By Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuk
Tribune News Service.
U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has been a liberal favorite since her election in 2012. An outspoken critic of big business and a proponent of more regulation on the banking industry, the Massachusetts Democrat earlier this month led an effort to stop the $1.1 trillion government funding bill because it included changes to the 2010 Dodd-Frank law that imposed strict rules on Wall Street.
Now Warren’s liberal supporters are touting her as a viable alternative to former Secretary of State and presumed Democratic frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton for president in 2016. The left-liberal website MoveOn.org recently launched a campaign to draft Warren into running.
Is Warren the candidate Americans need in 2016? Or is she the candidate Democrats deserve? Ben Boychuk and Joel Mathis, the RedBlue America columnists, weigh in.
Elizabeth Warren isn’t going to run for president. She’s said so repeatedly. And then repeated it some more. America’s going to get a Jeb Bush-vs.-Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, and there is nothing that’s going to deter us from our dark and terrible destiny in that regard.
But you can understand why some people would daydream about the possibility.
Two weeks ago, the U.S. Congress approved a budget that included a clause lifting restrictions, imposed after the too-big-too-fail meltdown of banks that nearly destroyed the American economy in 2007, that prevents banks from receiving a Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. bailout if things go bad when they trade risky assets. Now taxpayers are once again on the hook for banks’ bad decisions.
Kansas Congressman Kevin Yoder, a Republican, slipped the clause into the bill. The wording of the provision was written by Citigroup. And Warren, quite rightly, was outraged.
“Washington already works really well for the billionaires and the big corporations and the lawyers and the lobbyists,” she said on the Senate floor.