New Consumer Watchdog

July 19, 2010 7:19 PM

Elizabeth Warren (previously: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) is being considered to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Other candidates: Michael S. Barr & Eugene I. Kimmelman.
posted by joannemerriam (64 comments total)

For some reason, I trust Elizabeth Warren. Something about her makes me feel like she really can tear the big corporations a new one if need be, and that she will if we need her to.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 7:24 PM on July 19, 2010 [8 favorites]

I am in love with Elizabeth Warren. It will never be, but still.
posted by unSane at 7:28 PM on July 19, 2010 [5 favorites]

She's the only person that should be considered for that position.
posted by outlandishmarxist at 7:44 PM on July 19, 2010 [3 favorites]

Another thing going for Warren (besides she was the one who advocated for the CFPB): Geithner is against her.
posted by notsnot at 7:48 PM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

She is fantastic.
posted by rtha at 7:54 PM on July 19, 2010

I'd like it to be Elizabeth Warren for our sake. I wouldn't like it to be her for her sake. Whenever someone of real intelligence and ability steps up and starts talking sanity, the amount of shit that gets flung at them is beyond belief, with the goal of bogging them down with battling it and exhausting both their time and our attention spans and keeping the media focused on one imbecilic charge after another. Look at Richard Clarke, or Joe Wilson, or Gen. Wesley Clark.
posted by George_Spiggott at 7:55 PM on July 19, 2010 [5 favorites]

I am totally in love with Elizabeth Warren. She should be in charge of everything.
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 7:55 PM on July 19, 2010 [3 favorites]

(Those are two separate points.)
posted by ClaudiaCenter at 7:55 PM on July 19, 2010

She's even better in person. It's hard to pick up in her public appearances, but she's one of the most genuinely adorable people I know. Fingers crossed.
posted by allen.spaulding at 7:56 PM on July 19, 2010

You can sign an online petition at Progressive Change Campaign to urge Obama to appoint Warren.

PETITION TO PRESIDENT OBAMA: Elizabeth Warren has proven that she is willing to stand up to Wall Street on behalf of consumers and is the logical choice to lead the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Tim Geithner is a longtime Wall Street insider, and if he's recommending against Elizabeth Warren that's all the more reason to appoint her.

I don't know how productive it is to include the dig at Geithner, but anyway, I think signing the petition is still a vote for Warren.
posted by marsha56 at 7:58 PM on July 19, 2010

My input to the President:

Elizabeth! Elizabeth! Rah! Rah! Rah!

(no kidding, no hamburger.)
posted by bearwife at 8:00 PM on July 19, 2010

George_Spiggott: "Whenever someone of real intelligence and ability steps up and starts talking sanity, the amount of shit that gets flung at them is beyond belief... Look at... Joe Wilson"

*spit-take*
posted by Riki tiki at 8:07 PM on July 19, 2010

Presumably the ambassador, not the congressman.
posted by revfitz at 8:10 PM on July 19, 2010

*spit-take*

Sorry, this Joe Wilson. Geez, short memories.
posted by George_Spiggott at 8:10 PM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Oh. Joe Wilson from the Iraq lead-up/Plame leak scandal. Not Joe "You Lie!" Wilson.

*reverse spit-take*
posted by Riki tiki at 8:10 PM on July 19, 2010

Yeah, she'd be great. Which is probably the sniveling weasel Geithner is against her. Simon Johnson thinks if Warren actually gets blocked, it would be the end of Geithner's career, after so many political stumbles. But I think the fact he's survived so well indicates that Obama actually likes him and lets him get away with this crap.

Apparently (Wall Street tool) Chris Dodd thinks she might not get 60 votes, and of course the Administration's MO is to not even bother if there's a possibility that the republicans might try to block something.
posted by delmoi at 8:20 PM on July 19, 2010

If Obama passes her over, he's finally lost me. I'll sit out the next 6 years. . .
posted by Danf at 8:54 PM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

If Obama passes her over, he's finally lost me. I'll sit out the next 6 years. . .

