Elizabeth Warren: Our Populist Agenda - in Her Own Words

[NYC_SKP]

Elizabeth Warren: Our Populist Agenda - in Her Own Words

Tuesday, 06 January 2015 10:07 By Roger Hickey, Campaign for America's Future

Sen. Elizabeth Warren has become the most visible leader of the growing populist movement that is uniting a new majority around an agenda for economic change.

But with media visibility comes oversimplified media analysis. For example, a December 24 McClatchy News Service article characterizes Warren supporters as a liberal faction mobilizing “voter outrage” against the banks – as if Americans were not already outraged by the way bankers manipulate our economy. The story describes populists as pitted against “centrists who want the party to provide economic incentives for people to succeed, relying less on wealth redistribution through higher taxes or guaranteed incomes.” Note the absurd implication that we populists somehow oppose helping people to succeed.

All reporters and pundits – and all Warren supporters – should read a series of speeches (stitched together below) in which Sen. Warren carefully explains why so few people are able to succeed in today’s American economy. And her solutions, drawn from some of the best thinkers and social movements in America today, go well beyond stale debates about redistribution, zeroing in on what it will take to create jobs, raise wages, and put government on the side of working Americans.

For those who know her ideas only from TV sound bites, we present Elizabeth Warren’s thinking about the economy in her own words – words that are teaching us how to talk about economic populism and build a new American majority for change.

On May 22, 2014, Sen. Warren addressed the New Populism conference organized by the Campaign for America’s Future. (The link takes you to a video and transcript.)

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/28377-elizabeth-warren-our-populist-agenda-in-her-own-words

[Cosmic Kitten]

1. This quote really resonates with the Populist spirit

You know, this is not about big government or small government, it’s not the size of government that worries people. Rather, it’s a deep down concern over who government works for. Say what you like, people across this country, everyday folks with bills to pay and kids to raise, know that this government does not work for them.

You know, there was a time when government worked for real people.

Coming out of the Great Depression, our country believed that we could build an America that was better than the boom and bust economy that we’d had for over a century. So we made some key decisions that helped us build a strong middle class, helped make this country work for Americans, and think about what the core of that was.

[Hoyt]

2. Hope Warren explains her support of Republican and lobbyist efforts to repeal medical device tax

earmarked for premium subsidies for poor folks under ACA as just reported in Ed's show.

[sabrina 1]

3. I'm sure she will. Perhaps she has already.

Have you checked out whether or not she has spoken about her position on the issue? It's possible she has good reasons for doing so.

[Hoyt]

4. Lot of device manufacturers in her state.

[RiverLover]

7. Al Franken has also expressed concerns about the medical device tax. He's got Medtronic in MN.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/why-elizabeth-warren-wants-to-repeal-part-of-obamacare/

If this is the big smear on Liz, though, I'll take it.

[Hoyt]

8. Just typical bending over to lobbyists. Wendall Potter tonight said "utter poppy cock"

when the excuse was offered that device manufacturers would have to ship jobs overseas if the small tax was not repealed. I think those were Potter's exact words, and I agree.

[RiverLover]

9. I do too, really. You have to take the good with the bad, though.

And this just isn't something I can get upset about. There are bigger issues. I never expected her to be perfect. No politician can be.

And maybe she'll change her vote when this comes up again. You never know!

[Hoyt]

10. I hear you, and I'm not anti-Warren. I hate to see ACA go down because politicians don't have guts

to stand up for it. This tax may be relatively small, but it won't be the last effort to gut the ACA, by attacking the subsidies that help poor folks. When I heard Ed and Potter discussing it tonight, it ticked me off. I guess expediency rules, well except when Obama does it.

[sabrina 1]

18. I can't really comment on it as I don't know anything about it yet. But I will check out why two

Dem Senators who are the most concerned about issues that directly affect the people, are opposed to it.

It may be expediency, maybe not. I really can't say until I know more about it.

