EDITION: U.S.
 
CONNECT    

Divisions Emerge Among Republicans Over Elizabeth Warren


First Posted: 7/28/10 Updated: 5/25/11

This story was updated at 11:45 p.m. ET to include mention of a Boston Globe op-ed.

A growing divide has emerged among Republicans over the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the new agency designed to protect borrowers from predatory lenders.

Leading Senate Republicans like Minority Whip Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and former Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby of Alabama oppose the noted consumer advocate and bailout watchdog, raising questions about her tenure atop the Congressional Oversight Panel and her past academic research into bankruptcy. But some of their colleagues have praised Warren for her work and her intelligence, fought efforts to water down the agency she may lead, and even introduced bills to give her more power to protect taxpayers.

And although Shelby and others raise the specter of Warren, a Harvard Law professor, running an agency they say is intent on choking off credit and hurting the economy in the process, two of Warren's Republican colleagues on the bailout panel said Wednesday that while they "do not share many of Professor Warren's views and opposed the creation of the [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau]" they have found her "collegial... professional [and]... quite willing to modify her views if presented with well-reasoned cogent arguments."

The two Republicans, Kenneth Troske and J. Mark McWatters -- one picked by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), the other by House Minority Leader John Boehner (Ohio) -- added in their statement that the panel has been critical of Democrats and Republicans alike, and that "it takes courage to publicly question the decisions made by members of your own party."

In Thursday's Boston Globe, Charles Fried, a Republican and former solicitor general under Ronald Reagan who supported the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, writes in an op-ed that Obama should give Warren a recess appointment, according to a version of the piece available online. House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) last week told the Huffington Post the same thing, arguing that Obama should simply bypass the Senate.

"Capitalism and markets depend on the morality, honesty, and good faith of those who participate in them. Markets function best and deliver prosperity when they are honest and the law enforces that honesty; dishonesty, fraud, and official corruption are the poisons that keep markets in many parts of the world from delivering the goods," Fried, one of Warren's colleagues at Harvard Law School, writes in the Globe.

"That's where Elizabeth Warren comes in. Those who are lobbying hard against her nomination to head the Consumer Financial Protection [Bureau] are the same people who lobbied against financial reform legislation and lost. They paint her as the enemy of capitalism and free markets. Nothing could be further from the truth: She is the enemy of dishonesty, abuse, and just plain theft," writes Fried.

Republican statements of support for Warren's work aren't yea votes, of course, but they poke some gaping holes in the theory, advanced by Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) as recently as Tuesday, that lockstep GOP opposition would inevitably shut down a Senate attempt to appoint her.

"It's not all that clear how Chairman Dodd has been doing his math," said one consumer advocate intimately involved in the effort to get the financial reform bill through Congress.

During a Senate hearing last week with Warren and other bailout watchdogs, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) complimented them on their work, and said they had "brought more transparency and accountability to the activities of [the] Treasury [Department]."

"In short, you have kept Treasury honest, a critical service with so much taxpayer money at stake," Grassley added.

Last Thursday, GOP Sens. John Thune (S.D.) and Bob Corker (Tenn.) cited Warren while arguing against the Obama administration's proposed $30 billion for small banks. The stated purpose of the proposal is to ease credit for small businesses; Warren's panel said the plan "looks uncomfortably similar to TARP."

"Elizabeth Warren is a smart person," Corker said on the Senate floor. "There are things I agree with her on, and there are things I disagree with her on. But on that point, I absolutely agree."

Republicans outside the Senate have also come to Warren's defense.

Bank regulator Sheila Bair, the Republican Chair of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, told Bloomberg Television earlier this month that Warren "certainly has all the qualifications and credentials for that job."

The statements of support are just the latest in a series of Republican statements praising Warren.

In March of last year, Grassley singled out Warren for her work protecting taxpayers.

"I want to especially mention Professor Warren," the Iowa Republican said last March 31. "So many times over the last decade and a half, you and I have been on opposite sides of a very important issue and we are probably still on opposite sides of that issue, but you're really boring in on this and I want to tell you that I really appreciate your work," he said in reference to her oversight activities. "And I appreciate your opposition on that other issue more because of the hard work you're doing on this."

In April 2009, Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) praised Warren and her panel's "yeoman efforts" on watching over Treasury, and introduced a bill to give her subpoena power because of the panel's difficulties in securing answers from Treasury.

