Elizabeth Warren: oppose me and I will ruin you

[Axulus]

Elizabeth Warren’s Intellectual Purge

A Brookings scholar is found guilty of reporting inconvenient facts.

Robert Litan, a Democrat who has been affiliated with Brookings for decades, is nobody’s idea of a conservative. And he’s not philosophically opposed to financial regulation. He was among the first to endorse Ms. Warren’s proposal for an independent agency to protect financial customers. It was a terrible idea that has become worse in its execution. The 2010 Dodd-Frank law created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the rest is overbearing bureaucratic history. But the point is that Mr. Litan was an ally of Ms. Warren before her election to the Senate.

She’s not the sentimental type. In July Mr. Litan told the Senate about his research into a Labor Department plan to force investors to move from brokers to fiduciaries. Mr. Litan testified that “the benefits of the rule do not outweigh its costs. In fact, during a future market downturn, we estimate the rule could cost investors as much as $80 billion.”

He added that “the notion that all retirement investment advisers should be held to a best interest of client standard is not controversial. It’s the way the Department proposes to implement it, which because of its costs and risks, will lead to many clients going without an adviser, or if they are able to retain one, only at substantially higher costs.”

...

So more than two months after the hearing, still unable to rebut Mr. Litan’s economics, she has attempted an assassination of his character. In a letter to Brookings President Strobe Talbott, Ms. Warren accused Mr. Litan of, among other things, “vague” disclosure regarding the funding of his research.

Vague? Here’s the note about funding that appears on the first page of his prepared testimony, which is available on the Senate website: “The study was supported by the Capital Group, one of the largest mutual fund asset managers in the United States.” Did Ms. Warren provide that much clarity in describing her own corporate legal clients prior to her 2012 election?

Brookings is telling reporters that Mr. Litan violated a rule of the think tank. As a non-resident fellow, he was not supposed to be identified as a Brookings scholar when he testified on the Hill. But we’re told that the rule is a recent creation and that when Mr. Litan realized his mistake after the July hearing, he apologized—and that Brookings didn’t have a problem with it until this week’s letter from Senator Warren.

Remind us never to share a foxhole with Mr. Talbott. We also wonder how Brookings scholars and donors feel about letting a Democratic Senator bully their institution into stifling independent research. And what is former Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke doing at Brookings while he’s also a senior adviser to Citadel, the giant hedge fund? Are his monetary musings corrupt too?

Studying regulation used to be a bipartisan exercise. Thanks to scholars like Mr. Litan, Brookings acquired a reputation for analysis that is left-of-center but not doctrinaire. The Warren agenda is to force liberal intellectuals to report that government is an unalloyed good, business is bad, and corporate sponsorship is corrupt. This is corrosive to the Democratic Party and the country.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/elizabeth-warrens-intellectual-purge-1443657591

Search for the article on google and click on the link there to avoid the paywall.

 

[laughing dog]

While Senator Warren's actions were petty, Mr. Litan did violate a Brookings' rule. So, a reader might marvel at the WSJ's lack of ironical perspective in its attempt to "ruin" Senator Warren.

 

[Axulus]

While Senator Warren's actions were petty, Mr. Litan did violate a Brookings' rule. So, a reader might marvel at the WSJ's lack of ironical perspective in its attempt to "ruin" Senator Warren.

And I'm sure you've never violated a single rule in your life.

I don't see anything ironical about it. She is being called out for her horrible actions by using her influence as a us senator to try to harm someone's career over a petty violation all because he provided reserch and testimony that challenged her regulations. Do you not appreciate the power and influence she wields as a us senator and how corrupt it is to try to use that power to purge a critic?

The purpose of her actions are clear: criticize my policies in any official manner and I'll search high and low to find some sort of petty violation of yours and use my power and influence to try to harm your career as a result.

 

[laughing dog]

While Senator Warren's actions were petty, Mr. Litan did violate a Brookings' rule. So, a reader might marvel at the WSJ's lack of ironical perspective in its attempt to "ruin" Senator Warren.

And I'm sure you've never violated a single rule in your life.

And my life has not been ruined by any of those violations.

I don't see anything ironical about it. She is being called out for her horrible actions by using her influence as a us senator to try to destroy someone's career over a petty violation all because he provided reserch and testimony that challenged her regulations. Do you not appreciate the power and influence she wields as a us senator and how corrupt it is to try to use that power to purge a critic?

The WSJ is using its power and influence in printing a hysterical attack on Senator Warren in order to "ruin" her over a very insignificant action and how corrupt it is to try and use that power to purge a critic of one the WSJ's favorite industries.

I appreciate the difference between an attempt to ruin someone's career and a lame swipe at a critic. Perhaps the WSJ should learn to appreciate the difference as well.

