Remarks by Senator Warren on Citigroup and its bailout provision

From MoveON:

This speech could make Elizabeth Warren president.

 

You need to watch this speech. It's electrifying. It's historic.
Barack Obama's 2004 Democratic Convention speech launched him into the running for President. This could do the same for Elizabeth Warren.

So turn up your speakers and watch the whole thing. And then chip in to support MoveOn's work, as we get Elizabeth Warren's back in the Senate—and encourage her to run for president.

When big banks wrecked our economy, they went to Congress for a half-a-trillion-dollar bailout. Now—six years later—Citigroup thought they could quietly sneak a provision into a must-pass spending bill to let them gamble with taxpayer money again. But Senator Warren fought back hard, and is winning in the court of public opinion.

Barack Obama's 2004 Democratic Convention speech launched him into the running for president. This could do the same for Elizabeth Warren.

Please watch the video right now. And then chip in to help MoveOn as we support Elizabeth Warren's work in the Senate and encourage her to run for president.

Thanks for all you do.

–Mark, Robert, Kristin, Ilya, and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. "The Speech That Could Make Elizabeth Warren the Next President of the United States," The Huffington Post, December 13, 2014
http://www.moveon.org/r/?r=302028&id=105927-3735812-oWJvA5x&t=1

http://warren.senate.gov
Senator Elizabeth Warren spoke on the floor of the Senate on Dec. 12, 2014 about the provision that Citigroup added to the omnibus budget package.

Elizabeth Warren was told to stay quiet, but she didn’t – and it’s paying off...and Massachusetts is PROUD!

Take a look at BMG and see just how TOXIC this legislation is:

Massachusetts Delegation Says No to the Cromnibus



Don't ya think we've been ripped off enough by Wall Street's Casino Capitalism?


Elizabeth Warren was told to stay quiet, but she didn’t – and it’s paying off
By Zachary A. Goldfarb December 14


Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), right, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, express their outrage to reporters about the changes to the 2010 Dodd-Frank law in the $1.1 trillion spending bill. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)



In her book released this year, Sen. Elizabeth Warren recounted a dinner she had with President Obama’s chief economic adviser, Larry Summers, in April 2009, when Warren was the outspoken chairman of a congressionally appointed panel probing the government’s response to the financial crisis.

Larry leaned back in his chair and offered me some advice. ... He teed it up this way: I had a choice. I could be an insider or I could be an outsider. Outsiders can say whatever they want. But people on the inside don’t listen to them. Insiders, however, get lots of access and a chance to push their ideas. People — powerful people — listen to what they have to say. But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule. They don’t criticize other insiders.
I had been warned.

Warren ignored the warning.

And if the past few weeks are any indication, she can operate as an insider without giving her up outsider credentials. She’s remained outspoken, but has become even more influential. She hasn't stopped throwing bombs at the rich and powerful — and causing trouble for the White House — but she's won a spot in Senate leadership, changed the shape of congressional debates over financial regulation and continued to draw widespread attention as a potential presidential candidate.

It all helps to explain why – for the 300 former Obama campaign officials who last week urged her to run in 2016 – she is the one they’ve been waiting for.

“Rising income inequality is the challenge of our times, and we want someone who will stand up for working families and take on the Wall Street banks and special interests that took down our economy,” they wrote.

Over the past week, Warren galvanized liberals across Capitol Hill against a government spending bill that weakened a key provision of the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that tightened oversight of Wall Street.

The Senate may have passed the legislation late Saturday, but it was not before Warren and other liberals asserted their power in a confrontation with the White House, even winning over House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who had previously supported the legislation.

Warren is also in an unusually public battle with the White House and Treasury Department over Antonio Weiss, an investment banker who has been tapped for a key Treasury position. White House officials say Weiss is deeply sympathetic to Democratic views and is the right man for the job. But Warren has won over several colleagues in trying to block the nomination, saying the administration is too cozy with Wall Street.

It’s a topic she reprised in a speech Friday evening after losing the battle over the spending bill, in which see singled out mega-bank Citigroup as an example of a bank with too much power.

“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. “Enough is enough with Citigroup passing 11th-hour deregulatory provisions that nobody takes ownership over but that everybody comes to regret. Enough is enough.”

Critics of Warren, even if they're sympathetic to her view, would say that by taking absolutist positions, she won't achieve much more than fiery rhetoric.