And then what?
posted by clarknova at 9:44 PM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

Elizabeth Warren Could Head CFPB Without Senate Confirmation
posted by homunculus at 10:41 PM on July 19, 2010

Her appointment would be something that showed Obama wasn't just paying the whole "change" thing lip service during the campaign. From his failure to roll back Bush's civil liberty abuses to his failure to seriously support a public option during the HCR, Obama has seemingly abandoned any of the base that was so enthusiastic during the campaign. This, quite possibly, turning off millions to politics who, for the first time in their lives, actually cared. I won't go so far as to say this will bring me back into the pro-Obama camp, but it will go a long way toward making me reconsider a planned third-party protest vote. And no, I don't give a fuck about what you think Ralph Nader did to the Gore campaign in 2000. It's called politics.
posted by IvoShandor at 11:16 PM on July 19, 2010

Her appointment would be something that showed Obama wasn't just paying the whole "change" thing lip service during the campaign.

This. This. 1000x over, THIS.
posted by eyeballkid at 11:27 PM on July 19, 2010 [1 favorite]

I don't like her. Every time I see her talk it seems like she lacks fundamental comprehension of the way the world actually works in practice as opposed to in academic theory. Can we get someone with her viewpoints who actually has some experience in the real world?
posted by An algorithmic dog at 11:46 PM on July 19, 2010

This. This. 1000x over, THIS.

You might want to take a gander at this here.

But anyway, Elizabeth Warren impresses me but one person, no matter how awesome, can't save a system. You need a dedicated, non-partisan civil bureaucracy. Perhaps she's the right person to start that ball rolling. I'd like to see her given a chance to try. But that's all she would be. The system needs to be viable and functioning regardless of who is in charge.
posted by Justinian at 12:07 AM on July 20, 2010 [4 favorites]

Can we get someone with her viewpoints who actually has some experience in the real world?

What do you mean by the real world? MTV? Corporate America? Something else? Not all of her work has been academic.
posted by IvoShandor at 12:20 AM on July 20, 2010

You might want to take a gander at this here.

Holy shit! There's another part of this site called MetaTalk where people bitch about stupid shit! I never knew! Thanks dude!
posted by eyeballkid at 12:26 AM on July 20, 2010

You're welcome! Note the third comment in the thread!
posted by Justinian at 12:29 AM on July 20, 2010

Yeah? And?
posted by eyeballkid at 12:29 AM on July 20, 2010

This, from FDL. Says Geithner considers her "well-qualified".
posted by IvoShandor at 2:03 AM on July 20, 2010

Elizabeth Warren == OMFG PONIES!!
ohplease ohplease ohplease
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 2:20 AM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

The high point of every dreary, low budget Iraq war/Enron/Housing bubble documentary downloaded from Pirate Bay in the past 18 months.
posted by fire&wings at 2:53 AM on July 20, 2010

Elizabeth Warren is great and all, but this commission kind of has a "doomed project" feel for me. Also, is it true what I've been hearing about the financial reform legislation deferring most of the decisions to regulators? I'm sure that'll work out great when President Romney fires her and appoints the former head of Citicorp to her job.
posted by heathkit at 3:05 AM on July 20, 2010

*reverse spit-take*

Ew.
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:52 AM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

I re-watched her lecture The Coming Collapse of the Middle-Class (jump to 6 minutes, 20 sec) again last week. It remains one of the best lectures by anyone about anything that I've ever watched online. Loved her ever since I saw her on the Frontline about credit cards explaining universal default as my jaw hit the floor.
posted by ao4047 at 5:12 AM on July 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

If Obama passes her over, he's finally lost me. I'll sit out the next 6 years. . .

Oh, that's a really great idea. Imagine who we would actually end up with. Miss "Refudiate" or any one of those guys who scored about ten points higher than her on an IQ test and can't find Pakistan on a map. I'm sure they'll find a much better head for the CFPB, probably the guy who ran Countrywide Financial. Good thinking.
posted by anniecat at 5:47 AM on July 20, 2010

I refuse to be held hostage to the ever-rightward Democrats just because they can point to another party slightly ahead of them on the path to fascism.
posted by DU at 6:04 AM on July 20, 2010 [2 favorites]

DU: Jesus christ, man. Cut the ignorant crap. It's not about you and your prideful desire not to be "held hostage." To the extent they're drifting more and more rightward, it's because they're becoming politically weaker and weaker, which forces them toward the position where the power is. What makes them weaker? Losing political support. How incredibly narcissistic to look at national politics as starting and ending with how you view your own sense of personal integrity. A President Palin, say, would be far, far worse immediately in so many ways--

"Slightly ahead of them on the path to fascism"? What utter nonsense. We're as fucked as we are thanks in no small part to people like you, who've been willing to pile on and assume the worst of the administration and the Dems given the slightest excuse. (Mayor of NY and Democratic congress oppose trying Guantanamo inmates in NY? God what a sell-out that President Obama is! He never really meant to do it!)