[NYC_SKP]

19. Klobuchar, Warren, Franken have come out against the tax, it doesn't make them anti-ACA.

It doesn't mean they aren't populist.

And especially if Obama is going to veto any measure to repeal it, they all get to keep the constituents happy without really risking the funding.

If it is repealed, I'm confident that all of them would work to find ways to replace that missing funding stream with other resources.

I believe this is much ado about nothing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/01/04/obamacare-medical-device-tax-repeal-congress-editorials-debates/21261737/

[Faryn Balyncd]

5. Republicans like Al Franken?

http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov/news-releases?ID=D97E6C71-A30C-4828-8ECB-B74C9AF0DC6F

http://blogs.mprnews.org/capitol-view/2013/10/franken-says-push-to-repeal-device-tax-will-continue/

[Hoyt]

6. Franken and others responding to device lobbyists. Sorry, this is no way to support ACA and

get it improved. I'm sure it is expedient thing to do to get re-elected, but it ain't populist.

[Faryn Balyncd]

11. There are a number of transcending issues of huge importance to our survival as a democracy, to

....American workers, and pertaining to the survival of America's middle class.


Issues of immense importance.


The details of the best specific way to finance the ACA would seem to perhaps involve options, and the optimal approach perhaps less than clear.

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. So you are taking issue with the repeal of a tax...

that was earmarked as a subside for the poor under ACA?
Any links to support that idea?

In the grand scheme of things, the sausage making of the ACA,
that seems like a very minor point of contention?

And the Ed Show is making hay over that single point as well?

[Hoyt]

13. What link do you need? That is what the device tax was earmarked.

[Cosmic Kitten]

14. Ok, if you say so.

As it stands, that seems like an odd tax from the get go?
Why tax US manufactures for building devices that would
be made more readily available by the ACA itself?

Who's idea was that particular piece of the ACA?
Was that the best or only option as a subsidy?
Any idea how much of a loss that tax represents?
Was it replaced with other funding?
Any back story would be appreciated.

[Hoyt]

15. No, it has not been replaced by other funding. Besides any other funding is needed for

other improvements. Why should those who will profit from increased sales under ACA not pay a tax. Do you support repealing tax on insurers, brand name drugs, limits on executive pay, penalties on employers who don't provide insurance, etc., next?

[Cosmic Kitten]

16. I'm not sure these issues are Elizabeth Warren issues?

As to taxes, the architecture of the ACA
is unnecessarily byzantine because of the
medical insurance and health care lobby.

Your point about the bipartisan efforts to repeal
the Medical Devise Tax seems relatively minor
in the larger context of Economic Reform.

[Hoyt]

17. Depends on how important the ACA and uninsured are to you.

[wavesofeuphoria]

20. Can you help explain

why this subsidy should be funded by an excise tax on medical devices rather than say ... guns, cars, or cigarettes to fund those who are uninsured?

Seems that we want to encourage the research and development of medical equipment and devices ... a hidden-to-the-consumer excise tax seems like an odd way for an affordable healthcare plan to gain funding.

[Cosmic Kitten]

21. "bipartisanship" and Keystone XL

Over at Mother Jones there's a short article and video
of Elizabeth Warren addressing republican hypocrisy.

http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/01/elizabeth-warren-keystone-gop

Elizabeth Warren Slams GOP for Hypocritical Push on Keystone XL

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is attacking Republicans for trying to force the Obama administration to approve the Keystone XL pipeline while simultaneously promising Democrats a renewed spirit of bipartisanship in Congress.

"There's going to be an energy hearing on Wednesday, and right now, the Republicans say they're going to move forward on the Keystone pipeline," Warren said Monday. "If we're going to move forward on something how about something that more of us can agree on?"

"A bill that's about energy conservation, energy efficiency, and about jobs and has strong bipartisan support. There is a place we can start."

This is what we EXPECT from a Democratic Representative!