MoJo Blogs and Articles | Mother Jones Mother Jones logo en Friday Cat Blogging - 9 October 2015 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Hmmm. What happened here? There is no documentary record, so perhaps if Hopper hides no one will connect her with it. Worth a try! Meanwhile, Hilbert hangs around absentmindedly, not realizing that his sister is doing her best to pin the rap entirely on him. That's family values, folks.</p> <p><img align="middle" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_hilbert_hopper_2015_10_09.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 15px 0px 5px 40px;"></p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:55:12 +0000 Kevin Drum 286631 at The "Gig Economy" Is Mostly Just Silicon Valley Hype <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>How big is the "gig economy"? An Uber driver is the archetypal gig worker, but more generally it refers to anyone who works independently on a contingent basis. This means, for example, that an old school freelance writer qualifies.</p> <p>Still, it's tech that's driving the gig hype, and if the hype is true then the number of gig workers should be going up. Lydia DePillis takes a look at this today and <a href="" target="_blank">recommends two sources:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>The Freelancers Union, which advocates for self-employed people of all kinds, recently came up with the 53 million number Warner mentioned. MBO Partners, which provides tools for businesses that use contractors, put it at 30.2 million. But for lawmaking purposes, <strong>it's probably a good idea to get your information from a source that doesn't have a commercial interest in the numbers it's putting out.</strong></p> </blockquote> <p>True enough, but let's start with these folks. <a href="" target="_blank">The Freelancers Union</a> reports that in 2015 the gig economy "held steady" at 34 percent of the workforce. <a href="" target="_blank">MBO Partners</a> reports that it "held firm" at 30 million. They additionally report that it's increased 12 percent in the past five years, which is <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_gig_economy.jpg" style="margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">not especially impressive considering that total employment has increased 9 percent over the same period.</p> <p>The government does not track this directly, and I assume that these two sources are generally motivated to be cheerleaders for the gig economy, which means their numbers are about as optimistic as possible. If that's true, it looks as though the gig economy is almost entirely smoke and mirrors. After all, if it were a big phenomenon it would be getting bigger every year as technology became an ever more important part our lives. And yet, both sources agree that 2015, when the economy was doing fairly well, showed no growth at all in the gig economy. What's more, as <a href="" target="_blank">Jordan Weissman</a> and others have pointed out, what little government data we have isn't really consistent with the idea that the gig economy is growing.</p> <p>So be wary of the hype. Maybe the gig economy will be a big thing in the future. Maybe the tech portion is growing, but the growth is hidden by a decline in traditional freelancing. Maybe. For now, though, it appears to be mostly just another example of the reality distortion hype that Silicon Valley is so good at.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:22:35 +0000 Kevin Drum 286626 at Monsanto's Stock Is Tanking. Is the Company's Own Excitement About GMOs Backfiring? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Pity Monsanto, the genetically modified seed and agrichemical giant. Its share price has <a href=",%22allowChartStacking%22:true%7D" target="_blank">plunged 25 percent</a> since the spring. Market prices for corn and soybeans are in the dumps, meaning Monsanto's main customers&mdash;farmers who specialize in those crops&mdash;have less money to spend on its pricey seeds and flagship herbicide (which recently got named a probable carcinogen by the World Health organization, spurring lawsuits).</p> <p>Monsanto's long, noisy attempt to buy up rival pesticide giant Syngenta <a href="" target="_blank">crumbled into dust last month</a>. And Wednesday, Monsanto reported quarterly revenues and profits that <a href="" target="_blank">sharply underperformed Wall Street expectations</a>. For good measure, it also sharply <a href="" target="_blank">lowered its profit projections for the year ahead</a>.