It's just like Krugman recently wrote. If the Democrats do lose big in the midterms, the Washington and media establishment are going to use it as a pretext to reach one political conclusion, and one political conclusion only: The American people rejected President Obama's policies because his agenda was too liberal. And then the Republicans are going to devote their newfound political muscle to setting the country back on the path it was on under Bush: more tax cuts for the rich, continued refusal to address climate change, repeal of health care reform, repeal of financial reform legislation, social security privatization, war with Iran, restrictions on abortion access, the restoration of DADT in law, the complete rollback of public campaign financing around the country, further redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the rich.

Now, the fact that “ephemera” don’t matter seems reassuring, suggesting that voters aren’t swayed by cheap tricks. Unfortunately, however, the evidence suggests that issues don’t matter either, in part because voters are often deeply ill informed.

Suppose, for example, that you believed claims that voters are more concerned about the budget deficit than they are about jobs. (That’s not actually true, but never mind.) Even so, how much credit would you expect Democrats to get for reducing the deficit?

None. In 1996 voters were asked whether the deficit had gone up or down under Bill Clinton. It had, in fact, plunged — but a plurality of voters, and a majority of Republicans, said that it had risen.

posted by saulgoodman at 6:51 AM on July 20, 2010 [5 favorites]

It's not about you and your prideful desire not to be "held hostage."

Wow.

To the extent they're drifting more and more rightward, it's because they're becoming politically weaker and weaker, which forces them toward the position where the power is. What makes them weaker? Losing political support.

I agree, they need to start thinking about earning votes. How could they have done that for 2010? By passing legislation that their base wanted. Watering it down (where they passed it at all) earned them how many Republican votes? 0. Lost how many Democratic votes? I guess we'll see.

If the Democrats do lose big in the midterms, the Washington and media establishment are going to use it as a pretext to reach one political conclusion, and one political conclusion only: The American people rejected President Obama's policies because his agenda was too liberal.

Yeah, probably. Like I said, before the White House the Left needs to get the media out of the pocket of conservatives.
posted by DU at 7:20 AM on July 20, 2010

What do you mean by the real world? MTV? Corporate America? Something else? Not all of her work has been academic.

Really? Her bio doesn't even list a job that wasn't an academic job. It would be spectacularly nice if we could get someone with actual experience running a business that wasn't a fortune 500. Everyone talks about protecting the consumer, who the heck is protecting small businesses? Half of the things that allegedly help consumers are just killing small businesses. When you add regulation on regulation you give large businesses an advantage over small businesses. You want to know why big banks arn't too upset over new regulations? They have the regulatory teams to implement them. Small banks don't. Therefore every attempt to regulate banks makes the big banks more powerful. (Not saying they don't need regulating, saying we need to make sure we don't regulate the small banks to death). When is this country going to start giving small business owners a voice? Pretty much everyone on metafilter attacks business and is proconsumer. There are plenty of businesses run by everyday people who are not part of corporate america. People need to realize that regulations that effect all businesses hurt small businesses. If you have never tried to run a business you just don't understand how truly overwhelming the federal paperwork maze is to file income taxes even for a small, simple business.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 8:23 AM on July 20, 2010

Yeah, that's what's ruining America: Too many academics in positions of power.
posted by Rat Spatula at 8:37 AM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Yeah, that's what's ruining America: Too many academics in positions of power.

