Elizabeth Warren’s Inconvenient Truths

If you were paying attention to the ABC News program “This Week with George Stephanopoulos” on April 27, you witnessed a bit of clumsy sidestepping by the senior senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren. During the program, Stephanopoulos pointed out Hillary Clinton’s record of favoring the financial services world over consumer rights, and asked whether a President Hillary Clinton would be too friendly to the banking world.

This is, verbatim, what Warren had to say: “I’m worried a lot about power in the financial services industry and I’m worried about the fact that basically, starting in the ’80s, you know, the cops were taken off the beat in financial services. These guys were allowed to just paint a bull’s-eye on the backside of American families. They loaded up on risk. They crushed the economy. They got bailed out. What bothers me now, they still strut around Washington, they block regulations that they don’t want, they roll over agencies whenever they can.”

You may notice that there’s no mention of Hillary Clinton at all in that answer. But, then again, Warren has a chronic fixation on rewriting history to meet her needs while carefully ignoring facts that disrupt her increasingly bizarre self-proclaimed mission as being the champion of the American working families.

For those of us that were around in the 1980s, the notion that “cops were taken off the beat in financial services” is rather odd, considering that (1) the depth of financial deregulation that fueled the 2008 crisis – most notably, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act – began in the Clinton era and not the Reagan era, and (2) more than 1,000 bankers involved in the savings and loan crisis of the late 1980s were indicted and convicted. The latter figure is especially fascinating when one considers that the architects of the 2008 crash were never indicted by Eric Holder’s Justice Department – a fact that Warren has never publicly criticized.

Indeed, Warren always seems to be stricken with laryngitis whenever inconvenient facts disrupt her zany view of a nation being destroyed by the financial services world. In April, for example, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) issued a report that found more than two-thirds of mortgage-related complaints filed with the bureau in 2013 were dismissed, while only 2% of the mortgage-related complaints related in financial compensation. Of course, this contradicts Warren’s much-repeated shtick that mortgage companies are trying to destroy borrowers – and, not surprisingly, the senator opted to say nothing about the CFPB’s data.

Warren and her liberal allies were also conspicuously silent when news reports surfaced about complaints by CFPB employees involving racism in the agency’s personnel process. And Warren has also said nothing about the CFPB’s ballooning budget on the refurbishing of its Washington headquarters, including the hiring of the architectural firm behind Dubai’s Burj Khalifa skyscraper as the designers of this opulent project. Isn’t it a bit peculiar that she has no problem when her pet agency is wasting hundreds of millions in taxpayer funds generated by the working families she claims to support?

Furthermore, Warren’s claim that financial services companies “block regulations that they don’t want” will come as a surprise to lenders and servicers that adhere to the Dodd-Frank Act and the dramatic operational changes imposed upon them by the CFPB and other regulators. Warren’s insistence that financial services companies can “roll over agencies whenever they can” doesn’t explain the billions of dollars in fines that these companies have been paying out over the past several years – and, of course, Warren had nothing to say when it was revealed that the majority of state governments used their respective cuts of the National Mortgage Settlement for projects that had nothing to do with homeowner assistance.

As for Hillary Clinton, she recently accepted $400,000 for a pair of speaking engagements sponsored by Goldman Sachs. To her credit, she didn’t pretend this payout never happened. But when George Stephanopoulos repeatedly pressed Warren as to whether she would support Clinton’s presidential bid, the senator hemmed and hawed before blurting out: “If Hillary – Hillary is terrific!”

Oh, a politician that pockets $400,000 from a Wall Street giant in exchange for a pair of speeches is “terrific”? Thank you, Elizabeth Warren, for confirming your phoniness and idiocy.

About The Author