So the shocker today is that Elizabeth Warren *gasp* IS WELL PAID FOR HER WORK!! OMG OMG OMG ALERT THE VAST LEFT-WING CONSPIRACY!!! ELIZABETH WARREN ISN’T DIRT POOR ANYMORE!!! HOW CAN WE POSSIBLY SUPPORT HER???
Please.
Scott Brown’s campaign’s response is of course utterly predictable. Here’s campaign spokesguy Jim Barnett:
“She is firmly entrenched in the same ‘1 percent’ she rails against”
OK let’s stop there for a second. See, I always thought that Republicans thought it was a good thing if someone rises to the top from humble beginnings. And that’s exactly what Elizabeth Warren did: from a barely-getting-by upbringing in Oklahoma to the halls of Harvard Law School, all because, well, she’s really smart and has worked really hard. I also had thought that Republicans liked the concept of good, hard work being rewarded appropriately, which might suggest that they’d be delighted to see Warren making a good salary for what she does. Clearly, I had that all wrong. Anyway, it’s not like the 1-percenters at, say, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are exactly lining up to back her campaign.
Here’s the rest of Barnett’s incredible insight:
“and she is more than happy to make tens of thousands of dollars defending powerful insurance companies against middle class victims,” said Jim Barnett, a spokesman for Brown. “Despite her claims, you don’t need to be a Harvard professor to know that insurance companies don’t hire big time lawyers because of their interest in protecting the little guy.”
Now, let’s have a little reality check here. The insurance company thing accounts for $43,938 out of the over $700,000 Warren earned over the last two years. Yet that’s apparently the only part of Warren’s income that Barnett could find to criticize.
Anyway, about that $43,938:
Her compensation includes $43,938 she earned as a consultant in 2010 for Travelers Insurance company for cases involving asbestos victims.
This has come up before, as you may recall, when the Herald reported it several months ago. Here’s how Warren responded then:
In a statement to the Herald, Warren argued that she actually protected consumers because allowing future lawsuits would have eroded confidence in the asbestos trust.
“At stake is how to get payments to the largest number of asbestos victims, and that means getting insurance companies to put all the insurance proceeds into a trust rather than fighting lawsuit-by-lawsuit until the money runs out,” Warren said. “All the victims deserve a fair shake, and that means they should all have an equal chance for compensation.”
So who’s right? In Barnett’s view, apparently, it’s just so gosh-darn obvious that Traveler’s was trying to screw asbestos victims that there’s no need even to inquire into what the facts actually were. On the other hand, Warren’s position seems basically to be that if individual lawsuits go forward and bankrupt the company and exhaust the insurance proceeds, there’s nothing left when, years later, more people realized that they are suffering from asbestos-related injuries (these injuries sometimes take years to manifest). It’s a complicated issue, and reasonable people can differ on the best way to deal with situations involving enormous numbers of victims whose injuries don’t show up for years, as was the case with asbestos. Barnett, however, doesn’t seem interested in any of that. Surprise.
pogo says
Having a six figure law practice while being a “full time” state senator and then cashing in on his fame by writing a book with a seven figure advance while supposedly working for the people of Massachusetts in the US Senate.
Bottom-line, this is a glass house line of attack that will sullen Brown as much as Warren.
kirth says
“I also had thought that Republicans liked the concept of good, hard work being rewarded appropriately…”
For the class of Republicans who actually have any power, I have never in my life seen any evidence of this, beyond their sporadic claims to that effect. Unless “rewarded appropriately” means “barely scraping by at best.” Those who work the hardest (for my definition of hard work) are often compensated the least – and look who gets to make that happen. The exceptions to that are usually people who join unions. If Republicans really wanted the hard-working to be paid well, they’d encourage union membership. They don’t seem to like the idea.
ray-m says
If you’re in the 1%, I do not have a problem with that on its face. What I do have a problem with is someone in the 1% who got there buy cutting health insurance for employees, cutting wages or outsourcing jobs to low wage countries.
I also have a problem when the 1% buys our government to enrich themselves.
If you’re in the 1% and have employees that have great health insurance and after working 40+ hours do not need to be on public assistance ,like food stamps, I applaud you.
hoyapaul says
David explained it well, but I would just reiterate that this “defending insurance companies” attack line is completely ridiculous.
Essentially, Warren’s position was defending the finality of the bankruptcy proceedings of Johns-Manville Corp., which manufactured asbestos products for years. The proceedings placed money into a trust that would pay out asbestos victims in the future. This trust was protected from being drained by future lawsuits.
Why is this pro-consumer? Because if there was no trust protected from class-action lawsuits, this is what would likely happen: instead of many injured people receiving some compensation, only a handful of people (those represented by the best lawyers, and not necessarily those with the worst injuries) would receive massive compensation, draining the rest of Johns-Manville’s funds and leaving the vast majority of asbestos victims with absolutely nothing. Plus, instead of the money actually going to victims, absent the trust much more money would go to lawyers rather than victims. Defending the trust means defending equitable distribution of funds for asbestos victims.
How ironic that Sen. Brown’s press flack is taking the side of plaintiffs’ lawyers here and essentially making the claim that tort lawsuits should trump bankruptcy orders. Aren’t Republicans the ones usually railing against a “litigation crisis” in America?
I suppose if it’s in the service of a political campaign, than such principles go by the wayside. Which, on second thought, is par for the course for Scott Brown.
David says
That is an excellent point, and one that we should expand on as this issue continues to bubble along.
Bob Neer says
Interesting.
SomervilleTom says
Once again, it’s clear that either Scott Brown is ignorant of the actual situation, Scott Brown expects most voters to be ignorant of the actual situation, or both.
What’s more humorous (in an ironic sense) is that this dishonest attack again endorses a key assumption that powers the support for Elizabeth Warren and for that matter Occupy Everything: “…you don’t need to be a Harvard professor to know that insurance companies don’t hire big time lawyers because of their interest in protecting the little guy.”
I’m confused. Should we vote for Scott Brown because he’s not a Harvard Professor? Should we vote for Scott Brown because he’s a small time lawyer instead of a big time lawyer? Or perhaps he is instead saying that it’s unusual for big time lawyers who are also Harvard professors to protect the little guy. Bingo.
The reason Elizabeth Warren will make a MUCH better Senator than Scott Brown is that is is unusual for a big time lawyer who is also a Harvard professor to work passionately to protect the little guy. Once again, Scott Brown’s own campaign endorses Elizabeth Warren’s strongest aspects.
The real irony is that Scott Brown and his staff apparently think this will hurt Elizabeth Warren. That speaks volumes to the horrific view Scott Brown has of himself, of strong women, of the 99%, and of the voters.
Bob Neer says
Scott Brown is a second generation professional politician who has taken enough out of his family’s time in office to own five homes, including one in the Caribbean. He’s a rich guy. She’s a well paid lawyer.