Anyone who thinks putting academics in power just because they are academics is a good idea is unfamiliar with the ungodly amount of politics in university departments, especially around tenure and funding. The idea that academics are above politics is laughable.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 8:41 AM on July 20, 2010

Really? Her bio doesn't even list a job that wasn't an academic job. I

After graduating from law school, she hung up a shingle to represent people going through bankruptcy and built a successful practice. Also, she started her own practice while 9 months pregnant. If she were a libertarian, we'd call her an entrepreneur. Of course, since she was helping low-income individuals, we assume she can't possibly be qualified.
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:54 AM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Cite. All I can find is a sentence or two of her doing work from home. Calling that starting a practice to imply she is an entrepreneur is a bit disingenuous.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 9:01 AM on July 20, 2010

DW: I'm sorry for being such a testy ass. The whole "I blame you" nonsense was uncalled for. I'm just frustrated that we actually seem to be on the verge of putting guys like Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, and their ilk back in charge--which won't simply mean progressive goals getting obstructed or watered down, but radical right wing goals being advanced--basically because their political strategy of using every trick in the book to obstruct the Dems and then blaming them for the failure to do anything actually seems to be working, even though lots of us have seen this coming all along, and tried to point it out. Right now the threat of filibuster is being invoked rougly twice as often as at any previous point in history. Even routine legislative functions like confirming cabinet appointments and passing emergency unemployment extensions are being held hostage as leverage for a deliberate strategy of Republican obstructionism meant to derail economic recovery and political progress in order to make electoral gains. And yes, the media, keeps to the same playbook: reporting Republican talking points (factually accurate or not) as news ("many experts... crics allege..."), while reporting on Democratic talking points (factually accurate or not) as political spin ("Democrats maintain that Republicans... Liberal groups see this issue as a political opportunity...").
posted by saulgoodman at 9:02 AM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

So who is immune to politics? Let me guess: small business owners.

You said "Every time I see her talk it seems like she lacks fundamental comprehension of the way the world actually works in practice as opposed to in academic theory."

In every instance I've heard Elizabeth Warren speak about consumer lending, she has impressed me as being thoroughly accurate, delightfully precise, and correlating on all points with my own experiences.

But if you have some examples of egghead myopia on her part, by all means trot them out.
posted by Rat Spatula at 9:05 AM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

Saulgoodman: as opposed to bashing anyone who agrees with the tea party position of less spending as racist? Yeah. With the exception of Fox news (which is obviously way way way right wing) the media is just as quick to bash conservative economic policies as ever.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 9:05 AM on July 20, 2010

Cite. All I can find is a sentence or two of her doing work from home. Calling that starting a practice to imply she is an entrepreneur is a bit disingenuous.

“I graduated law school nine months pregnant and didn’t take a job,” she says. “This was 1976, and I’m thinking that I stepped off the track. So I’m at home, and I thought, ‘I’ll just take the bar exam. What’s the worst that can happen?’ So I took the bar exam and thought, ‘Well, shoot, I’ll just hang out a shingle.’ ” (In this, Warren is being quite literal. The shingle now hangs in her Harvard office, beneath the foreclosure notice from 1882.) She did real estate closings and lawsuits arising from automobile accidents. (Her talent for drawing up a will has yet to be fully tested, because, as far as she knows, nobody for whom she drew up a will has died.) In time, Rutgers asked her to teach a class part time, and Warren found herself a calling.

Anyone who's spent time with her has probably seen the shingle and heard her talk about her time representing people. Or maybe both the Boston Globe and I are lying. Rutgers probably just asks people working from home to teach all the time. Young female lawyers with an undergrad degree from the University of Houston were probably in hot demand back then.
posted by allen.spaulding at 9:06 AM on July 20, 2010

But if you have some examples of egghead myopia on her part, by all means trot them out.

Quite frankly I don't want to be protected from the banks. I want my choice of all sorts of complicated contracts. They have their uses. The idea that consumers can not be trusted to use leverage (loans) in a safe manner is insulting and paternalistic. Regulate stuff if you want but don't ban stuff for those of us who know what we are doing. Warren is going to end up turning the loan industry into the equivalent of the securities industry where you aren't allowed to invest professionally unless you have a ridiculous amount of money already (see restrictions on hedge fund investment. ) Regulation for loans should be designed to restrict loans that have no chance of being paid back. Designing regulation to universally restrict "complicated" things just because they are "complicated" hurts those of us who have needs more complicated then simple 30 year mortgages. Balloon loans have been common for years in business, I'd hate to see things like this banned in the name of "helping" consumers.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 9:10 AM on July 20, 2010

Anyone who's spent time with her has probably seen the shingle and heard her talk about her time representing people. Or maybe both the Boston Globe and I are lying. Rutgers probably just asks people working from home to teach all the time. Young female lawyers with an undergrad degree from the University of Houston were probably in hot demand back then.