</p> <p>In response to these unhappy trends, the company announced it was slashing 2,600 jobs, <a href="" target="_blank">12 percent of its workforce</a>, and spending $3 billion to buy back shares. Share buybacks are a form of <a href="" target="_blank">financial</a> (as opposed genetic) engineering&mdash;they magically boost a company's earnings-per-share ratio (a metric closely watched by investors) simply by removing shares from the market. And buybacks <a href="" target="_blank">divert money from things like R&amp;D</a>&mdash;or keeping a company's workforce whole&mdash;and into the pockets of shareholders.</p> <p>In a conference call with investors (<a href="" target="_blank">transcript</a>), Monsanto CEO Hugh Grant put a positive spin on the company's prospects. "Our germplasm performance has never been better, our trait technology has continued to leap and our market position and pipeline remains strong," he <a href="" target="_blank">declared</a>. But later, he hit upon a theme that became obvious when Monsanto was stalking Syngenta: that Monsanto's leadership feels the company is too invested in high-tech seeds, and under-invested in old-fashioned pesticides (the market for Syngenta owns the globe's leading position).</p> <p>In the call, Jeff Zekauskas, an analyst with JP MorganChase, <a href="" target="_blank">asks</a> Grant whether Monsanto is still interested in boosting its pesticide portfolio by buying a competitor. Grant's <a href="" target="_blank">answer</a> was essentially yes: "We still believe in the opportunity of integrated solutions," i.e., selling more pesticides along with seeds. He added:</p> <blockquote> <p>We've got a 400 million acre seed technology footprint. We've seen time and time again that we can increase revenue and improve grower service by bringing chemistry up on that footprint.</p> </blockquote> <p>Translation: Our patented seeds and traits are sown on 400 million acres worldwide (about for times the size of California), and if we could sell more pesticides (chemistry) to the people who farm those acres, we could make more money. Later, he noted:</p> <blockquote> <p>We continue to see duplication in R&amp;D in the sector. We continue to see the low effectiveness of R&amp;D with some of our competitors and we continue to think that consolidation in this space is inevitable.</p> </blockquote> <p>Translation: Research-and-development investments in the ag-biotech/agrichemical sector aren't paying off&mdash;not enough blockbuster new products&mdash;so the few companies remaining in the field (there are <a href="" target="_blank">six</a>) are going to start swallowing each other up.&nbsp;</p> <p>Massive layoffs, share buybacks, dreams of buying up the pesticide portfolios of competitors&mdash;these aren't characteristics of a company confident in the long-term profitability of its core technology: the genetic modification of crops.</p></body></html> Tom Philpott Food and Ag Fri, 09 Oct 2015 18:08:24 +0000 Tom Philpott 286576 at Here's Why Sea World in San Diego Can't Breed Killer Whales Any Longer <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_sea_world_map.jpg" style="margin: 8px 0px 15px 30px;">You may have seen the news that Sea World in San Diego will <a href="" target="_blank">no longer be allowed to breed killer whales:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>After an all-day meeting that drew hundreds of supporters and critics of the park, the California Coastal Commission moved to ban captive whale breeding and drastically restrict the movement of whales in and out of the park.</p> </blockquote> <p>The California Coastal Commission? Why do they have any say over Sea World's orca breeding? One of the charmingly idiosyncratic aspects of governance in California is that the Coastal Commission regulates all construction done within about 1000 yards of the coastline. As you can see, Sea World is well within that boundary, and it so happens that they wanted to build a bigger tank for their killer whales. But they could only do this if the Coastal Commission approved it.</p> <p>Still confused? Well, the initiative that created the Coastal Commission didn't really put any boundaries on the commission's power. They can pretty much cut any deal they want, which is why they're so furiously hated by every gazillionaire who lives near the coast. In this case, their deal was this: you can build the bigger tank, but only if you stop breeding whales and don't bring any new ones in. And that was that.</p> <p>This has been today's California Explainer for all you poor folks who are forced to live in less desirable parts of the country and don't understand our tribal customs. You're welcome.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 09 Oct 2015 17:37:39 +0000 Kevin Drum 286611 at Ben Carson Is Wrong About Hitler and Guns <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><a href="" target="_blank">More guns, fewer holocausts?