 

[Axulus]

And I'm sure you've never violated a single rule in your life.

And my life has not been ruined by any of those violations.

I don't see anything ironical about it. She is being called out for her horrible actions by using her influence as a us senator to try to destroy someone's career over a petty violation all because he provided reserch and testimony that challenged her regulations. Do you not appreciate the power and influence she wields as a us senator and how corrupt it is to try to use that power to purge a critic?

The WSJ is using its power and influence in printing a hysterical attack on Senator Warren in order to "ruin" her over a very insignificant action and how corrupt it is to try and use that power to purge a critic of one the WSJ's favorite industries.

I appreciate the difference between an attempt to ruin someone's career and a lame swipe at a critic. Perhaps the WSJ should learn to appreciate the difference as well.

It's the job of the press to criticize and point out corrupt actions of the powerful. It is very telling that you see no distinction between someone in a position of power and influence trying to harm someone's career for criticizing their policies as equivalent to a journalist reporting and criticizing those actions of that powerful person.

 

[untermensche]

She accused somebody of "vague" disclosure?

And of course it may very well have been vague, we only have one biased side of the story here.

The monster!

This thread is nothing but a desperate attempt to smear an incredibly brave woman.

 

[Axulus]

She accused somebody of "vague" disclosure?

And of course it may very well have been vague, we only have one biased side of the story here.

The monster!

Strange that you support a powerful person trying to harm someone's career (and successfully, I might add) because they dared criticize their policies by doing nothing other than engaging in their free speech rights after being invited to testify to congress on the issue at hand. You are a walking contradiction.

 

[Axulus]

Here is Robert talking about the incident directly:

In late spring, one of largest mutual fund managers, the Capital Group, asked me and economist Hal Singer (both of us Democrats) to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of the rule, and to consider alternatives to it. We published our study in July, and I later testified that month before a Senate Committee overseeing the Labor Department and its rulemaking. I made clear in my testimony, as I did in the report, the source of the financial support for the study. But I also stated that the testimony represented my own views (as I have done for sponsored research throughout my long career, only accepting consulting assignments where I agree with the sponsors).

Sen. Warren clearly disagrees with our study, but rather than address its reasoning and facts, she claimed my disclosure was vague (which it was not) and that I was misusing my non-resident perch at Brookings by identifying that position in a footnote (a newly established Brookings rule of which I was unaware but promised Brookings I would not run afoul of again), though I never mentioned my Brookings affiliation at the hearing. The media has widely reported that I subsequently resigned my prior unpaid position at the Brookings Institution, with which I have been affiliated, off and on, for over 40 years, most of them as a paid senior scholar, and once director of economic studies (Readers, if they are interested, can consult any number of media stories for the details).

I can only speculate why Sen. Warren has been so interested in our research, but I suspect it is because, even with its disclosed sponsor, the study exposed two major weaknesses in Labor’s proposal – which the Department may correct when it issues its final rule. But if it does not, these two points, at least in my view, make the rule susceptible to being overturned by a court as being arbitrary and capricious (or failing a benefit-cost test) if it is legally challenged.

http://fortune.com/2015/10/05/elizabeth-warren-robert-litan-u-s-department-of-labor/

He was pressured into resigning his Brookings Institution position after being affiliated with them for 40 years. Mission accomplished, Sen. Warren!

 

[untermensche]

She accused somebody of "vague" disclosure?

And of course it may very well have been vague, we only have one biased side of the story here.

The monster!

Strange that you support a powerful person trying to harm someone's career because they dared criticize their policies by doing nothing other than engaging in their free speech rights. You are a walking contadiction.

Prove the report was not vague.

The word of the person or persons who wrote it doesn't mean shit.

 

[Axulus]

Strange that you support a powerful person trying to harm someone's career because they dared criticize their policies by doing nothing other than engaging in their free speech rights. You are a walking contadiction.

Prove the report was not vague.

The word of the person or persons who wrote it doesn't mean shit.

Did you miss this part in the OP?

Here’s the note about funding that appears on the first page of his prepared testimony, which is available on the Senate website: “The study was supported by the Capital Group, one of the largest mutual fund asset managers in the United States.”

How much more clear does it need to be? Are you serious?

Here is a link to the testimony, confirming that it does indeed appear on the first page:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Litan.pdf

 

[untermensche]

Prove the report was not vague.

The word of the person or persons who wrote it doesn't mean shit.

Did you miss this part in the OP?

Here’s the note about funding that appears on the first page of his prepared testimony, which is available on the Senate website: “The study was supported by the Capital Group, one of the largest mutual fund asset managers in the United States.”

How much more clear does it need to be? Are you serious?

