Right on, Senator Warren!
Senator Clinton should be thanking her lucky stars that Bernie Sanders is the greatest of her worries these days. If Warren had run, the outcome of the Democratic primary might be in serious doubt. NYT Op-Ed by Senator Warren:
I just released a report examining 20 of the worst federal enforcement failures in 2015. Its conclusion: “Corporate criminals routinely escape meaningful prosecution for their misconduct.”
In a single year, in case after case, across many sectors of the economy, federal agencies caught big companies breaking the law — defrauding taxpayers, covering up deadly safety problems, even precipitating the financial collapse in 2008 — and let them off the hook with barely a slap on the wrist. Often, companies paid meager fines, which some will try to write off as a tax deduction.
The failure to adequately punish big corporations or their executives when they break the law undermines the foundations of this great country. Justice cannot mean a prison sentence for a teenager who steals a car, but nothing more than a sideways glance at a C.E.O. who quietly engineers the theft of billions of dollars.
Of course, enforcement would likely have been weaker or non-existent if Mitt Romney had won, which was the choice we were given, but Obama’s two-term effort to compromise with the Republicans has yielded nothing but legislative ashes, an emboldened GOP, and a weaker country. Fool me once, shame on the GOP. Fool me for seven years in a row, shame on the president.
Apparently the Department of Justice agrees with Senator Warren. In 2015 Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates issued a Memorandum to all Civil and Criminal Divisions in the Department of Justice entitled “Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing.” Yates states, in part:
The Memorandum also sets forth some of the difficulties the Government faces in proving the culpability of executives of large organizations. Its worth a read.
I was struck by your statement that “Obama’s two-term effort to compromise with the Republicans has yielded nothing but legislative ashes.” If you look in ashes, you will find the Affordable Care Act, Dodd-Frank, and other important accomplishments. Last year the President signed a bill that extended the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) for two years, and that included an exemption from budget “pay go” requirements.
Yes, the President has had to compromise. That’s what happens when the Republicans control the House (and sometimes the Senate). President Obama is not perfect, and I wish he had been able to do more, but your critique is over the top.
Who controls the Dept of Justice, isn’t it the White House?
Force the documents in the open.
The public still would have won had at least some of the big corporations and their executives been brought to court, even if a jury didn’t convict.
While it’s true that somebody who “beats the rap” still has their life turned upside down for months or years, my concern with an outcome of not guilty is emboldening the rest of the like minded.
I’m not arguing against pressing charges — but I am arguing that the cost of a loss may not be just the resources invested in the investigation and trial.
I think if Warren had run, she would have won. However, Senators Sanders and Warren are political soul mates. If you listen carefully to the things she has said over the last few months, I believe she is supporting his candidacy.
Had Elizabeth Warren declared herself as a candidate, this piece would have been dismissed by all concerned as just another campaign missive. It, and she, has FAR more credibility precisely because she is NOT a candidate.
If the roles were reversed, with Ms. Warren on the campaign trail and Mr. Sanders still in the senate, there would be no comparable effect from a sitting senator. Mr. Sanders, in all his years in congress, never had the influence over the general public that Ms. Warren has had from the moment she took office. I cannot imagine Mr. Sanders publishing a piece like this, and I can’t imagine anybody paying attention to it if he did. In my view, that’s a key difference between Mr. Sanders and Ms. Warren.
I think Elizabeth Warren is pushing EACH Democratic candidate (there are still three!) as well as the GOP menagerie to pay attention to things that matter. I think Elizabeth Warren will work hard to elect whomever the Democratic nominee is at the national level, just as she worked hard to elect the Democratic nominee in the last gubernatorial race.
I think Elizabeth Warren is marvelous exactly where she is. I think Bernie Sanders is making his economic arguments an important part of the campaign, and that is an enormously positive contribution.
That’s good enough for me.
…is the only member of the MA codel who has not endorsed anyone for POTUS. Everyone else, plus three constitutional officers for that matter, have endorsed HRC.
codel, n. Congressional delegation
Senator Warren is the only member of the MA CONGRESSIONAL DELEGATION…
I know we often hear the term in the context of foreign fact-finding missions, but other than that what’s your point?
I thought I’d save others the effort.
I misinterpreted your intent – sorry.
I said it way back when, but I don’t even think Hillary Clinton would have made it to Iowa if Senator Warren run.
Alas.