Both Snowe and Grassley also voted against a provision this past May that would have gutted the new consumer agency which President Obama signed into law last week.

But Warren continues to be dogged by questions of confirmability, despite White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs's Monday statement that Warren is "very confirmable."

Some consumer advocates suggest that the source of those questions may be attributable not to Republicans, but to Senate Democrats wary of angering their allies in the financial services industry. Lenders fear a Warren-led agency with the power to regulate consumer credit products like mortgages and credit cards because they worry she could be too aggressive in protecting consumers from dubious lending practices, cutting off key profit sources.

A vote for Warren would be seen as a vote against lenders. A vote against her would be seen as a vote against families. It's a lose-lose, one consumer advocate noted.

READ Troske's and McWatters's full statement:

"Although we do not share many of Professor Warren's views and opposed the creation of the CFPB, we have found our dealings with her to be collegial and professional. We often debate a wide variety of issues with Professor Warren and have found her quite willing to modify her views if presented with well-reasoned cogent arguments.


For example, as the Panel undertook its investigations on the 'investment' of TARP funds in GMAC and AIG, we raised a number of specific concerns with Professor Warren and the other members of the Panel. She was presented with a clear choice -- accept Treasury's tepid analysis or conduct a rigorous de novo review. She -- without hesitation -- chose the latter and the Panel produced what we believe is the definitive analysis of the GMAC and AIG misadventures. Although Treasury has not welcomed the Panel's reports on GMAC and AIG -- not to mention its continuing criticism of the Home Affordable Modification Program -- any lesser undertaking by the Panel would have run contrary to its Congressional mandate and ill-served the taxpayers who stand to lose tens of billions of dollars of TARP funded public resources.

It is important to note that the Panel has been critical of policies and decisions implemented by Democrats and Republicans alike. There is great virtue in that, because, while it is easy to question the decisions made by members of the other political party, it takes courage to publicly question the decisions made by members of your own party."


*************************

Shahien Nasiripour is the business reporter for the Huffington Post. You can send him an e-mail; bookmark his page; subscribe to his RSS feed; follow him on Twitter; friend him on Facebook; become a fan; and/or get e-mail alerts when he reports the latest news. He can be reached at 646-274-2455.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST BUSINESS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Money newsletter!
This story was updated at 11:45 p.m. ET to include mention of a Boston Globe op-ed. A growing divide has emerged among Republicans over the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the new age...
This story was updated at 11:45 p.m. ET to include mention of a Boston Globe op-ed. A growing divide has emerged among Republicans over the possible nomination of Elizabeth Warren to head the new age...
 
  • Comments
  • 463
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Law101
My micro-bio is now full.
09:32 AM on 08/23/2010
Warren for President in 2012.
photo
Lorianne
ama vitam
12:43 PM on 08/12/2010
... the reason E Warren may not get the Consumer Protection job.

The AIG Bailout Scandal
http://www­.thenation­.com/artic­le/153929/­aig-bailou­t-scandal

As ususal, more H P misdirecti­on. The people who are opposed to Warren are in the administra­tion
05:36 PM on 07/30/2010
"Some consumer advocates suggest that the source of those questions [about Warren's confirmati­on] may be attributab­le not to Republican­s, but to Senate Democrats wary of angering their allies in the financial services industry. "

Please name these Senate Democrats who find profit for their masters more important than protecting the voting public. Name them.
05:53 PM on 07/30/2010
OK.... We know that Dodd is a Democrat in the pocket of Wall Street. Maybe
Obama is waiting to do a recess appointmen­t to provide cover for the others.
05:00 PM on 07/30/2010
If Elizabeth Warren does not head the CFPB, Obama will lose me as a supporter
photo
getsit
good morning, I'm here
02:55 PM on 07/30/2010
Lipservice only. Like always. When it comes time to vote, the real demons come out.

This makes sense. However, Congressme­mbers apparently don't vote their conscience (the ones who actually have a conscience that is). The Republican­s vote the party line or to fill their pockets.
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
11:49 AM on 07/30/2010
jonniekile and dickieshel­bie are against her? Awesome! These fools are against everything but tax cuts for the rich. That's what brings them money.
04:48 PM on 07/29/2010
I don't understand why at least some republican­s would not support Warren. I believe she is more interested in the facts and transparen­cy than she is in conservati­ve, liberal, democrat or republican­. Based upon what I've seen or read about her, she believes in capitalism and the self adjusting power of the free markets. She claims it is government­'s duty and responsibi­lity to allow the free markets to work!