</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Ben Carson said Thursday that Adolf Hitler&rsquo;s mass murder of Jews "would have been greatly diminished&rdquo; if German citizens had not been disarmed by the Nazi regime&hellip;"But just clarify, if there had been no gun control laws in Europe at that time, would 6 million Jews have been slaughtered?" Blitzer asked.</p> <p>"I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people had been armed," Carson said&hellip;"I&rsquo;m telling you that there is a reason that these dictatorial people take the guns first."</p> </blockquote> <p>This got me curious: <em>Did</em> Hitler take away everyone's guns? As you can imagine, I know zilch about the history of gun control in Germany, so I surfed <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_hitler_nuremburg.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">over to Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, for a quick refresher course. <a href="" target="_blank">Here's what they say:</a></p> <ul><li>In 1919, the Treaty of Versaille disarmed Germany. "Fearing inability to hold the state together during the depression, the German government adopted a sweeping series of gun confiscation legislation." This was long before Hitler came to power.</li> <li>In 1928 this legislation was relaxed. "Germans could possess firearms, but they were required to have [] permits&hellip;Furthermore, the law restricted ownership of firearms to '&hellip;persons whose trustworthiness is not in question and who can show a need for a permit.'" Again, this was before Hitler came to power.</li> <li>In 1938, Hitler relaxed the law further. Rifles and shotguns were completely deregulated, permits were extended to three years, and the age at which guns could be purchased was lowered to 18.</li> </ul><p>Now, Hitler <em>did</em> effectively ban Jews from owning guns in 1938. However, this is highly unlikely to have affected the fate of the Jews even slightly. The Nazis were considerably better armed and organized, and if Jews had taken to shooting them it would have accomplished nothing except giving Joseph Goebbels some terrific propaganda opportunities. The 1943 Warsaw Ghetto Uprising is a good example of this: Jews fought back, and the result was a few dead Germans and 13,000 dead Jews.</p> <p>The bottom line is familiar to anyone with even a passing knowledge of history: Hitler was popular. He didn't need to take away anyone's guns. Whatever you think about gun control, using Hitler to defend your position is a bad idea.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 09 Oct 2015 16:16:07 +0000 Kevin Drum 286601 at Hillary Clinton Wants to Cut Mega-Banks Down to Size <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Bring back Glass-Steagall! This is a popular cry among lefty populists, but it's probably not a very good idea on the merits. Glass-Steagall is a New Deal law that split up commercial banks and investment banks, and it was repealed in 1999. Ten years later Wall Street went up in smoke. But commercial banks and investment banks both had problems, and so did combined banks. The repeal of Glass-Steagall really had nothing to do with it.</p> <p>On the other hand, the repeal of Glass-Steagall did allow banks to get bigger, and that increased size <em>was</em> a problem. When small banks go bust, we just clean up the mess and get on with things. <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_big_banks.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">When gigantic banks go bust, Wall Street goes up in smoke.</p> <p>So rather than turning back the clock and reinstating Glass-Steagall, a better idea is to address bank size directly. The Fed approved one approach to this a couple of months ago by requiring the very biggest banks to hold <a href="" target="_blank">larger capital reserves than smaller banks:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>As well as making the big banks safer, <strong>the rules may also persuade them to get smaller.</strong> Capital is an economically expensive funding source for a bank. As regulators demand that large banks have more capital, their overall expenses rise. In turn, the banks may decide to pare down their less profitable businesses and shrink over time. Previous regulatory initiatives that increased capital already seem to have had that effect, and the Fed may want to see that continue.</p> </blockquote> <p>Hillary Clinton wants to go even further by directly taxing big banks, and taxing them even more if their capital structure is relatively risky. <a href="" target="_blank">Matt Yglesias runs down her plan for us:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Clinton doesn't spell out precise numbers for her fee, perhaps recognizing that in the real world this would all be subject to negotiation in Congress anyway. But the key pillars are:</p> <blockquote> <ul><li>The fee would be assessed on banks with more than $50 billion in assets (34 banks fit the bill as of today, though two of them are very close to the line) as well as on a handful of other institutions that the government has already flagged for extra regulatory scrutiny.