nomination. On Friday morning, three Republican senators warned the White House not to use a recess appointment to fill the new position. For Obama, it's a classic political choice: how much of a fight does he want or need going into the fall elections?

His base is telling him that Warren is what the left needs to believe in him again. Obama loves the woman; there have been articles written about how he sought her out, and how admiring he is of her. As the financial-reform legislation made its way through Congress, she was consistently named as the likely head of the first consumer-protection bureau. If Obama backs down now, he looks like he's afraid of a fight, which is not a good perception for a president who needs to burnish his leadership cred going into the November election. Warren is the voice of Main Street, and if the Republicans want to block her, Obama's attitude should be "Bring it on."

Warren has dared to challenge the captains of international finance, and she has rattled the protectors of Wall Street, many of them Republican and male, just the kind of opposition that Obama could use to drive women's turnout in November. Warren embodies his efforts to revive the economy and create jobs in a way that everything else he's done hasn't conveyed. Her persona as a champion for the people is so ingrained that Obama wins simply by having the fight. "The only question is whether Elizabeth Warren is Moses whose candidacy expires overlooking the Promised Land, or Joshua who gets to lead the troops," says Bill Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a former Clinton domestic policy adviser.

A decade ago, when Wall Street was riding high, Time dubbed the era's chieftains of finance - Alan Greenspan, Bob Rubin, and Larry Summers - "The Committee to Save the World." We learned later how their disdain for regulation and their faith in the markets was misplaced, and how one astute regulator, Brooksley Born, head of the obscure Commodities Futures Trading Commission, took on Greenspan et al. to argue for regulating those funny new financial instruments called derivatives that nobody understood, and how she was put down and marginalized and ultimately ignored. Former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt, in a Frontline documentary about Born's lonely and futile quest to sound the danger, recalled the disparity of power and how condescending the men were in thinking this was a woman you could "flick off with the back of your hand." Her warning unheeded, Born ultimately resigned, a case history of a missed opportunity that would have done more to save the economy, if not the world, than all the pooh-bahs who made Time's cover.

Warren has advanced further into the club than Born, and if she makes it, she would bolster Mary Shapiro at the SEC and Sheila Bair at the FDIC, who like Warren have been at odds with the Obama team. Gender is at play in these debates, as well it should be. With women controlling more discretionary spending in America than men do, it's far past time for better representation in the highest councils of power.

Eleanor Clift is also the author of "Two Weeks of Life: A Memoir of Love, Death, and Politics" and"Founding Sisters and the Nineteenth Amendment."

Op-Ed Columnist - Who Cooked the Planet? By Paul Krugman

Op-Ed Columnist - Who Cooked the Planet? - NYTimes.com

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Who Cooked the Planet?

Never say that the gods lack a sense of humor. I bet they’re still chuckling on Olympus over the decision to make the first half of 2010 — the year in which all hope of action to limit climate change died — the hottest such stretch on record.

Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

Paul Krugman

Readers' Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Of course, you can’t infer trends in global temperatures from one year’s experience. But ignoring that fact has long been one of the favorite tricks of climate-change deniers: they point to an unusually warm year in the past, and say “See, the planet has been cooling, not warming, since 1998!” Actually, 2005, not 1998, was the warmest year to date — but the point is that the record-breaking temperatures we’re currently experiencing have made a nonsense argument even more nonsensical; at this point it doesn’t work even on its own terms.

But will any of the deniers say “O.K., I guess I was wrong,” and support climate action? No. And the planet will continue to cook.

So why didn’t climate-change legislation get through the Senate? Let’s talk first about what didn’t cause the failure, because there have been many attempts to blame the wrong people.

First of all, we didn’t fail to act because of legitimate doubts about the science. Every piece of valid evidence — long-term temperature averages that smooth out year-to-year fluctuations, Arctic sea ice volume, melting of glaciers, the ratio of record highs to record lows — points to a continuing, and quite possibly accelerating, rise in global temperatures.

Nor is this evidence tainted by scientific misbehavior. You’ve probably heard about the accusations leveled against climate researchers — allegations of fabricated data, the supposedly damning e-mail messages of “Climategate,” and so on. What you may not have heard, because it has received much less publicity, is that every one of these supposed scandals was eventually unmasked as a fraud concocted by opponents of climate action, then bought into by many in the news media. You don’t believe such things can happen? Think Shirley Sherrod.

Did reasonable concerns about the economic impact of climate legislation block action? No. It has always been funny, in a gallows humor sort of way, to watch conservatives who laud the limitless power and flexibility of markets turn around and insist that the economy would collapse if we were to put a price on carbon. All serious estimates suggest that we could phase in limits on greenhouse gas emissions with at most a small impact on the economy’s growth rate.

So it wasn’t the science, the scientists, or the economics that killed action on climate change. What was it?

The answer is, the usual suspects: greed and cowardice.

If you want to understand opposition to climate action, follow the money. The economy as a whole wouldn’t be significantly hurt if we put a price on carbon, but certain industries — above all, the coal and oil industries — would. And those industries have mounted a huge disinformation campaign to protect their bottom lines.

Look at the scientists who question the consensus on climate change; look at the organizations pushing fake scandals; look at the think tanks claiming that any effort to limit emissions would cripple the economy. Again and again, you’ll find that they’re on the receiving end of a pipeline of funding that starts with big energy companies, like Exxon Mobil, which has spent tens of millions of dollars promoting climate-change denial, or Koch Industries, which has been sponsoring anti-environmental organizations for two decades.

Or look at the politicians who have been most vociferously opposed to climate action. Where do they get much of their campaign money? You already know the answer.

By itself, however, greed wouldn’t have triumphed. It needed the aid of cowardice — above all, the cowardice of politicians who know how big a threat global warming poses, who supported action in the past, but who deserted their posts at the crucial moment.

There are a number of such climate cowards, but let me single out one in particular: Senator John McCain.

There was a time when Mr. McCain was considered a friend of the environment. Back in 2003 he burnished his maverick image by co-sponsoring legislation that would have created a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions. He reaffirmed support for such a system during his presidential campaign, and things might look very different now if he had continued to back climate action once his opponent was in the White House. But he didn’t — and it’s hard to see his switch as anything other than the act of a man willing to sacrifice his principles, and humanity’s future, for the sake of a few years added to his political career.

Alas, Mr. McCain wasn’t alone; and there will be no climate bill. Greed, aided by cowardice, has triumphed. And the whole world will pay the price.

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Rep. Burton retracts "Shakedown", statement - apologizes for apology

Rep. Burton retracts statement - apologizes for apology
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/06/17/96059/congressman-20-billion-a-shakedown.html

President Obama Speaks from Oval office- June 20, 2010

1. President Obama from oval office June 20, 2010
http://readersupportednews.org/video/4-video/2206-president-obamas-oval-office-address-on-bp-oil-spill-and-energy