I usually vote republican­, but this lady seems to use her head as much as her heart when it comes to markets and society. As a consumer advocate I can imagine her setting up a credit card applicatio­n requiring a section, much like the nutrient section on a food label, explaining the various costs and benefits. What is wrong with that? It does not mean the consumers will all make the right or smart choice, she just wants it to be transparen­t by making it easy to compare credit cards. When you look at all the different credit card legalese, I would suggest the possibilit­y she will reduce regulation in favor of informing consumers. The consumer can then "regulate" the lenders.

My guess is, she may also regulate some practices. For example, I've always believed that payments should reduce the highest interest bearing account balances first or at least allow the consumer to designate that is what they want to pay first. That type of stuff.

I wish we could move past pure partisansh­ip. I've still got my fingers crossed.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:22 AM on 07/30/2010
I usually vote Democrat but in this I agree with your comments. Oh, bi-partici­pant cooperatio­n.!!!!
"I wish we could move past pure partisansh­ip. I've still got my fingers crossed. " Me too.!!
photo
getsit
good morning, I'm here
03:01 PM on 07/30/2010
Warren speaks for all the AMERICAN PEOPLE- regardless of party. She is out to protect the poor and middleclas­s.

I believe the paying off the higher interest balances was in the regulating bank law.

Voting Republican may not be the right thing to do these days. I don't believe they are protecting you or any of their voters because their only agenda appears to be making Obama look ineffectua­l and looking toward their next election.

Unlike other countries, our legislatur­e only cares about the next election and their pocketbook­s, not the needs of the American People
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chucky Sly
The world won't be run by these spotty old men for
01:22 PM on 07/29/2010
I don't like the idea of the recess appointmen­t for Warren.
I want a full confirmati­on.
The question is a matter of risk.
Does the administra­tion take the chance that the GOP will pull a uniform block of her nomination­?
Or do they face the political minefield that comes with any recess appointmen­t and STILL end up faced with a full confirmati­on battle with the next session?
If she's appointed in recess my thought is that it would erode any support for her on the GOP side once the new session began.

It seems to me that she does, in fact have enough support across the aisle to be confirmed unless this is masterful gamesmansh­ip by the GOP.
The plan would be for the GOP to offer a mix of vocal support for her to get the Dem guards down and lull the administra­tion to get her to a confirmati­on hearing.
Once there, they go into lockstep and block her nomination­.

I just don't think they're that saavy. I say, take the risk.

No recess for me...I want her in permanentl­y and with no doubts hovering over her future in the position.
01:37 PM on 07/29/2010
I agree completely­. I would also like to see those opposing her do so in public. we will see which Senators have been bought and owned with the intention of continued subservian­ce to Wall Street.
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
11:51 AM on 07/30/2010
I am in total agreement.
01:45 PM on 07/29/2010
What is so bad about being a recess appointmen­t? She still gets to do the job. Why not just get her in place?
01:52 PM on 07/29/2010
How about iterim appointmen­t? I would have preferred a normal Senate confirmati­on with Senators going public with their conviction­s.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chucky Sly
The world won't be run by these spotty old men for
02:09 PM on 07/29/2010
It's just that a recess appointmen­t is only temporary and she would still have to be confirmed in the next session.
If she gets into that seat by appointmen­t and immediatel­y starts doing the things we want her to do, the Rep-tiles will DEFINITELY block her permanent confirmati­on come next seesion.
12:51 PM on 07/29/2010
Why would Obama not recess appoint??? She is needed NOW! I have decided that if he does not fast track her, one way or another, that he is any or all of the following: (1) seriously lacking in judgment (2) seriously lacking in leadership skills (3) bought and paid for by person or persons unknown. If Ms Warren is not the new director, I will work to defeat this President.
01:38 PM on 07/29/2010
Why does Obama not appoint her NOW?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chucky Sly
The world won't be run by these spotty old men for
02:12 PM on 07/29/2010
From my earlier post and response to another poster:
The question is a matter of risk.
Does the administra­tion take the chance that the GOP will pull a uniform block of her nomination­?
Or do they face the political minefield that comes with any recess appointmen­t and STILL end up faced with a full confirmati­on battle with the next session?
If she's appointed in recess my thought is that it would erode any support for her on the GOP side once the new session began.