</li> <li>The fee rate would be higher on short-term debt than on long-term debt.</li> <li>The fee rate would be higher on banks with more debt in their financing structure.</li> <li>FDIC-insured bank deposits would be exempt from the fee.</li> </ul></blockquote> <p>The upshot of all this would be to <strong>nudge the banking system toward institutions becoming either smaller or else more boring,</strong> because risky activity would be more profitable in a smaller institution than in a larger one. The result would be to push risk out of the kinds of institutions whose failure would be catastrophic, without impeding banks' ability to become big per se.</p> </blockquote> <p>So wonky. So boring. But, as Yglesias says, also a pretty good idea. That's often the case with well-thought-out plans.</p> <p>In any case, the Fed plan affects the eight biggest banks in the country. Hillary's plan would affect 34 banks. And of course, the eight mega-banks would have to abide by the Fed's higher capital requirements <em>and</em> Hillary's tax.</p> <p>All of these plans, by the way, are roundabout methods of reducing the amount of leverage that big banks can engage in. As a purist, I'd prefer to just pass rules that directly regulate leverage levels. But that's easier said than done, and higher capital requirements are a close substitute. Hillary's plan is even more indirect, but it also reduces risk by nudging banks to get smaller. Lots of leverage is still bad, but a smaller bank that goes bust is less catastrophic than a bigger one that goes bust.</p> <p>More details are <a href="" target="_blank">here,</a> part of the Clinton campaign's <a href="" target="_blank">rather startling array of detailed policy statements.</a> It's enough to make you think she might be a wee bit more serious than anyone on the Republican side.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 09 Oct 2015 15:24:27 +0000 Kevin Drum 286596 at Ted Cruz's Wait-It-Out Strategy Could Prove Successful—or a "Colossal Mistake" <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Ted Cruz's run for president has gotten off to a rough start. He's currently in <a href="" target="_blank">sixth place</a> in the polls. The thirst for an outsider candidate that was supposed to propel his campaign has instead been quenched by Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and now Carly Fiorina. But Cruz has a strategy for overcoming his lackluster performance thus far, one that's drawn strong reviews from some party insiders. Republican consultant Doug Heye praised his "smart" campaign to the <a href=""><em>Hill</em> newspaper</a>, and the conservative <em>National Review Online</em> <a href="">reported</a> on "growing chatter" among Republicans that Cruz "is likely to be one of the last men standing."</p> <p>The problem is that his strategy is a long shot. It basically calls for Cruz to muddle through the early contests and then kick into gear a month later when Southern states head to the polls in March. And by then, it might be too late for a Cruz surge.</p> <p>"If it works, everyone will say it's brilliant," says Craig Robinson, a Republican strategist in Iowa. "But if it fails, I think this could be looked back on as the colossal mistake his campaign made."</p></body></html> <p style="font-size: 1.083em;"><a href="/politics/2015/10/ted-cruz-has-strategy-stick-it-out-gop-primary"><strong><em>Continue Reading &raquo;</em></strong></a></p> Politics 2016 Elections Ted Cruz Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:50:30 +0000 Pema Levy 286421 at All Those Annoying Drug Ads on TV Might Be Paying Off <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Good news! According to a new study, the placebo response is getting stronger, and if this continues perhaps all our pain woes will soon be treatable with sugar pills. <img align="right" alt="" class="image image-_original" src="/files/blog_placebo_0.jpg" style="border: 1px solid black; margin: 20px 0px 15px 30px;">But this is happening only in the United States for some reason. <a href="" target="_blank">Why?</a></p> <blockquote> <p>One possible explanation is that <strong>direct-to-consumer advertising for drugs</strong> &mdash; allowed only in the United States and New Zealand &mdash; has increased people&rsquo;s expectations of the benefits of drugs, creating stronger placebo effects. But Mogil&rsquo;s results hint at another factor. "Our data suggest that the longer a trial is and the bigger a trial is, the bigger the placebo is going to be," he says.