Elizabeth Warren’s nomination

By Felix Salmon
July 20, 2010
Damian Paletta sees it, that's how Simon Johnson sees it, and that's certainly how the Progressive Change Committee sees it: they're up to 138,485 people and counting on their petition to put Warren in charge.

" data-share-img="" data-share="twitter,facebook,linkedin,reddit,google" data-share-count="true">

The question of who will be Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has now been clearly framed: either it’s going to be Elizabeth Warren, or it isn’t. That’s how Damian Paletta sees it, that’s how Simon Johnson sees it, and that’s certainly how the Progressive Change Committee sees it: they’re up to 138,485 people and counting on their petition to put Warren in charge.

This is by far the most high-profile appointment that will come out of the Dodd-Frank bill: you can hardly imagine thousands of signatures for or against Daniel Tarullo as the Fed vice-chairman in charge of regulatory issues. (Given that he literally wrote the book on such things, he’s probably a shoo-in.) As such, my feeling is that Shahien Nasiripour’s bright idea that she could simply be appointed — hired “on a contract basis”, without being nominated — is a non-starter.

And in any case it’s not obvious that such deviousness is necessary: there’s a good chance that Warren would indeed get confirmed by the Senate. She grew up a Republican in Oklahoma, and she’s been one of the toughest critics of Obama’s Treasury department. It’s all but certain that she would end up butting heads with various parts of the Administration during her tenure at the CFPB, to the detriment of the incumbents and to the quiet pleasure of the opposition. And her anti-bank rhetoric dovetails reasonably well with a lot of Tea Party complaints that banks have captured Washington.

It’s also worth noting that while her main opponent for the nomination, Michael Barr, is a much more agreeable Treasury man, he’s actually to Warren’s left on many issues. The plain-vanilla option (RIP) was actually Barr’s baby rather than Warren’s: there’s no mention of it in her original conception of the agency. Barr is also the foremost defender of the Community Reinvestment Act, which Republicans hate; he wanted the CFPB to oversee the CRA, and sees actively helping the poor and underbanked as part of the CFPB’s remit. Warren’s more conservative than that, and conceives the CFPB as a narrower consumer-protection agency.

Republicans, then, could well see more to object to in Barr than in Warren: he’s much closer to Treasury and to the current administration, and he tends to be more activist in terms of forcing banks to help the poor and unbanked, and telling them what products to offer. And of course most Senate Republicans will simply oppose Obama’s nominee on principle, no matter who it is.

My feeling is that the job should go to Warren. It wouldn’t exist were it not for her, and the CFPB has been set up to be very independent; as such, it should have an independently-minded head, rather than someone who can be trusted to fall into line behind Treasury and/or other regulators if and when there are any clashes. It’s never easy for a politician to nominate someone who they know will cause trouble for them down the road, but if anybody can do it, Obama can. Here’s hoping.

5 comments

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

This nomination is a defining moment for the Obama Administration, more so than almost any other one. Things like the health care financial reform bills are Congressional sausage without much of an Obama individual stamp. The Kagan nomination is a typical Supreme Court nominee with a vague, undefined position who pointedly speaks in circles, especially in nomination hearings that are supposed to provide definition, but never do.

However, Elizabeth Warren has firmly planted her flag in the ground on consumer financial protection and trumpeted its existence with a megaphone.

Obama went with the financial sector status quo protectors in Geithner and Bernanke. If he caves to the financial sector on this position, he is announcing to the Americans in the bottom 99% of income that they are on their own – he will not nominate people who have their best interests at heart. Instead, maintaining large banks profits would be at the pinnacle of his agenda. You can hope for change in the financial sector, but a nomination other than Warren will announce that change will not happen on his watch.

Posted by ErnieD | Report as abusive

A woman of integrity, strength, moral fibre, not influenced by the Wallstreet … She doesn’t have a chance!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pz7ruJw6b yQ&feature=player_embedded#!

Posted by hsvkitty | Report as abusive

It’s always been my view that what the bad guys EXPECT Eliot Ness to do is far more important than what (in this case, she) might do. The bugs tend to crawl back under stones and stay out of sight until the crisis is over.

Thus, the Warren-or-not issue may just be one of those things that defines a catalyst for change between one econo-financial culture and another. Mr Bankfine may laugh, but if she gets the job his days are numbered. Not because she will try to nail the guy…but because his Board will see him as unacceptable in the new climate.
http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/07/opin ion-moral-hazards-for-unethical.html

Posted by nbywardslog | Report as abusive

I sure hope you’re right Felix! You present a strong case, which gives me hope. The strongest argument for her that I’ve heard yet, however, is here: http://www.newdeal20.org/2010/07/22/how- hamp-makes-elizabeth-warren-the-only-cho ice-for-consumer-protection-15578/

Posted by BryceCovert | Report as abusive

I question Michael Barr’s true commitment to financial reform let alone consumer protection .After all he was the
treasury spokesman that assured the financial community that the Lincoln provisions were “not a White House priority”
& most recently stated his belief that it would take at least a year for a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to
come into being. In other words he does not sound like somebody that will ‘kick against the pricks’

Posted by kiaser | Report as abusive