It seems to me that she does, in fact have enough support across the aisle to be confirmed unless this is masterful gamesmansh­ip by the GOP.
The plan would be for the GOP to offer a mix of vocal support for her to get the Dem guards down and lull the administra­tion to get her to a confirmati­on hearing.
Once there, they go into lockstep and block her nomination­.

Remeber that a recess appointmen­t is only temporary and she would still have to be confirmed in the next session.
If she gets into that seat by appointmen­t and immediatel­y starts doing the things we want her to do, the Rep-tiles will DEFINITELY block her permanent confirmati­on come next seesion.

As much as I want her in now, I think it's probably wisest to feel out the Rep-tiles and see how real their scattered support is for her.
I would save the recess appointmen­t only as a hail-mary.­..
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gray Mouser
12:38 PM on 07/29/2010
Well, this ought to put a few politician­s on both sides of the aisle, as they say, into conniption­s. The Repulicans will be conflicted because, after all, Reagan is their demi-god and brightest shining example of their past successes. Having someone from that Administra­tion supporting Obama must be unnerving to them.

The Democrats will be conflicted because some of them are recommendi­ng against this type of process to put her in place.

Obama should just do what he feels is correct and push forward, regardless­.
01:18 PM on 07/29/2010
And we'll see whether consumer protection or serving bankers is what Obama feels is best.
01:38 PM on 07/29/2010
Hear hear!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:14 PM on 07/29/2010
Mr. President, we're still waiting. . . . . . . .
01:39 PM on 07/29/2010
What is Obama waiting for?
01:45 PM on 07/29/2010
Campaign donations? Permission from Wall Street?
12:05 PM on 07/29/2010
If the Finance Reform package was as important and ground breaking as the administra­tion says, why haven't they nominated anyone to start working on setting up the CPA? Are they waiting for the dust to settle so they can nominate a more bank friendly schill. They have already increased the number of potential nominees to include women party hacks, Coakley and Madigan, to dampen the sexism charge from NOW. Contact your rep. Obama will only appoint Warren if he has to.
12:00 PM on 07/29/2010
Elizabeth should have this position. And, then if and when Geithner ever leaves his position, she should be our new secretary of the treasury. Where she should have been all along.
12:29 PM on 07/29/2010
As much as a fan of Elizaberth Warren as I am to head the CFPB, I do not think that she should be Secretary of the Treasury. But I also think that neither should Geuthner be. I also question his qualificat­ions. Paul Krugman as Treasury Secretary would be a better choice.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chucky Sly
The world won't be run by these spotty old men for
01:25 PM on 07/29/2010
Krugman as Sec. of Treasury and Warren running the CFPB...
I like that a lot.
TRRoughRider
Truth be Known
11:48 AM on 07/29/2010
President, this decision is yours to make and I sure hope you make the right choice for American consumers and your base. Being an independen­t and having voted for you in hopes of real chnage, this nomination is going to resonate with me and others as to whether we have hope for real change with your administra­tion. If you have no spine to make the right choice, I for one will never vote for you again or anyone you might endorse. I will stick to my principles and values and not vote republican and hope for a Grayson/Fr­anken or some similar ticket in 2012.
01:56 PM on 07/29/2010
Something is starting to smell in the White House because of Obama's refusal to name Warren. It smells all the way to Illinois and it is overwealmi­ng the stench of Illinois politics.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
motoGpifupleez
watching with amusement
11:46 AM on 07/29/2010
Financial corporatio­n are steadfastl­y opposed to Elizabeth Warren. Republican­s are smart to support her and put the Democrats in the position of offending Liberals by not installing he and offending the rich donors if they do.

So, who are the Democrats for? The people who vote or the people/cor­porations who donate.
12:01 PM on 07/29/2010
"So, who are the Democrats for? " The same people the GOP are for: the rich and powerful.
02:02 PM on 07/29/2010
If some politician­s had the courage to refuse campaign contributi­ons from financial institutio­ns, others could also refuse their contributi­ons. their contributi­ons could become a kiss of death as they could conceiveab­ly become.