</p> <p><strong>Longer, bigger US trials probably cost more, and the glamour and gloss of their presentation might indirectly enhance patients&rsquo; expectations,</strong> Mogil speculates. Some larger US trials also use contract research organizations that can employ nurses who are dedicated to the trial patients, he adds &mdash; giving patients a very different experience compared to those who take part in a small trial run by an academic lab, for instance, where research nurses may have many other responsibilities.</p> </blockquote> <p>So good old glamor and gloss&mdash;American specialties, for sure&mdash;could be making anything in the shape of a pill more effective. On the other hand, the paper itself <a href=";issue=00000&amp;article=99737&amp;type=abstract" target="_blank">suggests a more prosaic possibility:</a></p> <blockquote> <p>Our study results are of course potentially influenced by trends in study quality and/or publication bias....In the past, small studies were conducted. If they had a large placebo response, they did not show a positive treatment advantage and therefore they were not published. In contemporary U.S. studies, trials are typically large enough to detect positive treatment advantage despite large placebo responses, and therefore reported placebo responses appear to have increased.</p> </blockquote> <p>So it's possible this is all an artifact of publication bias. In the past, studies with null results for the target drug (i.e., large placebo responses) never saw the light of day. Then pharma companies got smart, and started running larger trials that would show statistically significant results no matter what. So all the studies got published, even those with large placebo responses.</p> <p>You may decide which to believe. I recommend believing the glitz and glamor explanation, since glitz and glamor are bound to get ever glitzier and more glamorous over time, and are thus likely to improve your pain more. And really, who cares <em>why</em> your pain gets better? If it's better drugs, fine. If it's because pharma companies are spending lots of money on marketing, fine. Just make it go away, please.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 09 Oct 2015 14:48:58 +0000 Kevin Drum 286586 at Donald Trump's Base Is Pretty Old, But Not All That Conservative <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p>Someone asked me the other day where Donald Trump's support comes from. I realized I didn't really know, so I figured I should check it out. According to David Brady and Douglas Rivers, a pair of political scientists at Stanford, recent YouGov polls <a href="" target="_blank">break it down like this:</a></p> <ul><li>Not particularly ideological....20 percent of Trump's supporters describe themselves as &ldquo;liberal&rdquo; or &ldquo;moderate,&rdquo; with 65 percent saying they are &ldquo;conservative&rdquo; and only 13 percent labeling themselves as &ldquo;very conservative.&rdquo;</li> <li>A bit older, less educated, and less affluent than the average Republican.</li> <li>Slightly over half are women.</li> <li>About half are between 45-64 years of age, 34 percent over 65, and less than 2 percent younger than 30.</li> <li>One half of his voters have a high school education or less, compared to 19 percent with a college or post-graduate degree.</li> <li>Slightly over a third of his supporters earn less than $50,000 per year, while 11 percent earn over $100,000 per year.</li> </ul><p>The only two of these that are noteworthy are the first one, which shows that Trump's appeal spans ideological boundaries, and the fourth one, which shows that his support comes almost exclusively from the middle-aged and the elderly. Aside from that, he appears to be a fairly standard issue Republican.</p></body></html> Kevin Drum Fri, 09 Oct 2015 13:25:05 +0000 Kevin Drum 286581 at Bernie Sanders Endorses Obama's Push to Protect Your Retirement. Where's Hillary? <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN" ""> <html><body><p><em>Update: Following publication of this story, Sanders' press secretary in his Senate office emailed Mother Jones with a statement: "Senator Sanders supports the DOL&rsquo;s fiduciary rule." While Sanders had objected to a previous version of the rule, it's not too surprising that he has come out in support of this measure. The Clinton campaign still hasn't discussed whether she supports Obama's proposal.</em></p> <p>All the Democrats running for president want to assure primary voters that if elected they would crack down on Wall Street. Bernie Sanders regularly rails against the big banks and how the government <a href="">needs to bust them up</a>. On Thursday, Hillary Clinton released a <a href="">new plan</a><strong> </strong>that described how she'd strengthen Dodd-Frank, the 2010 Dem bill that attempted<strong> </strong>to fix Wall Street after the crash.