That said, Bernie will be an amazing President, and have a true ally in the Senate, if we can get him elected. There’s a clear path and no reason to compromise on our ideals.
let’s get real, folks. And I say that as an early supporter and great admirer of my friend, Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Implying that Hillary Clinton would ‘not have made it to Iowa’ had Senator Warren run is pure speculation. The fact is Senator Warren CHOSE NOT to run and I believe her decision was based on sound political judgment. Having TWO progressive Democratic women running would have been counter productive to the cause. In point of fact, some folks—myself included—believe that had Warren thrown her hat in the race—Bernie would have stayed OUT ! Then some of our brethren here would be whining and wringing their hands about her blocking the more liberal ‘Democratic Socialist’ from entering the race. The point is, once you start going down this woulda, coulda, shoulda, rabbit hole there is no end to the Monday morning quarterbacking.
Finally, you say that when Bernie becomes ‘an amazing President’ he will have a true ally in Senator Warren. And I agree 100% with you. He will. But the fact is Senator Warren has NOT endorsed anyone yet and I believe she won’t endorse until we have a clear nominee at the Convention. And again, I believe her reasoning for NOT endorsing now is sound. Think about it. How would she feel IF, pray tell, Hillary wins the nomination ? And then
Hillary wins the Presidency. Ah, you think that might put a strain on the relationship ?
So folks, let’s not put the proverbial cart before the horse. All in good time. And patience truly is a virtue 🙂
Onward to Victory my fellow Liberals !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I like Senator Warren. I don’t think she would have creamed HRC though.
1. I think that HRC still would have wrapped up the establishment, just as she has against Senator Sanders. That matters.
2. I think that it would have taken Senator Warren months to begin firing on all cylinders. A bona fide POTUS election team is tough to put together, and finding exactly the right tone, flow, etc. must be incredibly difficult in the best of circumstances.
I think Senator Warren would be, roughly, right where Senator Sanders is. She’d have fewer supporters in their 20s, but more older supporters.
The counterargument, of course, is Senator Obama. No question. And maybe I’m overweighing the value of national political experience. Nevertheless, I hope Senator Warren keeps pushing her issues, continues to gain experience and effectiveness, and somehow manages to mentor a few others along the way. The Dems have done very well this go-round being the party of well prepared adults, and I hope we’re able to continue the trend in future elections.
That horse has been beaten well past the point of death. Warren should never run, will never run, and will never be President. Period. Full stop. End of story. Forever.
There’s also the small matter of waterboarding and the stupid brutality of the previous Administration’s Iraqi and Afghani adventures. An actual civilized society would not tolerate such violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Obama is a Democrat.
He controls the executive branch.
He’s done nothing about this.
Sen Warren is correct in criticizing him. It’s been a major fault of this administration.
However it’s actually pointless because nothing will change.
Do you think President Clinton is going to listen to her? No.
So therefore she’s ineffective, except of course as a source of inspiration to BMG’ers.
I enjoy the idle speculation that “Romney would have been worse”- the standard refrain here at BMG. “Our guy sucks, but the Republican would have sucked more!” is hardly what I would call inspirational.
Boesky & other Wall Streeters and the S&L guys were all prosecuted under Reagan and Bush. WorldCom, Enron, et al were all prosecuted under GW Bush. No one has been actually convicted under Obama (as Sen Warren has pointed out before) so I’m not sure why you think that Romney (Mr. Straight Arrow) would somehow have been more tolerant of criminal activity.
Some of this I attribute to Geithner who thought that it was simply essential to shore up the happy feelings of financial executives. There was a fear that such prosecutions could have a destabilizing effect on our economy.
Not a good position in my mind, but the one that seems to have dominated the Administrations’ thinking.
When they lost the first cases against people at Bear Sterns (with the “I can’t believe people are buying this crap” e-mails) it seems they lost heart.
The issue is that “fine my company a billion I don’t care” and “fine me 25% of my ill gotten gains, I don’t care” attitude prevails. It’s only when someone (a white collar someone) faces the prospect of jail time do they think twice about doing wrong.
do away with white collar prisons. General population for all.
It makes tons of sense to segregate prisoners based on severity of crime, risk of escape, need for supervision, risk of creating problems within the prison (violence, drugs, etc.), safety of specific prisoners, and so forth.
I’m not arguing that the American prison system has got it right with respect to different levels of prison security, punishments and privileges, etc. I am sure, however, that “general population for all” is a terrible idea.
Hmm. That’s not the version of the expression that I’m familiar with. At least, this is the impression I get of the one I know:
Fool me once: Oh, I’ll note that.
Fool me twice: Ah, well, now he’s a lame duck president, so it won’t hurt his election chances if we criticize him for what he failed to deliver on, and it gives us a great chance to argue we should be elected now that he cannot pose any competition for the open seat.
(Of course that’s just politicians running for office. Voters only speaking out during the end of the second term appears even more pitiful and just psychologically self-serving).