Will Liz Warren Vote to Confirm Jack Lew?

(Hey, she took the support of the guy that made the phone call that got Citi to buy Ameriquest.  Why wouldnt ahe? – promoted by Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno)

OK, I admit.  Silly question.  Answer: Yes, of course she will.  

And is Jack Lew, Obama’s Treasury Secretary designate, one of those Wall Street bankers who according to Warren “wrecked our economy and destroyed millions of jobs”?  http://townhall.com/tipsheet/k…  Answer: Yes, of course he is.

And does the Boston Globe even care?  Answer: Hey, she’s a Democrat.  Of course not.

But fortunately, others do.

In the middle of the last decade, Mr. Lew was a top banker at Citigroup.  The Washington Post reports that Mr. Lew was the head of a group at Citibank that undertook the firm’s most risky (and reckless) transactions:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

But Lew did not have just any position at the bank. In early 2008, he became a top executive in the Citigroup unit that housed many of the bank’s riskiest operations, including its hedge funds and private equity investments. Massive losses in that unit helped drive Citigroup into the arms of the federal government, which bailed out the bank with $45 billion in taxpayer money that year.  

The group had been under pressure to compete with similar units at other big Wall Street firms and, some analysts say, took on too many risks as it played catch-up.  “The mismanagement of risk was comprehensive at that organization,” said Simon Johnson, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

One of the first votes that Liz Warren will make in her new role as Massachusetts junior senator will be on the confirmation of Mr. Lew.  It will likely be a close vote.  Democrats hold 53 seats, Republicans hold 45 with 2 independents.  That’s a much closer margin than when the Senate voted 60-34 to confirm another Wall Street banker, Tim “the tax cheat” Geithner as Secretary of the Treasury.

Already, Bernie Sanders (Socialist-Vermont) has come out against Mr. Lew:  http://www.opednews.com/articl…

In my view, we need a treasury secretary who is prepared to stand up to corporate America and their powerful lobbyists and fight for policies that protect the working families in our country. I do not believe Mr. Lew is that person. We don’t need a treasury secretary who thinks that Wall Street deregulation was not responsible for the financial crisis.  We need a treasury secretary who will work hard to break up too-big-to-fail financial institutions so that Wall Street cannot cause another massive financial crisis.

Ms. Warren herself claimed to be interested in going to Washington to fight Wall Street.  Among her first, and most important votes, will be on the Lew nomination.  Will Ms. Warren vote to confirm a banker from Citigroup-arguably the worst managed of the big banks?  Will the Boston media even ask this question?  My guess is “yes” and “no”.  

 

About yankeepundit

5 comments

  1. Elizabeth Warren is a rubber stamp for whatever Obama and the farthest left end of the political spectrum wants.  We have now seen her in public trying to answer off-the-cuff questions and she is clearly not anywhere near as bright as we thought – and my expectation was very low!  

    If Obama nominated Hugo Chavez for Treasury Secretary she would go with it…

  2. As I have been writing about elsewhere, it is unacceptable that we have a Treasury Secretary with this signature:

    President Obama was asked about this, and pledged, as a compromise, that “at least one letter of his signature will be visible.”

    You call that compromise!?

    I demand that at least six letters be legible. I refuse to have currency with a ridiculous set of loops. It undermines confidence in our currency even more than endless quantitative easing.

    Please contact Elizabeth Warren and ask her to only support a nominee whose signature is not that of a crazy person. Many graphologists have written about the psychology of a man in relation to his signature. They must be called to testify to stop this madman.

  3. http://www.washingtonpost.com/

    Key takeaway from Samuelson:

    The question about Lew is whether he encourages cooperation and bolsters confidence – or becomes an instrument of conflict. Obama’s anti-business attitudes are politically convenient but economically destructive. As Behravesh puts it: “Who do they [administration officials] think creates jobs? It’s puzzling to me that, when they want jobs, they bad-mouth the private sector. It doesn’t compute.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*