On the government spending bill, Obama could have pushed for more, but ultimately gotten less – especially in a new Congress controlled by Republicans next year. And opposing hiring finance industry officials for Treasury jobs, one might argue, is like fighting for a Justice Department staffed with people who never worked for a private law firm.

The history of Obama's presidency, in many ways, is a story of compromises that disappointed liberals but still achieved substantial policy gains for Democrats, including the Affordable Care Act.

Looking forward, the power of Warren and likeminded senators seems only to be growing. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) made her a member of leadership. In the next Senate, the top Democrat on the Banking Committee will be liberal leader Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). The top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee will be Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a self-avowed socialist.

It's hard to imagine any of them leading the way on any legislation the Senate will actually consider, and it's equally difficult to know how Warren would respond if she was actually in a position where she had to negotiate legislation. To the degree he seeks congressional accords in his final two years, Obama will be forging them with Republican leadership in the House and Senate, and bringing along as many Democrats as he can.

But should he move far in hopes of a compromise with the GOP — on trade, the budget or any other issue — Obama will likely find Warren leading a liberal flank in opposition. It's hard to know if she would succeed, but the past few weeks show that she has the influence to make a difference.

Zachary A. Goldfarb is policy editor at The Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/14/elizabeth-warren-is-changing-washington-without-giving-up-her-outside-status/?hpid=z1

Stop the Republicans' Wall Street giveaway

People are frustrated with Congress. Part of the reason, of course, is gridlock. But mostly it’s because they see a Congress that works just fine for the big guys but won’t lift a finger to help them. And now the House of Representatives is about to show us the worst of government for the rich and powerful. The House is about to vote on a budget deal – a deal negotiated behind closed doors that slips in a provision that would let derivatives traders on Wall Street gamble with taxpayer money, and once again get bailed out by the government when their risky bets threaten to blow up our financial system. These are the same banks that nearly broke this economy in 2008 and destroyed millions of jobs. The same banks that got bailed out by taxpayers and are now raking in record profits. The same banks that are spending a whole lot of time and money trying to influence Congress to bend the rules in their favor. I’m urgently calling on Congress to withhold support of the deal today until this dangerous giveaway is removed from the legislation. Join me right now to stand up to Wall Street.   You will hear a lot of folks say that the rule that will be repealed in the Omnibus is technical and complicated, and that you shouldn’t worry about it because smart people who know more than you about financial issues say that it’s no big deal. Don’t believe them. Actually, the rule is pretty simple. Here’s what it’s called – the rule that the House is about to repeal – and I’m quoting from the text of Dodd-Frank – “PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BAILOUTS OF SWAPS ENTITIES.” We put this rule in place after the collapse of the financial system because we wanted to reduce the risk that reckless gambling on Wall Street could ever again threaten jobs and livelihoods on Main Street. We put this rule in place because people of all political persuasions were disgusted at the prospects of future bailouts. And now, no debate, no discussion, Republicans in the House of Representatives are threatening to shut down the government if they don’t get a chance to repeal it. That raises a simple question – why? If this rule brings more stability to our financial system, if this rule prevents future government bailouts, why in the world would anyone want to repeal it, let alone hold the entire government hostage in order to ram through the repeal? The reason, unfortunately, is simple. It’s about money, and it’s about power. Because while this legal change could pose serious risks to our entire economy, it’ll also make a lot of money for Wall Street banks. Wall Street isn’t subtle about this one – according to documents reviewed by the New York Times, the original bill that is being incorporated into the House’s spending legislation today was literally written by Citigroup lobbyists, who “redrafted” the legislation, “striking out certain phrases and inserting others.” I know that House and Senate negotiators from both parties have worked long and hard to come to an agreement on the omnibus spending legislation. And Senate leaders deserve great credit for preventing the House from carrying out some of their more aggressive fantasies about dismantling even more pieces of financial reform.   But this provision goes too far. Citigroup is large, and it is powerful. But it is a single, private company. It shouldn’t get to hold the entire government hostage – to threaten a government shutdown – in order to roll back important protections that keep our economy safe. This is a democracy, and the American people didn’t elect us to stand up for Citigroup. They elected us to stand up for all of the people. We all need to stand and fight this giveaway to the most powerful banks in the country. Join me in calling on Congress to withhold support of this package until this risky giveaway is removed from the legislation. Thank you for being a part of this, Elizabeth