</p> <p>But neither Sanders nor Clinton has said whether they support or oppose one of the Obama administration's key proposals to protect consumer investments.</p> <p>Known as the "fiduciary rule," the plan comes from the Department of Labor and attempts to protect the interests of people with retirement accounts. Currently, retirement investment managers don't have a legal responsibility to represent their clients' best interests when offering advice. Instead, they're free to push their clients toward investments that would be profitable for the manager rather than the consumer. A broker might steer a client<strong>'</strong>s 401(k) to a favored firm that sponsored a recent golf outing, for example. That sort of shady advice hurts consumers, especially as old-fashioned pensions continue to decline and are replaced by 401(k)s and IRAs. <strong> </strong>The Department of Labor has estimated that conflicted advice costs consumers $17 billion per year.</p> <p>The Obama administration has been fighting to put a stop to these potential abuses. The Department of Labor has issued a proposed rule that would require brokers to explicitly<strong> </strong>work in their clients' interests even if that means lower profits for them. This push has been a long slog for the administration, with the first proposed rule&mdash;dating back to 2010&mdash;scrapped over objections from the financial industry and then<strong> </strong>rewritten. But the finish line is finally in sight. Labor has collected public comments on the proposal and is expected to issue a final rule in the near future. The fight over the fiduciary rule is likely one of the final major initiatives during the Obama administration that will<strong> </strong>impose new standards on the financial industry.</p> <p>So far, Clinton and Sanders have remained mum on the current version of the rule that the Obama administration has proposed, basically ignoring the issue completely. (Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley <a href="">included</a> a full endorsement of Obama's proposal in his plan for Social Security.)</p> <p>Sanders, normally the sort of politician who jumps at any chance to attack the financial industry, is on the record expressing skepticism about the first version of the fiduciary rule that the Obama administration proposed. In December, 2010, Sanders and his fellow Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy <a href="">wrote a letter</a> to the Department of Labor requesting a delay in the rule, voicing concerns expressed by<strong> </strong>Vermont companies that didn't want to see the rule put in place. They objected to how the rule treated Employee Stock Ownership Plans (systems in which employees earn stock as pay), claiming that it overly burdened appraisers with compliance costs.</p> <p>The rules on ESOP advisers have changed since that initial proposal (they're now exempted), but Sanders has yet to say anything about whether he supports or opposes it. His campaign spokesman didn't respond to requests for comment.</p> <p>Clinton also hasn't discussed the proposal. She was serving as secretary of state when the initial rule was presented in 2010, and therefore did not comment on it, but she still hasn't raised the issue since launching her campaign earlier this year. Her latest proposal on cleaning up Wall Street hinted at supporting the concept of restrictions on the type of advice investment managers can offer, but it did not refer to the Obama administration's plan. "Billions more [dollars] are drained from retirement accounts because of high fees and conflicts of interest in the investment management industry," her <a href="">plan reads</a>, though it only promises that "she will lay out specific proposals" later. Does that mean she supports or opposes the course that<strong> </strong>the Obama administration has suggested? Her campaign didn't respond to requests for clarification.</p> <p>While it might appear to be a minor issue&mdash;after all, many brokers will still guide their customers in the right direction&mdash;the fiduciary rule has become a major fight for liberal advocates. Labor unions have been <a href="">pushing</a> the measure hard. And Sen. Elizabeth Warren has become a vocal champion of the cause, <a href="">joining</a> President Barack Obama during his speech proposing the latest version of the rule earlier this year. "It's about time to do something we should have done long ago," Warren <a href="" target="_blank">said</a> at the time. "To end the kickbacks, the free vacations, the fancy cars, and the other incentives to sell bad products to unsuspecting customers."</p></body></html> Politics 2016 Elections Elections Hillary Clinton Regulatory Affairs Top Stories bernie sanders Fri, 09 Oct 2015 10:00:11 +0000 Patrick Caldwell 286556 at