David Corn

David Corn

Washington Bureau Chief

Corn has broken stories on presidents, politicians, and other Washington players. He's written for numerous publications and is a talk show regular. His best-selling books include Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War.

Get my RSS |

Advertise on MotherJones.com

Warren To Be Appointed—Sort Of

| Thu Sep. 16, 2010 11:01 AM EDT

Elizabeth Warren triumphs. Well, sort of. President Obama has reportedly tapped her to be a special adviser to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner for the purposes of setting up the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. (She will also be awarded the title of assistant to the president.) This is not the same as nominating her to head the CFPB, which Warren, the Harvard professor who runs the Congressional Oversight Panel that monitors the TARP bailout, first (and presciently) proposed establishing in 2007—before the financial meltdown. But it's close.

While Warren's many fans on the left have been fervently pushing for her to be named the new federal watchdog agency's first chief, there were clear signs that she would be met with resistance on Capitol Hill, with the banking and financial industries and their Republican allies in the Senate looking to prevent the plain-spoken consumer advocate from taking the reins of an outfit that is supposed to take on credit card firms, mortgage lenders, and banks that engage in abusive or deceptive practices. Rather than wage a high-profile fight over Warren—a battle that the White House might have been able to turn to its political advantage in the run-up to the congressional elections—the president has opted to sidestep the normal process and hand Warren a position not subject to Senate confirmation. She won't become head of the new agency, but she will be its official godmother, overseeing its establishment.

For some Warren backers, this might seem a half measure. The progressive FireDogLake site called it "the castration of Elizabeth Warren." But sources close to Warren tell me that is satisfied—even happy—with this appointment. And if she's happy....

Still, it's not a clear-cut victory for progressives, given that the move is open to interpretation. Is this a sign that Obama is yielding to GOP obstructionism? (Sen. Chris Dodd, the Democratic chairman of the banking committee, also seemed cool on appointing Warren to head the agency.) Or is this an indication that Obama can craftily outmaneuver GOP blockaders? Did Obama blink, or did he pull a fast one? Perhaps after Warren serves time as the agency's midwife, she'll be in a better position (politically) to be nominated as its first head. In any event, this decision will place the nation's top consumer financial advocate in the news and in the offices of this new consumer protection agency.

Meanwhile, Warren's COP has released its latest oversight report on the TARP bailout. And its no-nonsense review is decidedly mixed and hardly a ringing endorsement of Geithner's management of the massive bailout program:

Although the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) provided critical support to the financial markets at a time when market confidence was in freefall, the program has been far less effective in meeting its other statutory goals, such as supporting home values, retirement savings, and economic growth….

Although the TARP quelled the financial panic in the fall of 2008, severe economic weaknesses remain even today. Since the TARP was authorized in October of 2008, 7.1 million homeowners have received foreclosure notices. Since their pre-crisis peaks, home values have dropped 28 percent, and stock indices -- which indicate the health of many Americans' most significant investments for college and retirement -- have fallen 30 percent. Given that Treasury was mandated by law to use the TARP to address these measures of the economy, their lingering weakness is cause for concern.

In other words, Treasury did not do its job. It used TARP to save the banks and big financial firms; it was not as assiduous when it came to assisting homeowners, workers, and consumers. Mr. Geithner, please give your new special adviser a warm welcome.

Bush or Cheney: Who's the Bigger Bogeyman?

| Mon Sep. 13, 2010 10:50 AM EDT

George W. Bush or Dick Cheney—who's more frightening to liberals? Some progressive political strategists seem to believe the answer is Cheney.

This past weekend, Democracy for America, a grassroots progressive founded by Howard Dean that recruits, trains, promotes, and funds progressive candidates, sent out a an email signed by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). The piece focused on the current fight over whether to extend the Bush administration tax cuts for folks who make more than $250,000 a year. Leahy's email read,

To this day, America's top income-earners—households making more than $250,000 a year—aren't paying their fair share in taxes. Letting these tax cuts for the wealthy continue for another decade would saddle middle class Americans, our kids, and our grandkids with an additional $680 billion of debt, largely payable to the Chinese government.

The Bush-Cheney tax cuts for the wealthy are wrong. Thankfully they're set to expire this December, unless Republicans in Congress get their way and renew them indefinitely.

With debate set to begin on the Senate floor as early as next week, we don't have a lot of time to get this right.

Leahy asked recipients of the email to sign a petition urging Congress to allow the tax cuts for the rich to expire. And in his note, he repeatedly referred to these breaks as the "Bush-Cheney tax cuts."

Yet the email's subject line put it a bit differently. When a recipient spotted the email in his or her inbox, the note was titled, "Dick Cheney's Tax Cut." The guy at the top was missing. The point of a subject line for a mass email is to get the recipient to click and open the message. DFA's consultants must figure that Cheney is more of a motivator for their target audience than Bush. That prompts a question: should Democrats this campaign season run against "Cheney Republicans"?

Thu Jun. 19, 2014 1:19 PM EDT
Mon Apr. 28, 2014 10:15 AM EDT
Thu Mar. 27, 2014 3:49 PM EDT
Fri Mar. 14, 2014 7:59 AM EDT
Tue Jan. 28, 2014 11:40 AM EST
Tue Jan. 28, 2014 10:40 AM EST
Mon Nov. 25, 2013 1:09 PM EST
Fri Oct. 11, 2013 12:20 PM EDT
Tue Sep. 10, 2013 10:10 PM EDT
Tue Sep. 10, 2013 1:02 PM EDT
Mon Sep. 9, 2013 10:13 AM EDT
Tue Apr. 30, 2013 4:32 PM EDT
Mon Apr. 8, 2013 1:00 PM EDT
Fri Mar. 29, 2013 10:22 AM EDT