I have enormous respect for her as a lawyer and an academic. That does not mean that she is automatically an expect in business.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 9:11 AM on July 20, 2010

That does not mean that she is automatically an expect in business.

Not automatically, no. Yet if you see her talk and read her writings, you might realize that as a professor and expert on bankruptcy and contract law, she's far closer to an economist than most PhDs in economics. She works with business leaders and studies the economy and knows far more about business than someone like Larry Summers.

And again, is the critique that she doesn't know business or that she has no managerial experience. I'd argue that Joe Torre has a lot of the latter, but not much of the former. Starting and running your own practice requires a lot of management skill.
posted by allen.spaulding at 9:15 AM on July 20, 2010

It is one thing to work effectively as a consultant, it is another thing to run a practice (implying multiple lawyers, payroll, etc).

As a point: none of this changes the fact that if I want to start a business I will likely have to rely on consumer credit until my business is successful enough that people will lend directly to it. Restrictions on consumer credit directly hurt my ability to start businesses. Do not pretend that restrictions in consumer credit will not be handed down from Warren.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 9:17 AM on July 20, 2010

Do not pretend that restrictions in consumer credit will not be handed down from Warren.

Does your inability to buy an exploding toaster prevent you from buying toasters? Do FDA requirements that prevent shady vendors from selling e.coli-laden food (hopefully) prevent you from buying food? No. Knowing that you can go to the grocery store and not have to spend hours ensuring that there is not salmonella in everything actually drives prices down and creates a net gain for society.

Making these products safer can lead good vendors to drive out bad when market forces fail to work. Right now, unregulated consumer credit markets lead to uncertainty, confusion, and unfair competition by unscrupulous lenders. These are serious market failures which lead to higher rates for many.

Cutting out the unfair practices will result in a larger market share for those with fair rates and honest practices, which could even lead to lower rates. The best way to guarantee that you are able to start a decent business would be to support her.
posted by allen.spaulding at 9:33 AM on July 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

The restriction of hedge funds to high net worth individuals had good intentions too. So did the regulation of them. Unfortunately the net result has been to lock consumers into using mutual funds that are effectively index trackers. Hell is paved with the road to good intentions. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely support certain of her measures (contracts are excessively complicated for one). I'm just worried that somewhere along the road to protecting consumers we are going to screw over people with nonstandard needs. A balloon mortgage on my house might make sense if I am using the money to start a business. Will that loan be available with all of those consumer protections in place? I don't know. I can tell you that as someone who is looking to start a business in the next year I am incredibly paranoid that all of these new regulations will make it hard for people who arn't already wealthy to start businesses. I would support her in a heart beat if she told us how she was going to keep from hurting consumers who want to use consumer loans to start small businesses. In the long run it may help small business lending. In the short run I see all sorts of bad things that can go horribly wrong.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 9:41 AM on July 20, 2010

DU: "Watering it down (where they passed it at all) earned them how many Republican votes? 0. Lost how many Democratic votes? I guess we'll see."

You're forgetting or willfully ignoring a third group... the number of democratic votes it gained by being watered down. These votes came from democrats in conservative districts or states who would simply become republican votes if they were somehow compelled to vote for a more-progressive bill.

I know the counter-argument; that caving to blue dogs undermines the democrats' credibility to their base and weakens them overall. I don't buy it. I've argued on the blue before that progressive politics are by necessity going to be more like a coalition than a coherent party. Refusing to meet the needs of any segment of the coalition is a straight shot back to minority party status. And as saulgoodman astutely observed, the only plausible spin from the media will be that "the American people rejected President Obama's policies because his agenda was too liberal".

We have a two-party system in this country, and we have an idiosyncratic election structure that's going to keep it that way. There's nowhere near the zeitgeist needed to supplant the democrats with a more progressive party, which means they're your choice if you actually care about progressive causes.

You influence the coalition by being a part of it. Taking your toys and going home does nothing but harm to the things you claim you believe.
posted by Riki tiki at 9:43 AM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

"When is this country going to start giving small business owners a voice? Pretty much everyone on metafilter attacks business and is proconsumer. There are plenty of businesses run by everyday people who are not part of corporate america. People need to realize that regulations that effect all businesses hurt small businesses. If you have never tried to run a business you just don't understand how truly overwhelming the federal paperwork maze is to file income taxes even for a small, simple business."

