In case you're one of the people wondering why so many of us want the straight-talking Elizabeth Warren to head up the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection, here's about as succinct a rationale as you can find. Right from her own lips last March at the Make Markets Be Markets conference put together by the Roosevelt Institute:
Elizabeth Warren on Consumer Protection (MMBM) from Roosevelt Institute on Vimeo.
Some Senators no doubt would prefer to have lobbyist Thomas J. Donohue at the BCFB reins. They're all for advocacy except when it's advocacy that exposes and shackles the misbehavior of their leading campaign contributors.
Sen. Chris Dodd said July 19 that it's not clear whether Warren can be confirmed by the Senate for the BCFP post. There's difference of opinion over whether he was trying to sandbag her nomination or just point out the screwed-up reality of the Senate's filibuster rule. Mike Konczal, a fellow at the Roosevelt Institute, doesn't mention Dodd by name nor take note of rumored but unproven opposition to Warren's appointment at high levels on the White House team. But he, like Matt Yglesias and others, takes issue with the idea Warren might not be confirmable. At New Deal 2.0 Thursday, Konczal wrote:
I’m not much of a political analyst, but I’d note that I think Republicans would have a hard time going hard against her. I’m not sure if the Republicans could [oppose] her as a block. Shahien Nasiripour reports about the waffling inside the Republican camp already.
A nomination battle in which the GOP ... blasts Elizabeth Warren is going to hurt them with women voters, voters they are looking to test out strategies to reach. For a GOP looking to bring on women voters who like Sarah Palin, the idea of them yelling "who cares about a fee that is only $30?" or "$1,000 in medical costs? That’s chump change!" at Warren would probably not work that well with women voters who fight to make sure the budget lasts the whole month.
And remember the Credit Card Bill of early last year passed the Senate 95-to-5. This was May, 2009, so we were already into GOP Waterloo territory on the Obama domestic agenda. That’s a lot of votes for the Senate; I think Republicans can’t quite defend this part of the financial sector in the same way that they work to get expanded derivatives loopholes.
And the GOP managed to make the financial bill much weaker and then voted against it anyway. And it’s not going to cost them anything that they did this. So turning up the heat with this nomination battle has to look good for voters.
The unlistened-to Christina Romer will soon be out the door in the Obama administration. Bad news that gives Larry Summers an even tighter grip on the President's ear. And the likelihood is less than minimal for the new appointee at the Council of Economic Advisers to be Joe Stiglitz, Bill Black or Lawrence Mischel.
To be sure, having Warren at the BCFB would not solve the problem of having little but the conventional economic wisdom spoken aloud at the White House. But, especially since she would be the first chief of the new protection bureau, setting its tone and behavior in its earliest days, Warren would make a difference where and when it counts. Not only would she have an economic impact if confirmed, just the fact of her nomination, as Matt Yglesias has written, would also have a political impact by sending an I-hear-you message from the White House to liberals.
= = =
[Green diary rescue returns Sunday]