Here is a link to the testimony, confirming that it does indeed appear on the first page:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Litan.pdf

So words before a report prove a report was not vague.

This is worse than I thought.

 

[Axulus]

Did you miss this part in the OP?

Here’s the note about funding that appears on the first page of his prepared testimony, which is available on the Senate website: “The study was supported by the Capital Group, one of the largest mutual fund asset managers in the United States.”

How much more clear does it need to be? Are you serious?

Here is a link to the testimony, confirming that it does indeed appear on the first page:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Litan.pdf

So words before a report prove a report was not vague.

This is worse than I thought.

Uh, no, you are confused. Her claim in her letter was that his disclosure on the source of funding for his study was vague (which is either a blatant lie or a serious error which the Senator should apologize for), as well as pointing out he violated a (petty) new Brooking Institution rule that he wasn't supposed to disclose his affiliation to Bookings Institution in his testimony (which appears only in the written testimony and not in his verbal testimony, a mistake which he had already previously acknowledged and apologized for and promised would not happen again). As a result of this letter, obviously due to the pressure and negative attention, he resigned his position with the Brookings Institution.

The purpose of her letter is clear, she was trying to do whatever she could to discredit him and harm his career because his testimony and study challenged her policy and she had no ability to actually address his reasoning and facts (or if she does, she is hiding it from the rest of us).

 

[JonA]

No different than Conservatives trying to discredit the 'inconvenient' research regarding the environmental effects of fossil fuels I guess.

Bottom line: truth and reality have no position of respect among the politically minded.

 

[untermensche]

Did you miss this part in the OP?

Here’s the note about funding that appears on the first page of his prepared testimony, which is available on the Senate website: “The study was supported by the Capital Group, one of the largest mutual fund asset managers in the United States.”

How much more clear does it need to be? Are you serious?

Here is a link to the testimony, confirming that it does indeed appear on the first page:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Litan.pdf

So words before a report prove a report was not vague.

This is worse than I thought.

Uh, no, you are confused. Her claim in her letter was that his disclosure on the source of funding for his study was vague, as well as pointing out he violated a new Brooking Institution rule that he wasn't supposed to disclose his affiliation to Bookings Institution. As a result of this letter, he resigned his position with the Brookings Institution.

You do realize I would have to hear Warren's side before I would ever consider making a judgement.

I happen to believe in fairness.

So what is her side on this now?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Elizabeth Warren: oppose me and I will ruin you

Finally, an evil liberal we can kneel down in front of.

 

[untermensche]

Elizabeth Warren: oppose me and I will ruin you

Finally, an evil liberal we can kneel down in front of.

And Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster.

 

[dismal]

Must...reflexively...defend...

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Finally, an evil liberal we can kneel down in front of.

And Hillary Clinton killed Vince Foster.

But Foster was only a minor evil character.

 

[Axulus]

No different than Conservatives trying to discredit the 'inconvenient' research regarding the environmental effects of fossil fuels I guess.

Bottom line: truth and reality have no position of respect among the politically minded.

Agreed. It is despicable behavior whatever the political affiliation the powerful or influential person happens to hold. Especially when they are a member of the government.

 

[Axulus]

Did you miss this part in the OP?

Here’s the note about funding that appears on the first page of his prepared testimony, which is available on the Senate website: “The study was supported by the Capital Group, one of the largest mutual fund asset managers in the United States.”

How much more clear does it need to be? Are you serious?

Here is a link to the testimony, confirming that it does indeed appear on the first page:

http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Litan.pdf

So words before a report prove a report was not vague.

This is worse than I thought.

Uh, no, you are confused. Her claim in her letter was that his disclosure on the source of funding for his study was vague, as well as pointing out he violated a new Brooking Institution rule that he wasn't supposed to disclose his affiliation to Bookings Institution. As a result of this letter, he resigned his position with the Brookings Institution.

You do realize I would have to hear Warren's side before I would ever consider making a judgement.

I happen to believe in fairness.

So what is her side on this now?

You can read her letter here. I'm sure she would claim that she was merely "concerned about the influence of money and industry on the study" or some such.

http://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2015-9-28_Warren_Brookings_ltr.pdf

Note that her tactic seems to be to try to tarnish his reputation by insinuating he is not being forthcoming in his funding sources and their influence on the study. She has not even attempted to challenge the study's points directly.

His two central critiques?

The Labor department failed to account for the benefits of broker advice, and the agency had no empirical or logical basis for rejecting a simple disclosure modification.

Regardless of the funding of the study, these two critiques are valid and need to be rebutted by Warren and the Labor department if we actually want good regulation. She is essentially engaging in ad hominem rather than enaging in the argument, presumably because she doesn't have anything more than that. Ad hominem which cost this man his Brookings Institution position.