Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has a populist reputation of being anti-Wall Street. Last week, she nearly threatened to shut down the government because the Omnibus bill would repeal a section in the Dodd-Frank financial regulation bill that passed in 2010.
She gave a passionate speech on the Senate floor calling for her colleagues to oppose the government spending bill unless the provision was removed.
Democrats don’t like Wall Street bailouts. Republicans don’t like Wall Street bailouts. The American people are disgusted by Wall Street bailouts.
And yet here we are, five years after Dodd-Frank with Congress on the verge of ramming through a provision that would do nothing for the middle class, do nothing for community banks, do nothing but raise the risk that taxpayers will have to bail out the biggest banks once again…
She’s right to say that opposing Wall Street bailout is a transpartisan issue.
I’m no fan of Wall Street bailouts.
FreedomWorks strongly opposed the $700 billion TARP bailout during the Bush administration. We stayed true to principle. Because we, in no way, believe that it’s okay for the government to give taxpayer dollars to big banks and corporations that made bad decisions.
One can say that the Tea Party movement gained momentum after the big Wall Street bailouts. Many people in the Occupy movement also took issue with the big bankers getting bailed out by Main Street. Elizabeth Warren has even taking credit for “creating much of the intellectual foundation for what they [occupiers] do.”
However, the Tea Party and Occupy movements often disagreed with each other on the right tactics and solutions.
As a libertarian, I’m more likely to agree with the Tea Partiers who believe that big government and big business go hand and hand. You want to reduce corporate welfare and handouts? Then, reduce the size and scope of government.
I tend to disagree with Elizabeth Warren’s approach. It’s too big government for my tastes. If politicians are in bed with big corporations, I sense that giving government more power will only escalate the problem.
However, I’m able to recognize we have the same end goal—no more taxpayer-funded bailouts—even though our proposed solutions are different.
Though, I have to question: just how anti-Wall Street is Elizabeth Warren, actually?
For someone who constantly rails against corporate handouts, it’s surprising to learn that she’s a supporter of the Ex-Im Bank.
A spokesperson for Elizabeth Warren told Bloomberg News in an email:
Senator Warren believes that the Export-Import Bank helps create American jobs and spur economic growth, but recognizes that there is room for improvement in the bank’s operations. She looks forward to reviewing re-authorization legislation if and when it is introduced.
FreedomWorks opposes the Ex-Im Bank because it loans out taxpayer money to big politically-connected corporations and banks.
It’s not just groups on the right who are opposed.
Ralph Nader has said that the left and right must come together to end the Ex-Im Bank.
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) called it “corporate welfare at its worst” in 2002. Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) has said the same. Then-Senator Barack Obama said, “the Export-Import Bank that’s become little more than a fund for corporate welfare” during the campaign trail.
Yet, Elizabeth Warren backs the corporate welfare bank.
She even said, "The American people didn’t elect us to stand up for CitiGroup” during the recent Omnibus debate.
True. But this is odd since Citigroup is one of the greatest benefactors of the Ex-Im Bank.
The Heritage Foundation writes:
The No. 1 federal insurance program was the Export-Import Bank, with Wells Fargo and JPMorgan Chase both receiving more than $3 billion in such aid and Citigroup and Bank of America receiving more than $1.5 billion in taxpayer backstop insurance. (Remember, this doesn’t include TARP money.) [Emphasis mine.]
Where is Elizabeth Warren standing up against corporate welfare when you need her?