I run a small business - two partners, one support staff. I don't feel voiceless, nor do I feel overwhelmed by "federal paperwork." Bookkeeper keeps books, tax pro preps taxes. Done.

"I can tell you that as someone who is looking to start a business in the next year I am incredibly paranoid that all of these new regulations will make it hard for people who arn't already wealthy to start businesses."

We started with some Ikea desks, a few computers and phones, and a couple of clients. That was almost five years ago. Nothing that's being proposed or implemented would stop us from doing the same thing today. We're not geniuses, we're not wealthy (yet!). Don't freak out. Get to work. It'll happen.
posted by schoolgirl report at 10:11 AM on July 20, 2010 [3 favorites]

Schoolgirl report: I've taken two accounting classes, and I wouldn't trust myself with filing my own taxes for my business. Things should not be this complicated for someone starting out. I know this is what they make pros for, but they should not be needed. The government ought to streamline all of their processes for businesses with under half a million in revenue.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 10:59 AM on July 20, 2010

My wife and I have been filing our own taxes for my small home business for years. It's not so complicated that good tax filing software won't get you through it. Unless, I don't know, maybe you have some kind of organizational dysfunction.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:17 AM on July 20, 2010

Things should not be this complicated...

Hmm... you sound like someone else whose opinions I've read on the Internet...

I've read my credit card agreement, and I can't figure out the terms. I teach contract law, and the underlying premise of contract law is that the two parties to the contract understand what the terms are

posted by Rat Spatula at 11:33 AM on July 20, 2010

I can tell you that as someone who is looking to start a business in the next year I am incredibly paranoid that all of these new regulations will make it hard for people who arn't already wealthy to start businesses. I would support her in a heart beat if she told us how she was going to keep from hurting consumers who want to use consumer loans to start small businesses. In the long run it may help small business lending. In the short run I see all sorts of bad things that can go horribly wrong.

It is a balancing act and you're right that there might be more constraints, but I do think that Warren is plugged into thinking about the small business financing side of things from the perspective you're describing. There has historically been a policy gap in thinking about financing mechanisms for very small businesses and Warren has a record of awareness of it. Here's a short blog post where she describes a discussion with a colleague about "entrepreneurship" in which the colleague is thinking about businesses with millions of dollars of market capitalization and she is thinking about individuals who are using consumer credit to finance their businesses. In this paper, she's talking about bankruptcy policy specifically, but she makes the case that policy decisions should take into account small self-financed businesses:

...the current paradigms of bankruptcy generally portray only two types of debtors: individual consumers attempting to discharge debts incurred when spending and income fall out of balance and large corporations attempting to reorganize by ending unprofitable business activities and rewriting balance sheets. These paradigms leave no place for the struggling entrepreneur who has predominantly business debt but who also may have both personal liability on the business debt and some consumer debt as well.

So while I understand the concern that this could be a baby/bathwater situation, I do think that small business finance is on the radar screen for Warren.
posted by yarrow at 11:34 AM on July 20, 2010

Yarrow: That is a spectacularly cool study that significantly eases my worries about Warren. I'm still nervous because when she gets on TV she doesn't seem to talk about it, but if she still believes in that paper she is probably one of the better candidates for the job.
posted by An algorithmic dog at 11:50 AM on July 20, 2010

If you have never tried to run a business you just don't understand how truly overwhelming the federal paperwork maze is to file income taxes even for a small, simple business.

Maybe you should hire schoolgirl report as a small business consultant.
posted by anniecat at 11:57 AM on July 20, 2010

Naked Capitalism had a good blog post with background on how Warren fits (or rather doesn't fit) in with other parts of the Obama administration.
posted by mandymanwasregistered at 1:25 PM on July 20, 2010 [1 favorite]

I would unreservedly support Warren for this position in a heartbeat, except that I worry what will happen to the state of legal education with respect to consumer bankruptcy if she is more permanently kept from teaching.
posted by dilettanti at 1:51 PM on July 20, 2010

Elizabeth Warren has all the right enemies: Conservatives and bankers can't stand the woman who is trying "to change everything." Are you listening, Obama?
posted by homunculus at 9:41 PM on July 21, 2010

Why Elizabeth Warren Will Likely Be Confirmed
Why Obama will nominate Warren
posted by kliuless at 11:56 AM on July 28, 2010